5 ms·

For anyone interested in this topic, I highly suggest the book Bullshit Jobs, which is basically a very in-depth (but entertaining!) ethnography of such over-sp

For anyone interested in this topic, I highly suggest the book Bullshit Jobs, which is basically a very in-depth (but entertaining!) ethnography of such over-specialized jobs.

pessimizer 8y ago
I don't think that "bullshit jobs" has anything to do with any over-specialization, but instead with jobs that are actually pointless. The article is talking about tasks that actually are necessary, because they are still being done. But instead of being done well, by a person specialized in that task, they're being done less well by people who are specialized in entirely different tasks, taking away the time they can spend on the tasks that they themselves are specialized in.
- abakker 8y ago
  I think the Parent is right, though. Bullshit Jobs was about jobs that were pointless, but, it's central thesis had to do with the efficiencies of automation and increases in productivity. This is an interesting inversion of that thesis which suggests that while there have been great productivity gains at the expense of many low-skill workers, those same low-skill workers still provide value added work to skilled employees. It is a careful balancing act between the two.
- elvinyung 8y ago
  Sorry, have you read the book? (Not trying to be be condescending, actually curious.) I'm pretty sure it has everything to do with it, and more. The book even addresses arguments that such over-specialization is necessary: > In other words, the author claims that when we speak of “bullshit jobs,” we’re really just talking about the postindustrial equivalent of factory-line workers, those with the unenviable fate of having to carry out the repetitive, mind-numbingly boring but still very necessary tasks required to manage increasingly complicated processes of production. As robots replace the factory workers, these are increasingly the only jobs left. (This position is sometimes combined with a rather condescending argument about self-importance: if so many people feel their jobs are useless, it’s really because today’s educated workforce is full of philosophy or Renaissance literature majors who believe they are cut out for better things. They consider being a mere cog in administrative machinery beneath their dignity.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sjy 8y ago
    This comment is very confusing. The quote is from Graeber’s dismissive summary of an article in The Economist [1]. Here, Graeber specifically rejects the notion that his book is an ‘ethnography of such over-specialized jobs.’ In Chapter 1 he gives the following explicit definition of a bullshit job: > Final Working Definition: a bullshit job is a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case. [1]: https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/08/21/on-bullshit-jobs https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/08/21/on-bullsh...

For anyone interested in this topic, I highly suggest the book Bullshit Jobs, which is basically a very in-depth (but entertaining!) ethnography of such over-specialized jobs.

pessimizer 8y ago

I don't think that "bullshit jobs" has anything to do with any over-specialization, but instead with jobs that are actually pointless. The article is talking about tasks that actually are necessary, because they are still being done. But instead of being done well, by a person specialized in that task, they're being done less well by people who are specialized in entirely different tasks, taking away the time they can spend on the tasks that they themselves are specialized in.

abakker 8y ago
I think the Parent is right, though. Bullshit Jobs was about jobs that were pointless, but, it's central thesis had to do with the efficiencies of automation and increases in productivity. This is an interesting inversion of that thesis which suggests that while there have been great productivity gains at the expense of many low-skill workers, those same low-skill workers still provide value added work to skilled employees. It is a careful balancing act between the two.
elvinyung 8y ago
Sorry, have you read the book? (Not trying to be be condescending, actually curious.) I'm pretty sure it has everything to do with it, and more. The book even addresses arguments that such over-specialization is necessary: > In other words, the author claims that when we speak of “bullshit jobs,” we’re really just talking about the postindustrial equivalent of factory-line workers, those with the unenviable fate of having to carry out the repetitive, mind-numbingly boring but still very necessary tasks required to manage increasingly complicated processes of production. As robots replace the factory workers, these are increasingly the only jobs left. (This position is sometimes combined with a rather condescending argument about self-importance: if so many people feel their jobs are useless, it’s really because today’s educated workforce is full of philosophy or Renaissance literature majors who believe they are cut out for better things. They consider being a mere cog in administrative machinery beneath their dignity.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sjy 8y ago
  This comment is very confusing. The quote is from Graeber’s dismissive summary of an article in The Economist [1]. Here, Graeber specifically rejects the notion that his book is an ‘ethnography of such over-specialized jobs.’ In Chapter 1 he gives the following explicit definition of a bullshit job: > Final Working Definition: a bullshit job is a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case. [1]: https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/08/21/on-bullshit-jobs https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/08/21/on-bullsh...