4 ms·

I read "Debt" and I thought it was brilliant and personally very impactful. I've recommended it to many people. I've read a bunch of his summaries/essays on "Bu

I read "Debt" and I thought it was brilliant and personally very impactful. I've recommended it to many people. I've read a bunch of his summaries/essays on "Bullshit Jobs" and I'm astounded at the stupidity of his arguments, and I honestly have a hard time believing these two things are were written by the same person. I think it's because "Debt" was primarily an anthropological work, flavoured by his ideology, whereas "Bullshit Jobs" seems to be almost pure ideology. I'm deeply sceptical of all neo-primitivist arguments. Anyway, here's some things to think about: efficiency is important, but it cannot tell you much by itself - the actual amount of output matters, perhaps much more so. For example, a Hall effect thruster is immensely efficient, about 10-15x more so than a chemical rocket engine, however it's output in Newtons is so low, it is impossible to get to orbit. If you want to get to space, it this efficiency doesn't matter, it's never going to get you there. Likewise, perhaps your first hour of work is immensely efficient, yet your actual output might be so low that having everyone work 1hr/day would lead to stagnation and decline.

jefflombardjr 7y ago
Interesting, I didn't get that sense at all from the book. It did not strike me as 'neo-primitivist' at all. Much more as a critique from the structural perspective [0]. And I'm not so sure saying that it wasn't anthropology is fair. It is definitely different. One historical, the other modern - both valid anthropological pursuits. I would agree with you on efficiency though. Though I think the bullshit jobs described in the book are more akin to turning the rocket upside down and expecting it to leave orbit. Certain non-profits and industries are not even pointed in the right direction. Graeber asserts that this is intentional as a way to siphon funds. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Marxism
- martythemaniak 7y ago
  What really got to me is that in one of his promotional essays, he describes how his primary classification is how people feel about their jobs. There were lots of examples, one of which was how someone spent months compiling a report for a shareholders, only to have the report never read, or about how people feel they're not useful. In no case was the question of whether the job/work itself was useful, only how the workers felt about it. There was also a categorization of his "Bullshit Jobs" and as I reading it, I kept thinking "those are actually useful jobs that someone needs to do." It is a common way of thinking about work that I've seen in friends, etc. I just think it's very cynical and self-centred and ultimately self-defeating, like the whole "follow your passion" advice. Asking how your job is useful to someone else, rather than how gratifying it is to yourself is a much more useful way to look at work. Being useful to other people is also an alternate way to find meaning in what would otherwise be derided as a "bullshit" job.
  - jefflombardjr 7y ago
    In the book he addresses this criticism and investigates 'false positives' of bullshit jobs. i.e. situations where people are so isolated in the organization that they do not fully see the impact of their work. But I think the valid question that this brings up is "to whom is this work valuable?" And I think this is the subtle difference between a 'shit' job and a 'bullshit' job. A shit job is exactly what you described something that adds value but is not fun to do. A bullshit job neither adds value, nor is fun to do. Cal Newport's "So Good They Can't Ignore You" speaks really well to the self-defeating nature of "Follow Your Passion" but I think that is more on the personal level where as Graeber deals more with an institutional viewpoint. Personally, I'm not advocating either of us is right or wrong, I just got a different impression from the book. I can't speak for the promotional essays. I have not read them. Could you link to one that you are thinking of?
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    I have a really, really hard time finding any meaning in a job that isn't directly working to address environmental and/or societal collapse. It feels like we're on the deck of the Titanic trying to network instead of looking for a lifeboat. Unfortunately, my efforts to be useful in this regard in my career have failed. Regardless, you can be useful to someone and still have a bullshit (or worse) job. Hitman comes to mind.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > Regardless, you can be useful to someone and still have a bullshit (or worse) job. Hitman comes to mind. Or advertiser, if you want to aim for "useful to someone, destructive to society, and not strictly illegal".

jefflombardjr 7y ago

Interesting, I didn't get that sense at all from the book. It did not strike me as 'neo-primitivist' at all. Much more as a critique from the structural perspective [0]. And I'm not so sure saying that it wasn't anthropology is fair. It is definitely different. One historical, the other modern - both valid anthropological pursuits. I would agree with you on efficiency though. Though I think the bullshit jobs described in the book are more akin to turning the rocket upside down and expecting it to leave orbit. Certain non-profits and industries are not even pointed in the right direction. Graeber asserts that this is intentional as a way to siphon funds. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Marxism

martythemaniak 7y ago
What really got to me is that in one of his promotional essays, he describes how his primary classification is how people feel about their jobs. There were lots of examples, one of which was how someone spent months compiling a report for a shareholders, only to have the report never read, or about how people feel they're not useful. In no case was the question of whether the job/work itself was useful, only how the workers felt about it. There was also a categorization of his "Bullshit Jobs" and as I reading it, I kept thinking "those are actually useful jobs that someone needs to do." It is a common way of thinking about work that I've seen in friends, etc. I just think it's very cynical and self-centred and ultimately self-defeating, like the whole "follow your passion" advice. Asking how your job is useful to someone else, rather than how gratifying it is to yourself is a much more useful way to look at work. Being useful to other people is also an alternate way to find meaning in what would otherwise be derided as a "bullshit" job.
- jefflombardjr 7y ago
  In the book he addresses this criticism and investigates 'false positives' of bullshit jobs. i.e. situations where people are so isolated in the organization that they do not fully see the impact of their work. But I think the valid question that this brings up is "to whom is this work valuable?" And I think this is the subtle difference between a 'shit' job and a 'bullshit' job. A shit job is exactly what you described something that adds value but is not fun to do. A bullshit job neither adds value, nor is fun to do. Cal Newport's "So Good They Can't Ignore You" speaks really well to the self-defeating nature of "Follow Your Passion" but I think that is more on the personal level where as Graeber deals more with an institutional viewpoint. Personally, I'm not advocating either of us is right or wrong, I just got a different impression from the book. I can't speak for the promotional essays. I have not read them. Could you link to one that you are thinking of?
- CalRobert 7y ago
  I have a really, really hard time finding any meaning in a job that isn't directly working to address environmental and/or societal collapse. It feels like we're on the deck of the Titanic trying to network instead of looking for a lifeboat. Unfortunately, my efforts to be useful in this regard in my career have failed. Regardless, you can be useful to someone and still have a bullshit (or worse) job. Hitman comes to mind.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Regardless, you can be useful to someone and still have a bullshit (or worse) job. Hitman comes to mind. Or advertiser, if you want to aim for "useful to someone, destructive to society, and not strictly illegal".