4 ms·

I reject the premise of the book. Nearly all jobs are necessary or they wouldn't exist. The exception seems to be government excess and nepotism (these are a ti

I reject the premise of the book. Nearly all jobs are necessary or they wouldn't exist. The exception seems to be government excess and nepotism (these are a tiny minority of jobs). If a business could actually save money by laying people off that aren't doing anything, why don't they? Why don't their conpetitors? What about hiring someone to do nothing is more valuable than keeping that money instead? "It’s also phenomenological. If you feel your job is bulls---, it probably is.", says the author I disagree and maintain the view that the clear reason many people feel their jobs are "bullshit" is because they aren't fulfilled by them, because they aren't productive for a full 40 hours every week, and/or the work that they do accomplish goes unrecognized. Those all may very well be true, but it does not follow that those jobs might as well not exist.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Jtsummers 6y ago
There are a number of reasons to keep people around who aren't providing sufficient utility to a business (from the high-level business's notion of utility). 1. Fiefdoms. A manager is valued by the number of direct reports and charts they can direct upwards. As long as they aren't losing money, the business doesn't usually seek out perfect efficiency. 2. Historical. A position that had value 10, 20, 30 years ago continues to be filled (or is still filled by the same person or people) because "It's how we've always done it." No one with sufficient clout has stepped in to evaluate the situation and remove people. 3. Deliberate bullshitters. Ever seen a job done manually that you know a computer could do faster, more reliably, and with better accuracy? These people know the job isn't useful, or as useful as it should be, but they inhibit the improvement processes that should happen and retain their positions for a long time. They often make themselves important by inserting themselves into other critical business processes. 4. Regulatory. Does anyone really know what "QA" does? (Qualifier: Not testing, a specific person holding the QA title sitting over software and/or engineering) IME, this person usually just checks boxes when final qualification testing is done on critical systems, but few of the QAs I've known have actually brought value to the organization in this role. Most are there because the business knows they need it to meet legal or industry standards. Markets aren't perfectly efficient, and a belief in their perfect efficiency isn't going to make it so.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Markets aren't purely efficient, but the author's claim that 40% of jobs don't need to exist is so wild and absurd I reject it out of hand. I suspect that the items you listed, while they or may not exist, would only cumulatively amount to a fraction of a fraction of the total jobs out there. If his argument was "many of us could probably work fewer hours without significant deleterious consequences in terms of productivity" I would be far more open than to the claim that 40% of all jobs don't perform any valuable function.
- jostylr 6y ago
  Another reason is stock market cushion. Notice how stocks go up when companies lay people off. So instead of accumulating profits for a rainy day, which would just be taken for buy backs and dividends, they store away "reserves" in the form of people that they can cut. A bit like a hot air balloon ballast. Even privately held companies can find the ballast useful. By inflating the employment numbers, they can simultaneously seem like a big company as well as one that promises huge efficiency gains for those buying it and willing to trim the fat. The larger the organization, the more it can handle excess ballast. These are the ones who can often get rid of small competitors by buying them or by getting regulatory capture to get rid of them. That's part of the regulatory bit -- get politicians to craft regulations that only a large bureaucracy can fill and that is an immediate impediment to small-time competitors regardless of any other start-up costs.
Thorentis 6y ago
> Nearly all jobs are necessary or they wouldn't exist. Necessary to what end? Necessary for the survival of the individual holding the job? Perhaps, assuming they can't find any other job. Necessary for the functioning of society? Certainly not. And that is what this book is talking about. The jobs that exist - that if they disappeared - nobody would notice (or care).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Jtsummers 6y ago

There are a number of reasons to keep people around who aren't providing sufficient utility to a business (from the high-level business's notion of utility). 1. Fiefdoms. A manager is valued by the number of direct reports and charts they can direct upwards. As long as they aren't losing money, the business doesn't usually seek out perfect efficiency. 2. Historical. A position that had value 10, 20, 30 years ago continues to be filled (or is still filled by the same person or people) because "It's how we've always done it." No one with sufficient clout has stepped in to evaluate the situation and remove people. 3. Deliberate bullshitters. Ever seen a job done manually that you know a computer could do faster, more reliably, and with better accuracy? These people know the job isn't useful, or as useful as it should be, but they inhibit the improvement processes that should happen and retain their positions for a long time. They often make themselves important by inserting themselves into other critical business processes. 4. Regulatory. Does anyone really know what "QA" does? (Qualifier: Not testing, a specific person holding the QA title sitting over software and/or engineering) IME, this person usually just checks boxes when final qualification testing is done on critical systems, but few of the QAs I've known have actually brought value to the organization in this role. Most are there because the business knows they need it to meet legal or industry standards. Markets aren't perfectly efficient, and a belief in their perfect efficiency isn't going to make it so.

missedthecue 6y ago
Markets aren't purely efficient, but the author's claim that 40% of jobs don't need to exist is so wild and absurd I reject it out of hand. I suspect that the items you listed, while they or may not exist, would only cumulatively amount to a fraction of a fraction of the total jobs out there. If his argument was "many of us could probably work fewer hours without significant deleterious consequences in terms of productivity" I would be far more open than to the claim that 40% of all jobs don't perform any valuable function.
jostylr 6y ago
Another reason is stock market cushion. Notice how stocks go up when companies lay people off. So instead of accumulating profits for a rainy day, which would just be taken for buy backs and dividends, they store away "reserves" in the form of people that they can cut. A bit like a hot air balloon ballast. Even privately held companies can find the ballast useful. By inflating the employment numbers, they can simultaneously seem like a big company as well as one that promises huge efficiency gains for those buying it and willing to trim the fat. The larger the organization, the more it can handle excess ballast. These are the ones who can often get rid of small competitors by buying them or by getting regulatory capture to get rid of them. That's part of the regulatory bit -- get politicians to craft regulations that only a large bureaucracy can fill and that is an immediate impediment to small-time competitors regardless of any other start-up costs.

Thorentis 6y ago

> Nearly all jobs are necessary or they wouldn't exist. Necessary to what end? Necessary for the survival of the individual holding the job? Perhaps, assuming they can't find any other job. Necessary for the functioning of society? Certainly not. And that is what this book is talking about. The jobs that exist - that if they disappeared - nobody would notice (or care).