6 ms·

> the statement “I have the feeling of doing useful work” > In contrast the question Gerber used about a "meaningful contribution to the world" [...] It's a ve

> the statement “I have the feeling of doing useful work” > In contrast the question Gerber used about a "meaningful contribution to the world" [...] It's a very heavily loaded way to put the question. You're right that Graeber's question is vague (it could do with improvement/narrowing) but the first question quoted above isn't so much worse but just completely irrelevant. They've asked an entirely different question unrelated to what Graeber was trying to get at. If I don't "have the feeling of doing useful work", does that mean my job is not useful, or my job is potentially useful but carried out inefficiently. Am I attempting useful work but blocked from doing so by some administrative or practical barrier? Do I consider myself insufficiently talented or qualified at my job to carry it out in a useful manner. Graeber's question, while in need of improvement, is at least asking about the right things: the jobs themselves. This new question is asking about the people's individual relationships to their jobs, not the actual purpose of the role.

simonh 5y ago
I don't really follow you. A questionnaire can only find out what the respondents think about their job. If you want to objectively know whether their jobs are actually useful, independent of their opinions or feelings, a survey just isn't the way to do it, no matter what questions you ask.
- pinguin7 5y ago
  I think Graeber makes the assumption that the statement "my job makes no (net) contribution to society" is as closest to reality as we can possibly get. The interviewed person is probably the best to know if the job is valuable. Even if they falsely assume that their job makes no difference, the sentiment is a problem in itself. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just giving my interpretation of the intent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - simonh 5y ago
    Can you pleas explain where you got that question and phrasing from please, because I don't recognise it from the research under discussion and I don't believe it is supported by any of the evidence.
- lucideer 5y ago
  > a survey just isn't the way to do it, no matter what questions you ask That's fair but even still, Graeber's question should at least be probing whether people might think their jobs are useful; this new question only probes whether people think their contribution is useful individually.
pydry 5y ago
The economist is trying to redefine "bullshit jobs" to mean simply "jobs which hold no value to anybody". This excludes zero sum jobs - they are useful to someone. Graeber defined "bullshit jobs" as jobs which hold no value to society at large. This includes zero sum jobs. It's an argument over definition followed by an ad hominem - "So what is really going on? Part of the problem, surely, is the prejudice felt by academics like Mr Graeber towards those who work in finance". It reminds me of this quote: "It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
- bashinator 5y ago
  Is a zero-sum job defined as one where the only person benefitting is the employee? If so, it seems like the only ethical way to eliminate those jobs from the economy would be some kind of guaranteed minimum income.
  - pydry 5y ago
    One of the examples of the distinction was a guy who worked at a post production company that: A) Made cool explosions and aliens for movies, etc. which he loved and thought counted as socially useful coz audiences did too. B) Made hair shinier and teeth whiter and other visual trickery to give false impressions of branded products. These things served only to take market share from other similar companies that made products that weren't markedly different to theirs. B made up the majority of what he did, hence "mainly bullshit". Graeber's claim is that this class of job (dubbed "goons"), according to those ppolled/interviewed only exist because other people employ them too. I.e. if there were an armistice on toothpaste ads that showed white teeth nothing would really change for consumers but if one company stopped the mindshare arms race they would lose market share.
    - bashinator 5y ago
      I see - that’s philosophically, but maybe not economically different from what I was thinking of - “make-work” jobs, or jobs that could easily be replaced by automation. Edit to add: one major difference might be in the level of skill or education the employee has/needs.

simonh 5y ago

I don't really follow you. A questionnaire can only find out what the respondents think about their job. If you want to objectively know whether their jobs are actually useful, independent of their opinions or feelings, a survey just isn't the way to do it, no matter what questions you ask.

pinguin7 5y ago
I think Graeber makes the assumption that the statement "my job makes no (net) contribution to society" is as closest to reality as we can possibly get. The interviewed person is probably the best to know if the job is valuable. Even if they falsely assume that their job makes no difference, the sentiment is a problem in itself. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just giving my interpretation of the intent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 5y ago
  Can you pleas explain where you got that question and phrasing from please, because I don't recognise it from the research under discussion and I don't believe it is supported by any of the evidence.
lucideer 5y ago
> a survey just isn't the way to do it, no matter what questions you ask That's fair but even still, Graeber's question should at least be probing whether people might think their jobs are useful; this new question only probes whether people think their contribution is useful individually.

pydry 5y ago

The economist is trying to redefine "bullshit jobs" to mean simply "jobs which hold no value to anybody". This excludes zero sum jobs - they are useful to someone. Graeber defined "bullshit jobs" as jobs which hold no value to society at large. This includes zero sum jobs. It's an argument over definition followed by an ad hominem - "So what is really going on? Part of the problem, surely, is the prejudice felt by academics like Mr Graeber towards those who work in finance". It reminds me of this quote: "It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."

bashinator 5y ago
Is a zero-sum job defined as one where the only person benefitting is the employee? If so, it seems like the only ethical way to eliminate those jobs from the economy would be some kind of guaranteed minimum income.
- pydry 5y ago
  One of the examples of the distinction was a guy who worked at a post production company that: A) Made cool explosions and aliens for movies, etc. which he loved and thought counted as socially useful coz audiences did too. B) Made hair shinier and teeth whiter and other visual trickery to give false impressions of branded products. These things served only to take market share from other similar companies that made products that weren't markedly different to theirs. B made up the majority of what he did, hence "mainly bullshit". Graeber's claim is that this class of job (dubbed "goons"), according to those ppolled/interviewed only exist because other people employ them too. I.e. if there were an armistice on toothpaste ads that showed white teeth nothing would really change for consumers but if one company stopped the mindshare arms race they would lose market share.
  - bashinator 5y ago
    I see - that’s philosophically, but maybe not economically different from what I was thinking of - “make-work” jobs, or jobs that could easily be replaced by automation. Edit to add: one major difference might be in the level of skill or education the employee has/needs.