4 ms·

>This strikes me as a narrative that's much easier to state and nod along to, than to demonstrate No, it's very easy to demonstrate. The staff themselves will

>This strikes me as a narrative that's much easier to state and nod along to, than to demonstrate No, it's very easy to demonstrate. The staff themselves will tell you. In fact, the article we are discussing begins by citing two surveys which show huge numbers of employees (tens of millions if the survey is accurate) believe they are not doing useful work or are not contributing meaningfully to the world.

MillenialMan 5y ago
I think those employees are: A) Switching between the two definitions (is their job useless to their employer, or "the world"?) B) Usually wrong - the company knows why they were hired much better than they do (and the company guards this information, because it is strongly in the company's interest for an employee to have a poor understanding of their monetary value. For most positions, the company doesn't want you to know the point of your job.) Put it in perspective. Does the average cleaner think the floors need to be vacuumed daily? No, of course not. They probably think it's overkill, but they do it because that's their job. Is the company stupid for scheduling vacuuming once a day? No. They know exactly how clean they want their floors to be.
- FatalLogic 5y ago
  "Anthropologists are not qualified to decide whose job is bullshit and neither is anyone else. That's the whole premise of the book. Anthropologists however are trained to listen to what people say about their own lives and understandings of it and that's what I did - a bullshit job is defined as one which the person doing the job believes doesn't have to, or shouldn't, exist" [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22032908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22032908
  - MillenialMan 5y ago
    And that's a bullshit definition - because everyone reads it as "a job that is bullshit", not "a job that the worker believes is not 100% necessary". The whole thing is wordplay. I don't respect the methodology, and it's one of the reasons I don't trust his conclusions.

MillenialMan 5y ago

I think those employees are: A) Switching between the two definitions (is their job useless to their employer, or "the world"?) B) Usually wrong - the company knows why they were hired much better than they do (and the company guards this information, because it is strongly in the company's interest for an employee to have a poor understanding of their monetary value. For most positions, the company doesn't want you to know the point of your job.) Put it in perspective. Does the average cleaner think the floors need to be vacuumed daily? No, of course not. They probably think it's overkill, but they do it because that's their job. Is the company stupid for scheduling vacuuming once a day? No. They know exactly how clean they want their floors to be.

FatalLogic 5y ago
"Anthropologists are not qualified to decide whose job is bullshit and neither is anyone else. That's the whole premise of the book. Anthropologists however are trained to listen to what people say about their own lives and understandings of it and that's what I did - a bullshit job is defined as one which the person doing the job believes doesn't have to, or shouldn't, exist" [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22032908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22032908
- MillenialMan 5y ago
  And that's a bullshit definition - because everyone reads it as "a job that is bullshit", not "a job that the worker believes is not 100% necessary". The whole thing is wordplay. I don't respect the methodology, and it's one of the reasons I don't trust his conclusions.