4 ms·

> Jobs that were previously done by one person, but are now done by 10 people without an increase in measurable output. Is there any data to support this claim

by taffer 5y ago

> Jobs that were previously done by one person, but are now done by 10 people without an increase in measurable output. Is there any data to support this claim?

cxr 5y ago
Good luck trying to get an organization with BS jobs to competently implement a program that can deliver that kind of data. You're going to run into selection bias right of the gate, and then after that, you need to worry about the reliability of the data that you do get. The key name to attach to your queries when trying to research this is "Graeber".
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > Alienation Is Not ‘Bullshit’: An Empirical Critique of Graeber’s Theory of BS Jobs > David Graeber’s ‘bullshit jobs theory’ has generated a great deal of academic and public interest. This theory holds that a large and rapidly increasing number of workers are undertaking jobs that they themselves recognise as being useless and of no social value. Despite generating clear testable hypotheses, this theory is not based on robust empirical research. We, therefore, use representative data from the EU to test five of its core hypotheses. Although we find that the perception of doing useless work is strongly associated with poor wellbeing, our findings contradict the main propositions of Graeber’s theory. The proportion of employees describing their jobs as useless is low and declining and bears little relationship to Graeber’s predictions. Marx’s concept of alienation and a ‘Work Relations’ approach provide inspiration for an alternative account that highlights poor management and toxic workplace environments in explaining why workers perceive paid work as useless. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211015067 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211015067
  - cxr 5y ago
    It seems like you're trying to make a point about some altogether different topic, probably inferring some intent on my part based on a non-literal reading of what I wrote. (For example, that I'm personally endorsing Graeber. Hard to say, really, because you yourself didn't really say anything.) The literal reading of my comment is the correct one. I said the relevant name when trying to turn up data would be to search for "Graeber"—which, as your comment indicates, is correct.

by taffer 5y ago

> Jobs that were previously done by one person, but are now done by 10 people without an increase in measurable output. Is there any data to support this claim?

cxr 5y ago

Good luck trying to get an organization with BS jobs to competently implement a program that can deliver that kind of data. You're going to run into selection bias right of the gate, and then after that, you need to worry about the reliability of the data that you do get. The key name to attach to your queries when trying to research this is "Graeber".

barry-cotter 5y ago
> Alienation Is Not ‘Bullshit’: An Empirical Critique of Graeber’s Theory of BS Jobs > David Graeber’s ‘bullshit jobs theory’ has generated a great deal of academic and public interest. This theory holds that a large and rapidly increasing number of workers are undertaking jobs that they themselves recognise as being useless and of no social value. Despite generating clear testable hypotheses, this theory is not based on robust empirical research. We, therefore, use representative data from the EU to test five of its core hypotheses. Although we find that the perception of doing useless work is strongly associated with poor wellbeing, our findings contradict the main propositions of Graeber’s theory. The proportion of employees describing their jobs as useless is low and declining and bears little relationship to Graeber’s predictions. Marx’s concept of alienation and a ‘Work Relations’ approach provide inspiration for an alternative account that highlights poor management and toxic workplace environments in explaining why workers perceive paid work as useless. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211015067 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211015067
- cxr 5y ago
  It seems like you're trying to make a point about some altogether different topic, probably inferring some intent on my part based on a non-literal reading of what I wrote. (For example, that I'm personally endorsing Graeber. Hard to say, really, because you yourself didn't really say anything.) The literal reading of my comment is the correct one. I said the relevant name when trying to turn up data would be to search for "Graeber"—which, as your comment indicates, is correct.