3 ms·

My theory is that bullshit jobs are one of the mechanisms by which large corporations maintain a protective anti-competitive moat around their businesses; inste

My theory is that bullshit jobs are one of the mechanisms by which large corporations maintain a protective anti-competitive moat around their businesses; instead of letting unused labor roam freely in the markets to potentially compete against their interests, corporations provide as many jobs as required in order to keep as many people's time fully occupied in order to minimize the number of people who can compete against them. These jobs are of extremely marginal (or even sometimes slightly negative) value to the corporation in terms of profitably servicing customers, but their value in anti-competitive moat-making justifies the costs. Of course, this only works at scale if most big corporations act in unison. As corporations find other, more effective ways to maintain their oligopolies, the reliance on this strategy diminishes... That may explain recent layoffs in the US? Maybe we've reached such point due to media monopolization and regulatory capture providing a more robust moat? The ability of free labor to compete against corporate interests is now so insignificant (odds are so bad for indie startups) that it no longer poses a threat to corporate interests, even in large numbers.

jongjong 4y ago
I think this theory may also explain why larger companies often appear to hold people down instead of trying to grow them. Beyond a certain threshold of monopolization, the primary role of the mega-corporation may be to deplete talent (e.g. employee burnout, disillusionment, overspecialization in proprietary tools and processes leading to a career dead end) in order to neutralize its future competitive potential, more so than to leverage its immediate productive potential for their own immediate use.
creato 4y ago
I can't believe this theory is so widespread. There's no high level conspiracy to hire people to keep them away from competitors, such a thing could not be kept secret, and it's a ridiculously expensive thing to do (even for a FAANG) for extremely dubious value that might be realized a decade down the road and no real way to know if it's working. Bullshit jobs exist because mid level managers are very averse to killing projects or firing low performers, because that would shrink their fiefdom. That basically only ever happens when there is extreme pressure (e.g. layoffs). Layoffs happen in clusters because even a few layoffs greatly increase the leverage employers have, and as soon as they have a little leverage, a layoff looks better than it would otherwise, so it's a positive feedback loop. This is a much, much simpler and realistic explanation than "a grand conspiracy of media monopolies and regulatory capture is cheaper than hungry hungry hippoing all the engineers".
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  Agree. I've never heard a manager say "we should keep this person because otherwise they'll go and create a competitor who will cause us problems". I have heard lots of managers say "yeah, I know they're not performing well, but I don't want to reduce headcount right before budget allocation, can we manage around them?" (or something to that effect). In my MBA course we even talked about this as a thing - that mid-level managers create fiefdoms, and the effects that has on the organisation culture. There are lots of other effects on the organisation from this, too.
- jongjong 4y ago
  I don't think it requires explicit conspiring. I don't think the corporate executives who make decisions are necessarily aware of this effect. For the most part, it's probably a case of "this strategy seems to have been working so far, or at least it's not a problem, so let's keep doing it... And the people over at McKinsey insist this is the right way."
- mikewarot 4y ago
  >it's a ridiculously expensive thing to do (even for a FAANG) If you can raise (or borrow at 0% interest) Billions of dollars, it makes sense, and is a dirt cheap thing to do. It keeps all the people you've hired from becoming your competitors, and you might even profit from their work in the mean while.

jongjong 4y ago

I think this theory may also explain why larger companies often appear to hold people down instead of trying to grow them. Beyond a certain threshold of monopolization, the primary role of the mega-corporation may be to deplete talent (e.g. employee burnout, disillusionment, overspecialization in proprietary tools and processes leading to a career dead end) in order to neutralize its future competitive potential, more so than to leverage its immediate productive potential for their own immediate use.

creato 4y ago

I can't believe this theory is so widespread. There's no high level conspiracy to hire people to keep them away from competitors, such a thing could not be kept secret, and it's a ridiculously expensive thing to do (even for a FAANG) for extremely dubious value that might be realized a decade down the road and no real way to know if it's working. Bullshit jobs exist because mid level managers are very averse to killing projects or firing low performers, because that would shrink their fiefdom. That basically only ever happens when there is extreme pressure (e.g. layoffs). Layoffs happen in clusters because even a few layoffs greatly increase the leverage employers have, and as soon as they have a little leverage, a layoff looks better than it would otherwise, so it's a positive feedback loop. This is a much, much simpler and realistic explanation than "a grand conspiracy of media monopolies and regulatory capture is cheaper than hungry hungry hippoing all the engineers".

marcus_holmes 4y ago
Agree. I've never heard a manager say "we should keep this person because otherwise they'll go and create a competitor who will cause us problems". I have heard lots of managers say "yeah, I know they're not performing well, but I don't want to reduce headcount right before budget allocation, can we manage around them?" (or something to that effect). In my MBA course we even talked about this as a thing - that mid-level managers create fiefdoms, and the effects that has on the organisation culture. There are lots of other effects on the organisation from this, too.
jongjong 4y ago
I don't think it requires explicit conspiring. I don't think the corporate executives who make decisions are necessarily aware of this effect. For the most part, it's probably a case of "this strategy seems to have been working so far, or at least it's not a problem, so let's keep doing it... And the people over at McKinsey insist this is the right way."
mikewarot 4y ago
>it's a ridiculously expensive thing to do (even for a FAANG) If you can raise (or borrow at 0% interest) Billions of dollars, it makes sense, and is a dirt cheap thing to do. It keeps all the people you've hired from becoming your competitors, and you might even profit from their work in the mean while.