6 ms·

Is it bullshit, though? It's definitely tedious and clearly she's replaceable, but until she's replaced, presumably there is a reason that the rows need to get

Is it bullshit, though? It's definitely tedious and clearly she's replaceable, but until she's replaced, presumably there is a reason that the rows need to get copied into that other piece of software. Maybe not - maybe there was once a reason and now the whole thing's vestigial and nobody's really thought about it enough to realize she can be fired, but I would wager that more likely that not, there is an actual reason that task needs to be done. I think that too often folks conflate the fact that a job is boring/tedious/simple/whatever other negative characteristics with the idea that it's "bullshit," when really it does serve a useful purpose and is worth more to the company than they're paying in salary to the person doing it.

woodruffw 3y ago
The point is that they think it's bullshit. The operation of copying rows itself exists for an intelligible reason (settling the university's accounts), but the dedicated role of "row copier" is a bullshit job from the vantage point of the people working it. No shared notion of "bullshit" needs to exist between the two of us (or you and Graeber, me and Graeber, etc.). Assuming that we need to agree on what actually constitutes a "bullshit job" is making the same error that the GP points out.
- conjectures 3y ago
  Yes, this is thread is developing some weird capitalist inverse of marxist 'false consciousness' theory. Someone comes to you and says, "my job is pointless and should not exist." The conclusion is drawn, "Actually their job is vital and their self-report is deluded."
  - kapp_in_life 3y ago
    >The conclusion is drawn, "Actually their job is vital and their self-report is deluded." The conclusion is drawn because presumably someone thinks they output enough value to continue paying them for their work. That person might be wrong, and maybe some PE firm or consultants will come through and cull the chaff to capture the lost expenses but the person themselves doing the work probably doesn't have the full perspective.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    I think people mistake middle-brow contrarianism spoken with confidence with actual intelligence. I take it as the software version of virtue signaling.
  - idopmstuff 3y ago
    It's not that the conclusion is drawn, it's that we recognize the possibility that self-perception of the value of one's job is not necessarily an actually good measure of the value of that job.
    - waboremo 3y ago
      We can't simultaneously claim those in the position know best (Cohen's take) and then dismiss their self-perception because it doesn't align with our perception of their role. Further, how can we trust our perception is the better measure of the value of that job? If the person performing the role can't even assess the value properly, how are they providing that value?
      - Klinky 3y ago
        Can't you simply test by asking what happens if the person stops doing their job? If nothing detrimental happens, then the job was probably bullshit.
        gryn 3y ago
        some consequences have feed-back loops with long delays. go remove some guys that do legal compliance stuff and when the random inspection happen years later, you'll find out that maybe it would've cost you less to keep that employee.
        Klinky 3y ago
        That is definitely true. One would need to carefully consider what the person does before making such a judgement. Planes can keep flying without a pilot for quite awhile, until they run out of fuel or crash into a mountain.
        jancsika 3y ago
        Without even specifying the length of time to measure what happens or the nature of job in question? Bad news: you have been rejected from consideration for any work related to realtime/life critical systems. Good news: you may have a future in politics, at least in the county I live in.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    What a brilliant summary of this thread.
- rvba 3y ago
  The operation of copying rows might as well exist because some manager wants to have a big headcount and be important / promoted.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    This doesn't contradict what I've said!
- Klinky 3y ago
  Then shouldn't the title be something like "Self-proclaimed Bullshit Jobs". Even in the example given by Graeber at the start could have variables that make the job of having an IT guy drive 6 hours to move a computer down the hallway make sense. Maybe soldiers moving computers has resulted in many computers becoming broken costing more in money and downtime than having a trained professional drive in and move the computer. Maybe having on-site IT staff is more expensive than having the off-site IT guy make a few visits a year.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    It's an anthropological book; you, as a reader, are expected to understand that the framing is subjective. Compare The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down[1]: tacking "self-proclaimed" on the front doesn't improve any understanding of the contents, and would only make the author come across as smarmy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Catches_You_and_You_Fall_Down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Catches_You_and_You...
    - Klinky 3y ago
      In the Preface, the earlier inspiration for what's a "Bullshit Job": > Everyone is familiar with those sort of jobs that don’t seem, to the outsider, to really do much of anything... > This possibility that our society is riddled with useless jobs that no one wants to talk about did not seem inherently implausible. > Clearly, then, we have an important social phenomenon that has received almost no systematic attention. There's also a Chapter titled: "Why Do We as a Society Not Object to the Growth of Pointless Employment?" It seems Graeber is making a much wider commentary, including society's perspective, which goes beyond the personal opinions of the people holding these jobs.
      - glasss 3y ago
        One of the first things he does in the book is define the term "bullshit jobs", and refine that definition to specifically include that the workers feel it is bullshit. I think it's fair to make a larger statement of social phenomenon using that definition, the same way many people can make statements of depression or poor mental health without everyone expressing those feelings being clinically diagnosed.
- andrewmutz 3y ago
  The term "bullshit job" is confusing and probably intended just to be entertaining instead of informative. A more informative title would really be "boring jobs whose purpose isn't understood by the people doing them"
- granshaw 3y ago
  As others have pointed out, “bullshit” is the wrong term here. More like “extremely tedious and mind numbing” How is this job that different from being on an assembly line and all you do is tighten the screws on something that passes by?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dekleinewolf 3y ago
    > More like “extremely tedious and mind numbing” To me it seems clear that that is not what this book is about. It's about the purpose, not the contents.

woodruffw 3y ago

The point is that they think it's bullshit. The operation of copying rows itself exists for an intelligible reason (settling the university's accounts), but the dedicated role of "row copier" is a bullshit job from the vantage point of the people working it. No shared notion of "bullshit" needs to exist between the two of us (or you and Graeber, me and Graeber, etc.). Assuming that we need to agree on what actually constitutes a "bullshit job" is making the same error that the GP points out.

conjectures 3y ago
Yes, this is thread is developing some weird capitalist inverse of marxist 'false consciousness' theory. Someone comes to you and says, "my job is pointless and should not exist." The conclusion is drawn, "Actually their job is vital and their self-report is deluded."
- kapp_in_life 3y ago
  >The conclusion is drawn, "Actually their job is vital and their self-report is deluded." The conclusion is drawn because presumably someone thinks they output enough value to continue paying them for their work. That person might be wrong, and maybe some PE firm or consultants will come through and cull the chaff to capture the lost expenses but the person themselves doing the work probably doesn't have the full perspective.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  I think people mistake middle-brow contrarianism spoken with confidence with actual intelligence. I take it as the software version of virtue signaling.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  It's not that the conclusion is drawn, it's that we recognize the possibility that self-perception of the value of one's job is not necessarily an actually good measure of the value of that job.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    We can't simultaneously claim those in the position know best (Cohen's take) and then dismiss their self-perception because it doesn't align with our perception of their role. Further, how can we trust our perception is the better measure of the value of that job? If the person performing the role can't even assess the value properly, how are they providing that value?
    - Klinky 3y ago
      Can't you simply test by asking what happens if the person stops doing their job? If nothing detrimental happens, then the job was probably bullshit.
      - gryn 3y ago
        some consequences have feed-back loops with long delays. go remove some guys that do legal compliance stuff and when the random inspection happen years later, you'll find out that maybe it would've cost you less to keep that employee.
        Klinky 3y ago
        That is definitely true. One would need to carefully consider what the person does before making such a judgement. Planes can keep flying without a pilot for quite awhile, until they run out of fuel or crash into a mountain.
      - jancsika 3y ago
        Without even specifying the length of time to measure what happens or the nature of job in question? Bad news: you have been rejected from consideration for any work related to realtime/life critical systems. Good news: you may have a future in politics, at least in the county I live in.
- waboremo 3y ago
  What a brilliant summary of this thread.
rvba 3y ago
The operation of copying rows might as well exist because some manager wants to have a big headcount and be important / promoted.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  This doesn't contradict what I've said!
Klinky 3y ago
Then shouldn't the title be something like "Self-proclaimed Bullshit Jobs". Even in the example given by Graeber at the start could have variables that make the job of having an IT guy drive 6 hours to move a computer down the hallway make sense. Maybe soldiers moving computers has resulted in many computers becoming broken costing more in money and downtime than having a trained professional drive in and move the computer. Maybe having on-site IT staff is more expensive than having the off-site IT guy make a few visits a year.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  It's an anthropological book; you, as a reader, are expected to understand that the framing is subjective. Compare The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down[1]: tacking "self-proclaimed" on the front doesn't improve any understanding of the contents, and would only make the author come across as smarmy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Catches_You_and_You_Fall_Down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Catches_You_and_You...
  - Klinky 3y ago
    In the Preface, the earlier inspiration for what's a "Bullshit Job": > Everyone is familiar with those sort of jobs that don’t seem, to the outsider, to really do much of anything... > This possibility that our society is riddled with useless jobs that no one wants to talk about did not seem inherently implausible. > Clearly, then, we have an important social phenomenon that has received almost no systematic attention. There's also a Chapter titled: "Why Do We as a Society Not Object to the Growth of Pointless Employment?" It seems Graeber is making a much wider commentary, including society's perspective, which goes beyond the personal opinions of the people holding these jobs.
    - glasss 3y ago
      One of the first things he does in the book is define the term "bullshit jobs", and refine that definition to specifically include that the workers feel it is bullshit. I think it's fair to make a larger statement of social phenomenon using that definition, the same way many people can make statements of depression or poor mental health without everyone expressing those feelings being clinically diagnosed.
andrewmutz 3y ago
The term "bullshit job" is confusing and probably intended just to be entertaining instead of informative. A more informative title would really be "boring jobs whose purpose isn't understood by the people doing them"
granshaw 3y ago
As others have pointed out, “bullshit” is the wrong term here. More like “extremely tedious and mind numbing” How is this job that different from being on an assembly line and all you do is tighten the screws on something that passes by?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dekleinewolf 3y ago
  > More like “extremely tedious and mind numbing” To me it seems clear that that is not what this book is about. It's about the purpose, not the contents.