5 ms·

>Overly confident internet posts had convinced them that most people don’t actually do much work at work and that it was all one big game. Where's the lie? Mos

>Overly confident internet posts had convinced them that most people don’t actually do much work at work and that it was all one big game. Where's the lie? Most people don't accomplish anything of actual value at work, and promotion and advancement is a big game.

slothtrop 3y ago
Based on what exactly? If working didn't provide value, they wouldn't be paid. Companies aren't in the business of babysitting, and layoffs happen all the time.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    Given what we know about Graeber today, his book should be approached with skepticism.
    - t-3 3y ago
      Care to share "what we know about Graeber"?
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  People hire because they want large teams and people to lord over. It has nothing to do with the business, you just need a business model that spins off enough money to cover the empire building. Look at Google, all of their revenue comes from ads but they have a huge team of people who aren't working on that but are supported by the ad business. Most businesses become bloated like this because the kind of people who become managers have been waiting their whole lives to build the biggest team possible.
  - Orothrim 3y ago
    You think most companies are comparable to Google, one of the worlds most profitable companies? The large large majority of jobs aren't mostly doing nothing and almost no businesses do what you are describing and survive long-term.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      I've worked in many different types of companies. Every one that wasn't a tiny startup was full to the brim of people not doing anything meaningful. Entire roles and workflows are invented to create work. No, the scrum master isn't needed and you only need that project manager because the product manager is fighting for turf with the program manager and they want to show the director a burn down chart so he can pretend to know what's going on to the vp who's out on retreat with the ceo. Doesn't matter though because HR set a hard limit of 2% raises this year, but line managers still make sure to have your reports do their 360 degree evaluations! I wish that were some sort of hyperbole or exaggeration, but it's reality.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > Every one that wasn't a tiny startup was full to the brim of people not doing anything meaningful. That's an entirely different thing. You're moving the goalposts far away from how "lazy girl job" is defined above. People who aren't doing anything meaningful can also be working very hard at it. The "send a couple quickie emails a day and make $100k" remote job is a fantasy. They may exist for a time, but unless the employer is printing money, the ride will usually stop as soon as someone bothers to look. Also I think it's very unlikely to get hired into one, especially as an inexperienced person. The only area where I think one could be even remotely stable is in some critical area with lots of domain knowledge and experience is necessary. Once you've you've put in your time you can switch towards leaning on your experience to provide sufficient value to stay employed than your hard work.
      - jmye 3y ago
        This is such nonsense. “You actually only need engineers who will always perfectly prioritize their workflow and will always precisely identify the right strategy for the product independently and any management at any level whatsoever is unnecessary and none of those people actually work anyway” is entry-level noise. I get that it’s popular to think that the entire organization is worthless and that you are the only hero anyone needs, but come on. That you don’t understand or can’t comprehend what someone is doing does not, at all, mean that they aren’t doing anything or that they have no value.
- pjc50 3y ago
  The jury is still out on what to make of Elon's firing 90% of the staff (sometimes illegally) means about the productivity of Twitter before and after.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    Elon's antics aren't relevant.

slothtrop 3y ago

Based on what exactly? If working didn't provide value, they wouldn't be paid. Companies aren't in the business of babysitting, and layoffs happen all the time.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Given what we know about Graeber today, his book should be approached with skepticism.
  - t-3 3y ago
    Care to share "what we know about Graeber"?
bluefishinit 3y ago
People hire because they want large teams and people to lord over. It has nothing to do with the business, you just need a business model that spins off enough money to cover the empire building. Look at Google, all of their revenue comes from ads but they have a huge team of people who aren't working on that but are supported by the ad business. Most businesses become bloated like this because the kind of people who become managers have been waiting their whole lives to build the biggest team possible.
- Orothrim 3y ago
  You think most companies are comparable to Google, one of the worlds most profitable companies? The large large majority of jobs aren't mostly doing nothing and almost no businesses do what you are describing and survive long-term.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    I've worked in many different types of companies. Every one that wasn't a tiny startup was full to the brim of people not doing anything meaningful. Entire roles and workflows are invented to create work. No, the scrum master isn't needed and you only need that project manager because the product manager is fighting for turf with the program manager and they want to show the director a burn down chart so he can pretend to know what's going on to the vp who's out on retreat with the ceo. Doesn't matter though because HR set a hard limit of 2% raises this year, but line managers still make sure to have your reports do their 360 degree evaluations! I wish that were some sort of hyperbole or exaggeration, but it's reality.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Every one that wasn't a tiny startup was full to the brim of people not doing anything meaningful. That's an entirely different thing. You're moving the goalposts far away from how "lazy girl job" is defined above. People who aren't doing anything meaningful can also be working very hard at it. The "send a couple quickie emails a day and make $100k" remote job is a fantasy. They may exist for a time, but unless the employer is printing money, the ride will usually stop as soon as someone bothers to look. Also I think it's very unlikely to get hired into one, especially as an inexperienced person. The only area where I think one could be even remotely stable is in some critical area with lots of domain knowledge and experience is necessary. Once you've you've put in your time you can switch towards leaning on your experience to provide sufficient value to stay employed than your hard work.
    - jmye 3y ago
      This is such nonsense. “You actually only need engineers who will always perfectly prioritize their workflow and will always precisely identify the right strategy for the product independently and any management at any level whatsoever is unnecessary and none of those people actually work anyway” is entry-level noise. I get that it’s popular to think that the entire organization is worthless and that you are the only hero anyone needs, but come on. That you don’t understand or can’t comprehend what someone is doing does not, at all, mean that they aren’t doing anything or that they have no value.
pjc50 3y ago
The jury is still out on what to make of Elon's firing 90% of the staff (sometimes illegally) means about the productivity of Twitter before and after.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Elon's antics aren't relevant.