5 ms·
> "big company MUST have lots of valid underlying work/complexity/effort" Almost 99% of the cases this is true. The question is whether this complexity is actu
by summerlight 3y ago
> "big company MUST have lots of valid underlying work/complexity/effort"
Almost 99% of the cases this is true. The question is whether this complexity is actually valuable or just accidental one accrued from path dependency.
- jrm4 3y agoYeah, that's what I was trying to get at with "valid."
- summerlight 3y agoLots of works are actually valid in that if someone doesn't do their job then those big corps will lose more money than their salary. Of course, the whole situation is far from the optimal and they could make it much more efficient with a magic wand but usually we don't have that so it takes years to improve the situation. Of course, someone (like Elon) might believe that they have such magic wand, but Twitter is losing more money than ever so probably it was not the case...
- Qwertious 3y agoThis is getting towards the topic of bullshit jobs. (I'm going to rip off Graber's book here.) There are several "invalid jobs", including: Flunkies - people hired to make their boss look important, because said boss has a lot of staff in their department. Their purpose is ultimately managerial infighting, which is zero-sum. Duct tapers - people whose job is to inefficiently work around problems caused by solvable social issues, e.g. a person whose job is printing out emails because $EXEC is old and refuses to learn how computers work. Box-tickers - people whose job isn't to do something, but to be seen doing something, so that company can claim they're trying to do X when they don't give a shit about actually accomplishing X. I'm skipping the others, because I don't understand them well enough to explain them in my own words.