3 ms·

I haven't read the book, but I find it concerning that this article criticizes Graeber's unrepresentative data collection, and then proceeds to arm-chair about

by abeppu 2y ago

I haven't read the book, but I find it concerning that this article criticizes Graeber's unrepresentative data collection, and then proceeds to arm-chair about why Graeber is wrong without really introducing any empirical findings. There are surveys about both how much time workers actually 'work', and how much of that work they see as productive. They seem to suggest that a reasonable share of worker's time is not spent on actually doing anything: https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/new-report-only-12-percent-of-employees-are-fully-productive-at-work-the-reasons-why-may-surprise-you.html https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/new-report-only-12-perc... https://www.worklife.news/talent/hours-in-workday/ https://www.worklife.news/talent/hours-in-workday/ But also, Hobart's arm-chairing here seems to take the perspective of whether something is useful to the firm, rather than if something is useful overall. Medical billing apparently charges typically 4-10% of the value billed. Clearly for the medical billing firm, having workers knowledgeable about CPT codes etc is worth it, and medical providers find it more economical to hire such a firm than to keep their own billing specialists on staff -- but if we just moved to single-payer health care, the role could disappear entirely. It's a bullshit job because it's solving a problem that doesn't need to exist. https://neolytix.com/what-is-the-going-rate-for-medical-billing-services/ https://neolytix.com/what-is-the-going-rate-for-medical-bill... Similarly, Hobart mentions tax lawyers more than once. And certainly companies that having good tax advice can save them a lot of money. But I think most experts agree that a drastically simpler tax code would be more efficient overall, both because of the reduced need for tax lawyers and accountants, and because all the weird (inefficient) tax-minimization strategies could disappear. Being useful to a firm does not mean the job is not bullshit.

Suppafly 2y ago
Medical billing is a great example because it's insane that their are people employed on both sides of the transaction whos job is to maximize profits for their side while catching bad behavior from the other side. Everyone knows that medical billing is insane but once you know some of the specifics it's even more atrocious.
overrun11 2y ago
But these empirical findings do not contradict Coase's theory of the firm at all. Workers are paid to be available and do work as needed. Everything Graeber brings up has an explanation in basic economic theory but he makes no attempt to meaningfully engage with it or even show he is aware an alternative explanation exists.
pdonis 2y ago
> if we just moved to single-payer health care, the role could disappear entirely. I disagree; what is called "single-payer" health care does not solve the actual problem, which is that the people who are getting the services, the patients, have no idea what they cost and therefore have no way of knowing whether the services they are getting are worth what they cost. In that environment there will always have to be people whose ostensible job is to control costs, since the normal mechanism of markets that does that is prevented from operating. (Note that similar criticisms could be made of Graeber's own claims.) > It's a bullshit job because it's solving a problem that doesn't need to exist. I agree with this, but not for the reason you give. See above.

by abeppu 2y ago

Suppafly 2y ago

Medical billing is a great example because it's insane that their are people employed on both sides of the transaction whos job is to maximize profits for their side while catching bad behavior from the other side. Everyone knows that medical billing is insane but once you know some of the specifics it's even more atrocious.

overrun11 2y ago

But these empirical findings do not contradict Coase's theory of the firm at all. Workers are paid to be available and do work as needed. Everything Graeber brings up has an explanation in basic economic theory but he makes no attempt to meaningfully engage with it or even show he is aware an alternative explanation exists.

pdonis 2y ago

> if we just moved to single-payer health care, the role could disappear entirely. I disagree; what is called "single-payer" health care does not solve the actual problem, which is that the people who are getting the services, the patients, have no idea what they cost and therefore have no way of knowing whether the services they are getting are worth what they cost. In that environment there will always have to be people whose ostensible job is to control costs, since the normal mechanism of markets that does that is prevented from operating. (Note that similar criticisms could be made of Graeber's own claims.) > It's a bullshit job because it's solving a problem that doesn't need to exist. I agree with this, but not for the reason you give. See above.