4 ms·

I am reminded of a quote from an economics professor. "Why do big nations have a lot of jobs, no matter how much they are producing? As it turns out, this is a

I am reminded of a quote from an economics professor. "Why do big nations have a lot of jobs, no matter how much they are producing? As it turns out, this is a very interesting question" This is the robots-are-coming-for-us fallacy rearing its head again. Once again, the premise is that we only need certain things -- food, shelter, electricity, internet, health care. Once robots make these things, well dang, there won't be anything else for the rest of us to do, will there? No, no, a thousand times no. Humans value not only things to keep them alive, but scarcity and novelty. As the basic needs become automated, huge industries will continue to explode devoted to creating scarce and novel things for other humans to collect and consume. Most of these "bullshit jobs" are in this sector. I find these essays always have some kind of value statement, either implied or outright -- "what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialist in corporate law?" It says that if you had a magic wand, we'd have more poets. If I had one, we probably would, too. But it tells us absolutely nothing about why there are jobs that folks don't like, or jobs that you or I might find useless.

normloman 12y ago
I see what you mean about the robots: productivity goes up, but we always find new things to consume. But 1. Is there a limit to how much we can consume? Look at the super rich. They have more money then they know what to do with, so they stash it in hedge funds. The middle class drives consumption more than the rich. Leads me to think there's a point where consumption doesn't grow with your income. 2. The bullshit jobs discussed in the article are not about creating novel and scares things to consume. Advertising, corporate law, etc, has an arms-race element. Companies spend more on advertising to keep up with their competitors.

normloman 12y ago

I see what you mean about the robots: productivity goes up, but we always find new things to consume. But 1. Is there a limit to how much we can consume? Look at the super rich. They have more money then they know what to do with, so they stash it in hedge funds. The middle class drives consumption more than the rich. Leads me to think there's a point where consumption doesn't grow with your income. 2. The bullshit jobs discussed in the article are not about creating novel and scares things to consume. Advertising, corporate law, etc, has an arms-race element. Companies spend more on advertising to keep up with their competitors.