Are many jobs meaningless?

[lpetrich]

Too Many Jobs Feel Meaningless Because They Are – Bloomberg View – Medium

As earnings season is upon us, it’s worth asking: Does business create value these days the way it once did?

One sign it doesn’t is a significant decline in the formation rate of U.S. firms over the past few decades. Economists Peter Orszag and Jason Furman have argued that investment and innovation have taken a back seat to profits derived from economic rents. Political factors also increasingly appear to play a major role in driving corporate profits, as new regulations help incumbent firms, another strike against economic efficiency.

What’s going on? Surprisingly, one of the more convincing explanations comes from an anthropologist who has looked beyond narrow economic reasoning to examine the actual social or psychological functions served by many of the jobs in today’s service and knowledge economy.

Then noting David Graeber's work on "bullshit jobs".

Of course, the idea that business might be wasteful isn’t new. ...

Of course, the financial crisis rather crushed the notion that modern markets are models of economic efficiency and value creation. ...

But even outside of finance, a lot of today’s business seems to aim less to produce economic value than to grab a bigger share of existing wealth. ...

Graeber’s unique contribution is to tie these changes to human history, and to explain why, anthropologically, they may not be all that surprising. In an essay five years ago, he made the seemingly bizarre assertion that perhaps as many as 30 percent of all jobs actually contribute nothing of use to society.

Some sizable fraction of people polled in the UK and Holland seemed to agree with this position.

Perhaps even more surprising is the nature of these “bullshit” jobs, as Graeber calls them. They aren’t in teaching, cleaning, garbage collecting or firefighting, but seem mostly to be in the professional services sector. ... human resources, public relations, lobbying or telemarketing, or in finance and banking, consulting, management and corporate law.

Then some examples of corporate makework that seem more like empire building and power struggles than anything valuable. But the trouble is that's where the money tends to be.

Many like to laugh at the absurd inefficiencies of the Soviet Union, where so many people only pretended to do useful work, yet this may be significantly true in Western economies as well (only in the West they actually get paid for it).

 

[lpetrich]

Why the 15-Hour Workweek Never Happened – Notes on Changing Your Life – Medium Author Charles Chu argues that it is for status seeking, and he then described his success in reducing his workweek.

... t one point, I was so obsessed with becoming a millionaire before 30 that I refused to do anything but work all day, every day. If you asked why I wanted to be rich, I would mumble something about not having to work for the rest of my life. In retrospect, that wasn’t the real reason. The real reason, I think, was ripped-jeans syndrome.

That is, craving status symbols.

If it’s true that most of our disposable income goes toward competitive consumption and status signaling, then consider this question: Is it possible to give up the status game and work less than 15 hours a week?

I’m self-employed, so I decided to test this out. For the past two months, I’ve tried to do so-called real work for only one or two days each week. The rest of my time I spend reading dystopian novels (J. G. Ballard lately), thinking about political philosophy, listening to podcasts, and losing to my wife at Mario Kart.

So far, neither my (small) business nor my financial affairs have fallen apart. I realized a lot of my work was fake. I accomplished nothing and simply sat at the computer because I thought I should be working.

What David Graeber had described: bullshit work, though in this case, work that seems virtuous.

Then there is  Parkinson's law, that work expands to fill the time available, even if much of the work is bullshit work.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are many jobs meaningless?

Yes... A good example is that people are actually paid to research something like this that is so obvious to anyone who works for a living.

 

[barbos]

We already have the thread about it with the same guy mentioned.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Why the 15-Hour Workweek Never Happened – Notes on Changing Your Life – Medium Author Charles Chu argues that it is for status seeking, and he then described his success in reducing his workweek.

... t one point, I was so obsessed with becoming a millionaire before 30 that I refused to do anything but work all day, every day. If you asked why I wanted to be rich, I would mumble something about not having to work for the rest of my life. In retrospect, that wasn’t the real reason. The real reason, I think, was ripped-jeans syndrome.

That is, craving status symbols.

If it’s true that most of our disposable income goes toward competitive consumption and status signaling, then consider this question: Is it possible to give up the status game and work less than 15 hours a week?

I’m self-employed, so I decided to test this out. For the past two months, I’ve tried to do so-called real work for only one or two days each week. The rest of my time I spend reading dystopian novels (J. G. Ballard lately), thinking about political philosophy, listening to podcasts, and losing to my wife at Mario Kart.

So far, neither my (small) business nor my financial affairs have fallen apart. I realized a lot of my work was fake. I accomplished nothing and simply sat at the computer because I thought I should be working.

What David Graeber had described: bullshit work, though in this case, work that seems virtuous.

Then there is  Parkinson's law, that work expands to fill the time available, even if much of the work is bullshit work.

Another big factor is the tendency to bid up prices of the finite supply of existing real estate - especially near economic hubs. So, for most folks, increased productivity hasn't turned into increased leisure or discretionary spending, but housing costs.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are many jobs meaningless?

Yes... A good example is that people are actually paid to research something like this that is so obvious to anyone who works for a living.

Crap, we've been exposed. Yes, business owners like myself actually meet with other business owners once a quarter in order to artificially inflate meaningless jobs. We even have competitions on which company can have the largest amount of superfluous jobs.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are many jobs meaningless?

Yes... A good example is that people are actually paid to research something like this that is so obvious to anyone who works for a living.

Crap, we've been exposed. Yes, business owners like myself actually meet with other business owners once a quarter in order to artificially inflate meaningless jobs. We even have competitions on which company can have the largest amount of superfluous jobs.

That's a caricature of what's being claimed. The proliferation of meaningless busywork isn't intentional on that level, it's an outcome of bureaucracy, cultural expectations, competition, and the financialization of the economy, among other things. It kind of naturally happened, and everybody participates in it unknowingly, even though few are directly conscious of their role in it. A lot of the jobs that exist in a given firm are only there because it's expected of firms to have them when they reach a certain size. We rarely take a step back and ask how much of what they do is actually necessary to whatever the firm does, and not just a way of broadcasting conformity or creating the illusion of organization.

 

[dismal]

Are many jobs meaningless?

Yes... A good example is that people are actually paid to research something like this that is so obvious to anyone who works for a living.

I don't think anyone would argue that private companies have some level of low or even negative value workers. The big difference between the private and public sector is the private sector has incentives to minimize these jobs. In the long run, competition makes things more efficient. Public employers face no competition, their managers gain importance by managing a bigger fiefdom, and the ability to pass out patronage jobs is often a key source of power and prestige.

I was saw a chart on the employees per barrel of oil production of various oil companies. I think Exxon was at something like 3 or 4 employees/bbl and Pemex was at like 250.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We rarely take a step back and ask how much of what they do is actually necessary to whatever the firm does, and not just a way of broadcasting conformity or creating the illusion of organization.

Really? Seems to me like we're ALL THE TIME reading memos and asking why in the name of any randomly selected god is someone PAYING this person to write memos?

Or I submit something for review and get comments from 12 people, 10 of whom I seriously have to wonder, why the fuck do I care if you think there should be a comma right there? I mean, I KNOW why I ask the editorial staff about the commas, and I know why I ask Engineering about the technical details, why does the technical manager of a system that is only tangentially connected to the topic get an input?

 

[dismal]

[YOUTUBE]hNuu9CpdjIo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ya'll should try working for the US government.

I mean, assuming you currently have a job to go to.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are many jobs meaningless?

Yes... A good example is that people are actually paid to research something like this that is so obvious to anyone who works for a living.

I don't think anyone would argue that private companies have some level of low or even negative value workers. The big difference between the private and public sector is the private sector has incentives to minimize these jobs. In the long run, competition makes things more efficient. Public employers face no competition, their managers gain importance by managing a bigger fiefdom, and the ability to pass out patronage jobs is often a key source of power and prestige.

I was saw a chart on the employees per barrel of oil production of various oil companies. I think Exxon was at something like 3 or 4 employees/bbl and Pemex was at like 250.

READ BULLSHIT JOBS. Seriously. It's not very long and demolishes this notion in the first couple of chapters.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's bullshit jobs, not bullshit workers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are many jobs meaningless?

Yes... A good example is that people are actually paid to research something like this that is so obvious to anyone who works for a living.

I don't think anyone would argue that private companies have some level of low or even negative value workers. The big difference between the private and public sector is the private sector has incentives to minimize these jobs. In the long run, competition makes things more efficient. Public employers face no competition, their managers gain importance by managing a bigger fiefdom, and the ability to pass out patronage jobs is often a key source of power and prestige.

I was saw a chart on the employees per barrel of oil production of various oil companies. I think Exxon was at something like 3 or 4 employees/bbl and Pemex was at like 250.

The problem exists in private enterprise also but in private enterprise the higher ups are much more aggressive about cutting out deadwood. In the public sector the boss' boss also likely benefits from the deadwood as it means more power for him.

 

[barbos]

The problem exists in private enterprise also but in private enterprise the higher ups are much more aggressive about cutting out deadwood. In the public sector the boss' boss also likely benefits from the deadwood as it means more power for him.

Private enterprises tend to specialize in bullshit businesses

 

[Canard DuJour]

Crap, we've been exposed. Yes, business owners like myself actually meet with other business owners once a quarter in order to artificially inflate meaningless jobs. We even have competitions on which company can have the largest amount of superfluous jobs.

You probably don't do that, but you might well employ clever tax lawyers, prompting the IRS to employ clever accountants. You might employ a load of telesales people to pester/frighten pensioners into buying stuff they don't need. The databases and automatic dialing systems will have consumed a lot of time and talent. And someone to monitor the calls to make sure the telesales people aren't giving up too easily.

The combination of automation and financialisation has seen a paradoxical fall in global productivity and a rise in zero-sum competition which adds nothing to net human welfare. Because the effects are distributional rather than productive and that is now proliferating.

Adair Turner gives more examples and describes it in more detail here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6FBL6c6C5E&t=31m (go to about 31:00 if the time stamp doesn't work).

 

[Keith&Co.]

You might employ a load of telesales people to pester/frighten pensioners into buying stuff they don't need.

So...jobs that actually produce income to the business, moral questions to the side, you think those qualify as meaningless jobs?

I mean, I'll buy evil, parasitical, first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes, predatory, immoral, sure, but if they are generating revenue, they're not meaningless from a business POV.

 

[barbos]

You might employ a load of telesales people to pester/frighten pensioners into buying stuff they don't need.

So...jobs that actually produce income to the business, moral questions to the side, you think those qualify as meaningless jobs?

There are e-shops on Amazon which resell products from other (real) e-shops on amazon. Explain how that is meaningful economic activity?

 

[Canard DuJour]

You might employ a load of telesales people to pester/frighten pensioners into buying stuff they don't need.

So...jobs that actually produce income to the business, moral questions to the side, you think those qualify as meaningless jobs?

I mean, I'll buy evil, parasitical, first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes, predatory, immoral, sure, but if they are generating revenue, they're not meaningless from a business POV.

"Meaningless" wasn't my word - nor "bullshit" (as in Graeber's "bullshit jobs"), which implies what Harry said.

Rather, more and more of us are involved in zero-sum commercial competition, the effects of which are distributional rather than productive. That's why we have escalating inequality rather than the 15 hour work weeks Keynes anticipated. Watch the link.

 

[Bronzeage]

Has anyone managed to define a "meaningful job"?

Slartibartfast spent a lifetime designing and constructing fiords. He received an award for them, but conceded it was only because fiords had suddenly become very trendy and there was no more meaning to it than that.