QUESTION: Are bullshit jobs inevitable? If so, why? If they are not inevitable, why do they exist? — Bitter Crank

Because people want bullshit products, so bullshit workers make sure that bullshit gets on the bullshit shelves.

If it were up to me, all that bullshit would disappear because I don't buy bullshit.

Capitalism has no interest in the PWE except that it gives it ripped off moral cover for exploiting labor, alienating the workers' product from the worker. Capitalism perfected the Capitalist Work Ethic, which is "work for the lowest possible wage and be grateful you have a job." Capitalism is a system of acquisition and accumulation through exploitation. — Bitter Crank

Okay. But whether the result of PWE or not...the exploitation of labor has got to stop. It has to stop dead in its tracks...and it must stop immediately.

And, as I said earlier, only the most capable should be ALLOWED to work. The remainder of the people must become Keep Out Of The Way specialists. The KOOW specialists will be the most important element of a new world order...and as such, should be paid handsomely. Enough so that hey can afford "plenty"...not just "enough."

the exploitation of labor has got to stop — Frank Apisa

Yes, yes, yes. I agree 1000%, unanimously. And thus the need for a revolution. Ceasing the exploitation of workers is not going to happen through any evolutionary process. (Maybe it will happen through a devolutionary process, where civilization collapses, masses die of starvation, and there is essentially no economy in which to exploit anyone. NOT something to look forward to.)

Yes, we should get rid of bullshit products. Now, if we can just agree on what bullshit products are! But you are overlooking the production of bullshit services. Of course, you don't buy bullshit services, either, and we will now have to decide what belongs on the list of bullshit services, too.

For instance, if Tiff complies with my suggestion that she dry her horse shit in the hot SW sun and sell it to gardeners in Chicago, would that be a... horse shit product?

Then the bullshit jobs that produce all the bullshit products would disappear and America would no longer be great. :sad:

Ceasing the exploitation of workers is not going to happen through any evolutionary process. (Maybe it will happen through a devolutionary process, where civilization collapses, masses die of starvation, and there is essentially no economy in which to exploit anyone. NOT something to look forward to.) — Bitter Crank

I'm currently reading a book about the end of economic growth and in it the metaphor of a 2 lb hummingbird is used to express the point that degrowth is inevitable. Increased productivity and substitution (alternatives to fossil fuel, e.g.) can only go so far, and then there's toxic buildup, climate change, overpopulation, etc.

Enjoyed this. I'd add that despite all the advances in technology (or in part because of it?) we work more now for less money, in general. And not coincidentally there are more ways to make money - at least, more forms within the categories - where you don't need to make money. Some of them led to the 2008 crash. I wish I had the economic knowledge to demonstrate who pushed us in this direction and by what nefarious, negligent and careless means. I don't. But my sense is that Keynes should have been correct, in a general way, and the opposite is now true.

If it were up to me, all that bullshit would disappear because I don't buy bullshit. — Hanover

Hanover 2020

Because people want bullshit products, so bullshit workers make sure that bullshit gets on the bullshit shelves. — Hanover

Sort of. They've been trained since an early age that their surface is vastly more important their experience of life and what they are. Hence the way cars, clothes, hair products and styles, make up, all other status products (or the idea that one should have the version of the product that gives you status) etc. A lot of created wants. With the best cognitive scientists getting highly expensive cracks at developing very plastic young minds.

Then we have financial products. Many of which are just a way for people who are not labouring (via these products) can make money, often even having others doing the purchasing of these products. A lot of jobs doing this selling and getting their cut off products that produce nothing.

Bullshit, by comparison, could be used as fuel, if a poor one, a weapon, once it dries...no, before too. And probably as fertilizers.

We have companies replacing foods that are doing fine, except they are not patented, so, where's the dependance in that.

We got lots of bullshit first setting up the wants, and then the bullshit products can be sold to meet the created demand.

Sounds like a very cogent book to be reading at this point.

there are more ways to make money - at least, more forms within the categories - where you don't need to make money. Some of them led to the 2008 crash. I wish I had the economic knowledge to demonstrate who pushed us in this direction and by what nefarious, negligent and careless means. — Coben

Banks - money based on debt - and various financial instruments.

.the exploitation of labor has got to stop. It has to stop dead in its tracks...and it must stop immediately. — Frank Apisa

Also the chamberpots should be made of gold.

yes, banks are a neat scheme especially with fiat banking and banks being able to simply create money out of nothing that is a real, concrete debt to those they lend it to.

Thank you for sharing. As someone who has the leisure of working from home during this crisis and also secretly believes their job is mostly bullshit, this made a lot of sense.

I worked harder and got paid significantly less at my high school jobs than I do today in my post-graduate job. My job hardly requires a college degree; I have learned nearly everything I need to while on the job. And while I do enjoy many aspects of my job (such that at times it does not feel like a job), it isn't a job that really needs to get done.

How come I get paid more for less work, work that by all accounts has little-to-no, or even perhaps negative, value? I think I should be getting paid equal or even less than those with real jobs.

I think largely I continue to work at my job because I am afraid of the consequences if I didn't. To a certain extent, I have to look out for myself.

I think largely I continue to work at my job because I am afraid of the consequences if I didn't. To a certain extent, I have to look out for myself. — darthbarracuda

That was sort of the point I was trying to make here:

Yes indeed. It happens on that granular level and also as a wider phenomena. For example, revolutions work as a sort of way to "break out" of historically-developed institutional patterns. So what happens? It sounds good but then when asked to give up their property (like house, land, capital), that doesn't seem to go down well in practice. So now you have simply force. The people with the guns will make you do it. Well, that just threw out the boundlessness with more boundaries. Then the famines, and the shortages of goods. Then a charismatic leader takes the reigns of the guys with the guns and it is just more boundaries than the previous institutions.

The problem is the comforts of life itself will lead us to this problem that cannot be solved. So therefore...

It's a form of suffering imposed on spark plugs that had not consented to be born in the first place, and having been born, have to work to keep body and soul together--though why anyone does that since we didn't want the deal in the first place, is a mystery.
— Bitter Crank

Exactly! Now you are speaking my language. The problem is intractable. It has to do with the human condition, not a specific socio-economic condition. — schopenhauer1

The system we have now relies on jobs. It doesn't discriminate on what kind. The way resources are supposed to be distributed is something like this: Most legitimate = Resources are distributed by working for pay or owning a business and using recognized currency (or living off social security that you paid for with taxes from working). Least legitimate = Resources are distributed from government or charity without working.

I don't see a society where this can be set up differently based on how we have rooted human labor for 10,000 years or so. Even communism as it was applied used currency and jobs to distribute resources. It's just it was centralized, planned, etc.

Resources have to be culled, produced and distributed. Robots are probably not the ubiquitous answer. No change will occur on this front as it would have to be a complete overhaul. An aggregate overhaul from every sector of the economy would be ridiculous to implement outside a thought experiment or conversations like "wouldn't it be cool if...". So for example, I don't think all of humanity will stop procreating. I don't even think I'll change many people's minds. But I do think it the position to not procreate is the right one, despite it's not coming to fruition. So it could be the same here in regards to work. However, interestingly, this too is solved via antinatalism. No new people means no new laborers laboring for no reason except to keep themselves alive and the system functioning.

@Bitter Crank@Banno

Seems as the argument in the article was a bit lost on some.

Keynes was right, the number of hours needed to produce the stuff we need has been reduced to a fraction of that in his time.

But the number of hours of paid work as stayed much the same or increased.

The difference is that the extra paid work does not produce anything. It consists in completing timesheets and productivity reports and attending meetings and answering emails and phones.

What exactly do you mean by ‘unproductive’ work? — I like sushi

As with all such requests , the answer is found in the discussion, not in an explicitly stated definition.

If a software developer can do their job in 4 hours each day, why the hell should they be at the office for 8? — Pneumenon

In order to attend to timesheets and productivity reports and attending meetings and answering emails and phones. These are now how their worth is assessed.

The problem, as always, is capitalism. — Pfhorrest

;

The problem IS capitalism. — Frank Apisa

;

...getting rid of the notion that one must earn one's living. — Frank Apisa

That's a bit too simple. Take a look at my thread on the tragedy of the commons or more recently @unenlightened's Trust. It's not an economic issue, it's a ethical one.

...usually non-profits... Unfortunately, the work was futile — Bitter Crank

Plenty of what happens in non-profits feels like beating one's head against a wall. Progress in reform is so bloody slow. So they end up doing another survey or having another conference or developing another action plan. Yes, it's bullshit work, marking time in between small victories. The difference is that those involved are "earnest, hard working, devoted, and all that". They are marking time for a purpose. In a bullshit job per se, this is not the case; the worker recognises that they are not doing anything of use. That's a huge difference.


SO see In Praise of Idleness. Again, such idleness is not always bullshit work, although it can be.

...mucking horseshit — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Use it to produce flowers.

The boundless thoughts can never quite go beyond the bounded institutions. — schopenhauer1

Balls. Happens all the time. It's just your attitude, again. Indeed, you strait-faced point out the roll of revolution in your next post. Things change, sometimes for the better.

Unessential workers of the world, unite! — NOS4A2

How's it going in your Moscow basement?

In summary: — Hanover

Rundgren engineers the bass out of his music. It's tinny.

Having no feet is just about the worst. — Hanover

Ableist myths. Ask Adam Hills.

Because people want bullshit products, — Hanover

It's not about products. Looks to me as if you have missed the point of the OP article entirely.

But my sense is that Keynes should have been correct, in a general way, and the opposite is now true. — Coben

Keynes was right, the number of hours needed to produce the stuff we need has been reduced to a fraction of that in his time. — Banno

Yep. The question becomes how one responds.

I was once given the job of producing a standardised report format for a large organisation - thousands of folk would have to complete the form in order to report on tens of thousands of other folk; and it was obvious that the result would be of absolutely no use. So I spent the time finding as many problems with the process as possible, setting up meetings, doing surveys - until I could find a better job in another organisation.

Bullshit work in the service of sanity.

It's about twelve years since I changed jobs, and that form was finally trialed; then shelved; then trialed in a new format. And is at present on hold because of Covid-19

It's not about products. Looks to me as if you have missed the point of the OP article entirely. — Banno

Not really. You're referenced inefficiencies that could result in fewer jobs if eliminated. The corporate America I worked for measured every move until we all became efficient mindless robots devoid of personal authority because that would de-systemetize the machine. The bullshit was that people were treated as cogs. It was dehumanizing and tragic if one ponders these are people who are dedicating their lives to this.

Finding and eliminating inefficiencies is corporate speak for creating a dystopia. It won't result in shorter days, just more tasks during the day monitoring efficiencies and chasing away inefficiencies. The reason for squeezing the most from the worker is because people want more bullshit products and there's no way to predictably get people to do what you need them to than by endless forms, datasets, and numeric monitoring.

Want shorter workdays? Give workers more autonomy, get more variation in product quality, and have less bullshit products. When you make 10 widgets a day in your garage, there's no bullshit. When you have to make 10,000, the efficiency experts come in and destroy the place, but 10,000 do get cranked out.

Rationalization



“[…] the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the ‘saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.”
– Max Weber. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905

OK.

created demand — Coben

yep.

Bullshit products - of which there are plenty - are a seperate item to bullshit jobs. The anaysis mught be parallel, in the same way as Bullshit statements run parallel with bullshit jobs.

Of course, the most bullshit of all jobs is celebrity.

And the most bullshit of bullshit products are found on celebrity television.

Bullshit products — Banno

Do you hear the clamor?

The notion of a bullshit product is highly subjective.

Unless you want to draw the line at food, clothing, shelter and healthcare and say the rest (this bullshit laptop and this bullshit website) are bullshit products.

That's the issue with bullshit products - @Hanover. thanks for helping articulate it.

The notion of a bullshit product is highly subjective. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I vividly distinguish the sacred from the profane.

Couldn't understand a lick of what the Aussie was trying to say. Needed subtitles.

It reminded me of this song. Don't know why, but it's not the sort of song that would make you want to work hard, so maybe it ought be posted here.

That's the issue with bullshit products — Banno

The notion of bullshit jobs is no different: highly subjective. What celebrities give to their fans their fans would more likely call sacred than bullshit.

Celebrities have a kind of divinity in the eyes their adorers. Were those shrilling Beatles fans not in the throes of some earth-shaking mystical illumination?

I vividly distinguish the sacred from the profane. — Hanover

Who doesn't?

To me your MAGA hat is the height of the profane.

To you your MAGA hat has the sacred luminance of the king.