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 — ZzzoneiroCosm

There's nothing sacred about the MAGA hat I don't own.

There's nothing sacred about the MAGA hat I don't own. — Hanover

Yes, there is.

Needed subtitles. — Hanover

It's Henry Lawson.

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

wait, really do you think it's like this?

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. — Hanover

I think this gives too much credit to corporations. In my experience of corporations, they're more like badly run local government: bureaucratic and stupid. I think Graeber's idea is that corporations are not, in fact, particularly good at capitalism, at least according to how it is imagined by its advocates, i.e., as the most efficient and productive economic system possible.

He thinks that (1) "financial services or telemarketing", "corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations", are pointless and unproductive, and (2) that their existence doesn't have an economic basis, but a moral and political one.

It's as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the sort of very problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don't really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things; through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organizing or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets. — Graeber

The Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while, but since I've been living in Moscow I've been struck by the number of workers doing jobs that could be done by fewer people. Apartment buildings with six security guards, small shops staffed by four people, that kind of thing. The explanation can't be strong trade unions fighting for full employment, because the unions are weak (or effectively part of the state). And the Russians, or a class of them, embraced a predatory capitalism in the nineties that still largely exists, though now combined with authoritarian government. The underlying explanation might be cultural, which is similar to part of Graeber's diagnosis when he explains the moral and political reasons for the growth of bullshit jobs:

... the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing — Graeber

And this is convenient for a ruling class that won't share its wealth.

If you can work from home, there's a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

My case might be interesting. I work from home, I'm the co-founder of a very small company, and everyone who works for the company is working very productively. I'm a software developer and my work isn't bullshit. Or, it certainly doesn't feel like it. On the other hand, Graeber might argue that the thing we're working on, the web application we're running, is bullshit, because it's not in itself productive, but merely makes the lives of our customers easier in some ways. So, unlike the paper-pushers, I'm actually making something, it's just that what I'm making might be bullshit.

And this is convenient for a ruling class that won't share its wealth. — jamalrob

And from a strict economic perspective also totally wrong. Unemployment is the lubricant of our labour market. Without a pool of willing employees, you can never get rid of badly performing employees because there's no alternative. The unemployed therefore fulfil a very important economic function in society and deserve good pay from the very corporations that stand to benefit from this function as a result!

Everything not absolutely needed, essentially is a bullshit product.

Anyway...not only should we all have shorter work weeks...some people should NOT be allowed to work at all. Some people help productivity best by staying the hell out of the way. (They are the people who often hear other people telling them, "You wanna help...don't help."

Those people should be provided for...paid for "staying the hell out of the way." And as Benkei just suggested, they should be paid well.

Everyone has finally got to grok that.

Only then will the amalgam of Capitalism tempered by Socialism finally work properly.

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

Im retired but my erstwhile career was in IT. I could do my job just as well from home as when i the office. By your estimation, mine was a bullshit job. I beg to differ.

I am teaching from home right now. And it bloody well sucks.

The funny thing is that I seem to be getting better results than actual classroom work. And I don't have to leave the house.

I don't know if teaching is a bullshit job, but I cannot imagine anyone getting very far in life without going to school, at least until he can read and write.

It seems you did not read the article in the OP.

I don't know if teaching is a bullshit job, — Sir2u

It depends what you are teaching. The crucial point is that the person doing the job sees that it is bullshit.

It can be quite interesting to ask someone what their job is. Most people tend not to push beyond the job ‘title’.

I spoke to someone once who said he was an engineer. I asked what that meant and what his usual day looked like. He replied that he checked schematics, hesitated, then said that he probably spent the majority of his day on the phone talking to clients, writing letters and/or checking stock and supplies.

Do think it’s a good thing to tell people their job is BS for the sake of everyone else, or just let them be?

Do (you) think it’s a good thing to tell people their job is BS for the sake of everyone else, or just let them be? — I like sushi

Depends how boring the Dinner Party is.

@Banno

I'm finding it difficult to discern the issue you're focusing on here. Is it a) there are jobs which produce nothing of use, everyone knows this but it serves the wealthy to maintain such, or is it b) people have a perception of their jobs as having no value, or producing little of use?

When talking about the cause of this state of affairs, you seem to assume (a), but when drawn on the apparent subjectivity of 'producing nothing of value' you revert to (b).

Both issues are equally meritorious of discussion, but I don't think they're the same thing at all. One is political/economic, the other psychological. Which is it you're focusing on - or do you disagree with my separation?

I think it’s essentially about rationalization, or an inclination towards order and predictability, which is both creative killing and soul crushing. McDonaldization, in other words. Currently my biggest client is a franchise consultancy, the very epitome of mcdonaldization and complete BS. Pays well though.

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

Exactly.

Marx differentiates "productive labour" from "socially necessary labour," and considers average socially necessary labour to be the aggregate total, divided by the number of labourers. In that schema, the criterion of being socially necessary could be expanded to any labour that allows a person to earn the means of purchasing the necessities of life. So some people might not be engaged in "productive labour," in that they are not generating surplus value, but their labour probably should be considered socially necessary.

The reason why the work week is not decreasing as productivity increases with mechanization is due to the imperative of capitalism to always increase the exploitation of the labourer in the quest for increased surplus value (aka profits).

Read my comment directly after that one.

Uh-huh. So you would tend to agree that the "practical value for society" is a good criterion of productivity?

I was more re-affirming your question to Banno, and agreeing with your question.

Pantagruel
692
↪I like sushi Uh-huh. So you would tend to agree that the "practical value for society" is a good criterion of productivity?

I was more re-affirming your question to Banno, and agreeing with your question. — Pantagruel

In order to meet the needs and wants of society...MAXIMUM PRODUCTIVITY should be the main focus of attention for everyone.

Unfortunately, in a capitalistic society such as we have become...PROFIT becomes more important...and there often is a disconnect between profit and maximum productivity.

MAXIMUM PRODUCTIVITY — Frank Apisa

I think the question being bruited is, is this a material value, or a social value?

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

I can work from home, but it is more work with less travel. Sort of balances out in the end. Could or should it be done on a permanent basis, who knows.

It depends what you are teaching. — Banno

Why would that make a difference? Are some subjects more worthy of being none bullshit than others? I suppose that it would depend on what your philosophy of teaching/learning is. My basic idea is that student should learn how to learn regardless of and sometimes even despite the subject.

The crucial point is that the person doing the job sees that it is bullshit. — Banno

My job normally would include between 3-4 hours of travel everyday, the work itself takes about 20 hours. But the paper work, checking and reviewing and the other dozens of little things take up the rest of the time. But this load of not actually my work is mostly necessary to be able to do my job properly.
I have worked at many different jobs, but I cannot remember many that time was actually wasted. Probably because not many were actually task specific, usually there were a series of tasks set for the day, week or month, but few were actually accomplished in the estimated time set for them.

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

Any mid-level and up IT person can probably work from home (I can with no loss of productivity). Pretty sure that none of those are bullshit jobs.

Currently I keep the Covid public health test forms updated (they have been evolving quickly) and keep the doctors and nurses who we set up to work from home running smoothly. Pretty sure none of those are bullshit jobs either.