> This idea that rich people create fake jobs in order to have an impressive-looking number of economic dependents runs into a few other problems.
The article does not really go into depth on this one. I think it happens quite often. I would expect over-hiring is a problem most of us might have experienced first hand, especially in bigger IT companies. Managers hiring more people to delivery faster ending up in more processes, meetings and even slower results. In some cases ven external experts get hired to make these processes more efficient. Once someone does get a "bullshit job", they find enough reasons to keep that job going for longer than necessary.
It's the most direct status symbol in the workplace beyond your actual salary. You can flex your salary pretty easily by having expensive cars and meals. Flexing your professional "pull" in an organization is trickier, and the most straightforward way is to have more people underneath you in the org-chart. The more reporters you have, the more important you are.
But it would be an incredibly dysfunctional org to just hire a bunch of people with no deliverables for them. IME people are hired to build and maintain things to produce product value. You may disagree on the necessity of the value, but that doesn’t mean no one else sees value in it.
An organization is made up of individuals and those individuals may have goals that are entirely different from the goals of the organization as a whole. Their own personal goals may even be detrimental to the organization.
"An organization" doesn't hire people; it's a manager that hires people based on his ability to convince upper management of their necessity. That necessity doesn't need to be real, it just needs to be convincing. Furthermore, some other part of the organization might be starving for staff but be unable to convince the organization of that necessity.
This doesn't even make the whole organization dysfunctional; this is just the nature of any group of humans getting together to do anything. There will always be lairs, cheaters, over-ambitious, under-ambitious, workaholics, slackers, geniuses, and idiots.
> You may disagree on the necessity of the value, but that doesn’t mean no one else sees value in it.
This is key. You're getting hung up on the semantics of 'value'. Bullshit jobs are not valueless jobs. These are jobs that have some value to someone who's funding them.
The failure point for utility theory is that all utility is not fungible
> But it would be an incredibly dysfunctional org to just hire a bunch of people with no deliverables for them
They create bullshit jobs that sound important so that they can get to hire more, you are right nobody hires without such descriptions but that doesn't mean that such descriptions means they aren't bullshit jobs. Haven't you heard about the concept of "use your budget or lose it", that goes for headcount as well, managers are greatly encouraged to invent bullshit jobs to not get their budget shrunk.
And no, managers don't get paid for delivering results, they get paid per headcount first and foremost. As long as they can convince their superiors that they are doing a good job it doesn't matter what the results are.
And yeah, as you say this is dysfunctional, but most giant orgs are dysfunctional, that is the norm, otherwise small companies would have no chance in hell competing against the giant well oiled machines.
People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular.
Sure, there probably is some explanation to be found for why the 345th gear in the contraption improves the target production metric by 0.013% and some theory as to why that difference meaningfully impacts some member of society for 34 seconds on Tuesdays in May on odd numbered years. And sure, those who are curious to find that may be fascinated by it or may find some emotional grounding for the work they find themselves doing.
But it's not especially tragic, and can sometimes be personally and societally valuable, to step back and look at that whole situation from further away and just say "Fuck it, I/they/we must be able to do something more than whatever that is"
That's really all the antropoligic and oral history view of a "bullshit job" is
> I/they/we must be able to do something more than whatever that is
How can you possibly make that claim unless you understand what they're doing, and how can you understand what they're doing unless you're earnestly curious about it?
> how can you understand what they're doing unless you're earnestly curious about it?
The implied relationship between the two things mentioned here doesn't actually exist. It's perfectly possible to understand a system without ever being curious about it.
E.g:
1) when food depends on it
2) when absorbed via osmosis or a byproduct of curiosity about an entirely unrelated topic.
I have a robust understanding of quite a number of topics that I can promise you I've never been curious to learn anything about. I just soak it up like a sponge.
Curiosity certainly helps. But to suggest that curiosity is a foundational requirement for understanding something misses the forest for the trees.
> People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular.
I disagree. I think curiosity is the key ingredient to a successful and productive career as well as life. An inherent wanting to know separate from being paid is very important.
Of course, it’s not an obligation like everyone must. People are free to suck and no one will force them to succeed.
I think I’m just cynical from interacting with youngsters saying “they don’t pay me enough to care.” I think the caring comes first, then the pay. And you can’t pay someone enough to love a thing.
Curiosity is no requirement of course, but at least an understanding of the limits of one's own knowledge and authority on a subject is desirable. Sometimes things other people do don't make sense to me, and seem like they could be improved. So I can:
1. Assume they are doing it wrong.
2. Assume they are doing it correctly for reasons I'm not privy to, at least by their own assessment, incentives and constraints, and dig no further.
3. Do #2, and then allow my curiosity to lead me to uncover their reasons and motivations.
I don't like #1, but numbers 2 and 3 seem like reasonable choices.
I get a little skeptical when an article about a book says "don't bother reading this book" and then goes on to make a lot of claims about it. There aren't even any quotes from the text. I haven't read Graeber's book, but I just don't like the "trust me to have done the thinking about this topic for you" approach.
It's genuinely one of my favorite books I've read. He has a very plain, straight-forward and matter-of-fact writing style. It reads like an informal, incredibly long but well researched and interesting blog post.
His book Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a little denser and more academic but also excellent. He might be one of my favorite authors of all time, which makes it all the sadder that I missed a chance to meet him before he died.
I love this attitude in theory. It would ironically put a lot of writers out of a job, though, if you required their audience to read the primary source before reading their thoughts about it. I mean, the ratio of people reading opinions about Piketty to people actually reading Piketty must have been a million to one.
Yeah, that wouldn't be feasible. But I'd be satisfied if they just included direct quotations rather than saying someone said something. The difference is that I can pretty easily track down the quote and the context around it if I have a string to include in a search, plus it's at least some defense against the reviewer just making things up out of whole cloth, or even just giving a less generous reading of something others might read differently. I'm not saying that happened here, I'm just saying that's the danger.
> Graeber lists a few of these bogus occupations[1]: tax lawyers, marketing consultants, actuaries, HR consultants, financial strategists, etc.
jeez, i was thinking cart returner, cashier, some landscaping jobs, ...
Jobs that either could be easily replaced by tech(cashier, waitress),
easily replaced by the customer themselves(shelf stockers vs costco style pallets, cart returner vs aldi style coin system),
or things that society deems desirable but are not realistically valuable (landscaping is sometimes useless, but society sees it as valuable)
actuary has 100% value, we NEED to know the percent chance of something happening, so we can account for billing(if not used for profit mongering, its still required to run an altruistic insurance). I'd say actuary, whether for insurance company or for studies, is a necessary job forever. (not accounting for AI)
What you named are NOT BS jobs. A BS job is one that, if it disappeared tomorrow, no one would even notice (or things would become _more_ efficient). Your examples would result in carts piling up in parking lots, people with $500 of groceries clogging up self-checkout lines for hours (plus a whole lot of theft) and public spaces looking like hell.
I think the stronger version of this argument is that if we did things Costco style then we'd have more metaphorical Costcos, including the distribution and number of positions within a Costco. Even with pallets, does Costco still have people managing the shelves? Probably. But also probably far less. Are we okay with that?
We are probably heading towards a world where unexpected slices of labor here and there are about to be automated away. Which ones exactly? I don't think that's the right question. Also, early automation is unlikely to categorically wipe out positions. Instead we'll just see fewer positions. Are we okay with that?
Another perspective of the same problem is you're doing a startup. You don't hire DevOps for a whole year and instead rely on sst.dev or Cloudflare hosting. Are we okay with that?
I think even your list isn't bullshit jobs. The world needs cart returners, landscapers, etc. And replacing jobs with the customers doing the job doesn't seem particularly desirable either (and proves those job aren't bullshit).
There are people with real bullshit jobs; you can find people describe them online. Where they are employed, they actually do work, but they know that work doesn't contribute anything. They are usually depressed about it.
I have a job where I do actual work. I have clients who require my assistance to perform their jobs effectively. However, the jobs _they_ are doing fundamentally do not add value to the world. In turn, that means my job adds nothing of value to the world. Yes, I am on anti-depressant medications primarily because I am wasting my time on this planet performing a bullshit job.
I’ve consistently found that a good delineator is “does the job require non-trivial decision making, or are you just a robot following highly specified algorithm?”
I am apparently the only one that liked the article a lot. It's certainly a lot better than the original Graeber article which to me is a masterclass in stumbling over well known paradoxes and puzzles in economics and substituting in his own deranged ideas instead of the generally accepted answers among actual economists.
In anthropology there's distinctions between `emic` and `etic` perspectives(adopted from linguistics, so think of phonemic and phonetic here), etic denoting an outsider perspective and analysis of a culture, while emic is an analysis of the culture on the culture's own terms.
Graeber's an anthropologist who took a broadly emic approach. He also happens to be an anarchist living in a capitalist, class-based society. This book is making a systemic critique of jobs and meaning under capitalism. While Graeber's a product of the culture he's critiquing, he doesn't buy what the culture is selling and diagnosing the symptoms he sees around him.
This response here is by someone who's embedded in the power structures of that culture(he's a finance guy!), and the response is filled with hand-waving or justification of those symptoms as unavoidable or even positive features capitalism, without ever really engaging in the actual meat of Graeber's work, which is that the very structure of our economy, culture, and world is arbitrarily decided by those in power, and our job if we want to survive is ultimately to reproduce that structure, even if it's not really to our benefit or to outsized benefit to those in power. This blog isn't even a defense of the structure: it gestures to our current setup as normal or natural and the results of rational action, without making any effort to justify it besides saying that if it didn't work, we wouldn't have it. That's shallow at best. It's an emic defense to an emic critique, but it's not operating at the same level that Graeber is working at. At the very end it hand-waves any phenomenon that doesn't seem rational in our economy as merely 'weird', and seems to cross it's arms and say "that's just how it is!". This finance guy's response is too narrowly emic in this way, a result of being too deeply embedded in something to actually critique it. He can't incorporate negative data into any analysis of the system he(and us) are in, because he won't allow himself to critique it. You could say it's a terrible, curiousity-killing blog. Read more David Graeber instead.
Odd Lots just had an episode [0] where they briefly discussed this book as well and the interviewee had some reasonably interesting opinions about why the premise of this book is flawed but was in other respects pretty complimentary of Graeber.
The episode has other very interesting concepts like "accountability sinks".
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Some thoughts (from a very biased fan of the original article and book):
> If you own a copy, consider reading it an act of meta-anthropology, exploring why a professional anthropologist could be so relentlessly, aggressively incurious about the lives and experiences of others.
Graeber solicited testimonies from people who felt that they have a bullshit job.
> public transportation workers can, indeed, shut some cities down if they decide not to work. But this is not a characteristic of the job, but of how employment is structured: if all the workers are declining to show up at once, the term is a "strike," and their employer can't just swap them for someone else. There are plenty of people who would do these jobs, at their current pay, if that were an option, so the ability to paralyze a city like this is a function of unions, not of the job itself
Unions are intended to protect workers. If their jobs are required to keep the city running, the city (and society at large) should do what's necessary to keep these employees happy. This has nothing to do with the "structure of employment" and everything to do with corporate greed.
> In a sense, the book is a work of pathological optimism about the capitalist system. Graeber estimates that roughly half of all work fits his fake job categorization, which implies that the economy's productive capacity is roughly twice the output we actually get. It would be a pretty big deal if this were true: we could have a lot more leisure, and a lot more stuff.
I'd argue that I'd be able to produce 50% more value in my own role if my employer gave me 50% of my time back. But instead it's spent on politics, baby-sitting and duck tape. It's not their fault (nor my own) but rather a consequence of the system we're in. And I see no issue with having someone actively critiquing it.
I don’t get what’s hard to believe about this. Principal-agent problems are everywhere, we’re terrible at measuring effectiveness for tons of things including and especially management (the TL;DR of the research is that we damn near don’t know how to do it at all), zero-sum games abound (a great deal of advertising and marketing, to take one of Graeber’s examples), and there are tons of ways to throw money around in ways that are personally beneficial but net-harmful without falling afoul of the law.
> If their jobs are required to keep the city running, the city (and society at large) should do what's necessary to keep these employees happy.
Granting for the sake of argument that this is true, unions do not help to do this. In fact they hinder it. In one strike I personally observed (not of public sector employees but I think the case is fairly typical), the union and the company agreed on a deal on Day 92 of the strike that was identical to the deal the company proposed on Day 2 of the strike and the union indignantly rejected. Who suffered the most from all this? The very workers the union was supposed to be protecting, who got no pay during those 92 days and had trouble paying their bills and could not even seek alternate jobs temporarily because the union prohibited it. And in fact many of those jobs now are automated away, because it was easier for the company to do that than to keep dealing with the union.
> This has nothing to do with the "structure of employment" and everything to do with corporate greed.
Not necessarily "corporate" greed; in the public transportation case it's a government employing the workers.
That said, unions themselves share many of the dysfunctional charateristics of large corporations, and for much the same reasons.
> In one strike I personally observed (not of public sector employees but I think the case is fairly typical), the union and the company agreed on a deal on Day 92 of the strike that was identical to the deal the company proposed on Day 2 of the strike and the union indignantly rejected.
Sure sometimes unions get it wrong, but that's not the vast majority of cases, and in fact that union that got it wrong likely got it right more often than not and those employees were better paid, even with the strike, than they would have been otherwise, when you consider a larger time scale.
I'm not sure that's true. As I said, I think the case I witnessed was fairly typical.
> that union that got it wrong likely got it right more often than not and those employees were better paid, even with the strike, than they would have been otherwise, when you consider a larger time scale
That I know is not true for the case I described: non-union employees in the same industry, working for other companies, were better paid.
You think it's fairly typical basic upon no real knowledge or facts.
>That I know is not true for the case I described: non-union employees in the same industry, working for other companies, were better paid.
Better paid or better compensated overall? Often the benefits of being in a union are access to healthcare, retirement, vacation time, and other benefits that aren't reflected in hourly pay. Often it's just the piece of mind that you aren't going to be randomly laid off in the middle of the week for bullshit reasons or the adequate PPE is going to be provided. If it were strictly money, no one would work at the lower paid company.
> You think it's fairly typical basic upon no real knowledge or facts.
You don't know what knowledge or facts I have. So it's you who are making assertions based upon no real knowledge or facts.
> Better paid or better compensated overall?
Both.
> Often the benefits of being in a union are access to healthcare, retirement, vacation time, and other benefits that aren't reflected in hourly pay.
The union I was referring to did not offer any of these things. The company employing the union workers did. The union did not do anything that I saw to increase the level of those benefits that the company was providing.
Also, one of the primary rationales for unions in the first place was that they could do a better job of managing the skills of the work force than faceless corporations. The union I was referring to did not even have an apprenticeship program--much to the chagrin of many workers who had children they wanted to bring into their trade but got no support from their union for doing so. Many workers in fact protested, and it ended up being one of the issues that caused a change in the union leadership--but even that didn't make things any better.
Unions protect workers as an abstract group, but consequently not all individual workers.
Lobbying for a minimum wage will induce structural unemployment: the union would rather keep some people unemployed, to maximise the combined income of the group.
In an international labour market, unions are just protectionist for some local population.
I’m sure some international socialists will disagree.
He presents an economic theory for how this happens, connecting it to the medieval practice of creating face-saving make-work jobs for talentless aristocrats
Only assuming "Bullshit" to be a though-terminating cliche: It could also be treated as a starting point to understanding how these circumstances came to be, and how to go about effectively untangling them.
>That drives a lot of the empirical research in the book. He cites some surveys, which show that many workers ... don't believe their jobs are worth doing
>There are people right now who are miserable at work because they'd much rather be hiking
Yeah, but not worth doing and not fun are very much not the same thing are they?
This article is absolute trash. The author sets out to deliberately mislead with the same straw man that always seems to crop up when somebody attacks bullshit jobs.
Agree. But I like the tendency to criticize celebrated thinkers. This article is just not doing a good job. You could say the writer of this article has done a bullshit job. In a way.
Graeber in particular seems to attract critical pieces by people who seem to have done a very poor job at reading the work in question. It’s so bad that I basically expect it when I see one, now. No idea why.
The blog author also has quite a bullshit job, worked mostly in finance-adjacent (and seems to be quite into cryptocurrencies to top it off), and advertisement-related stuff.
Not sure where the author worked, but reading BS jobs resonated with me as someone living in a post-communist country.
Most of the public sector jobs are worthless and people are literally paid to pretend to work. The same mentality seeps into the private sector as well, between morning coffee, lunch break and afternoon coffee then rushing home, people work a good 3-4 hours a day in an office. And that’s on a good day, add in a couple of meetings and that gets reduced to 2 hours. How is that not a BS job?
There's a difference between a bullshit job and a job that's 95% bullshit (which is a whole heck of a lot of jobs). For example, my company pays a highly skilled individual a six figure salary to do one thing that takes him five minutes once a week. Could this task be automated? Probably, but it would require a project (which means human resources, a budget, and compliance-related activities).
Such a project would take at a minimum six months, three of which would just be setting up the project and codifying in writing precisely what needs to be done and how the automation needs to work. Then there would be two months figuring out who was going to create it and who was going to be responsible for maintaining it in production (which by policy must not be the same people that designed/created the automation!).
Also, there's a limited number of project managers and skilled people to get things like this done so even if the company wanted to do it, it just won't happen for a long time unless such an automation gets a big upgrade in priority. Besides, some manager gets to say they have one more employee working under them and that's super important for a manager's career! (when interviewing at another company the first question they always ask is, "how many people did you have working under you?")
So that guy basically has a stable job forever as long as that task he does needs to happen. When he's not doing that task the company gives him endless busywork to perform from mandatory corporate training (which changes constantly) to 72-page security surveys to endless meetings where he really isn't needed but he's there "just in case" something comes up that needs his expertise.
Yes. Consider if he were hit by a bus tomorrow, they wouldn't hire a new person to do that job, they'd just have someone already employed spend 5 minutes to do that job instead. Every job I've ever worked there have been tons of near retirement aged people doing jobs producing spreadsheets and reports that no one reads, mostly by copy and pasting all day. When they retire, either someone else figures out how to do the same job copy and pasting automatically or figures out that no one had been looking at those reports for years anyway.
Hah! The "once a week" job guy recently retired but instead of hiring someone new they handed the task to an existing employee without consulting that person (to see if they had the requisite knowledge). Now that task is failing and they're paying consulting fees to the previous guy (well, they did at least once now) to come back in to (re)run that task... Which apparently failed regularly before he left but he "just knew" how to correct things/massage whatever (data?) it was and then re-run the task by hand.
That's the reason why I know about this situation... I know the guy that now has to do the old guy's "once a week" job (in addition to his existing one). He'll get the hang of it eventually... Probably. Maybe. :shrug:
The replacement was given four days to train with the retiring person to learn how to do the job. It wasn't enough, obviously.
sure some office jobs can be worthless....in defense of my own job that sometimes feels worthless (3-5 hrs per day)....the difference to me is, IF i worked a full 8 hrs, the work performed is useful. VS a job where I believe can be fully replaced by something else. (cashier is replaced by self-checkout, cart return is replaced by aldi style coin system. landscaper is replace by new societal norms(its not required, its desired by an ever-changing beauty standard).
This is the entire premise of the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B, which Douglas Adams wrote about 25 years earlier. But every conservative parent has made jokes about getting a degree "underwater basket weaving" for as long as I can remember.
I think real bullshit jobs are, for example, how third-generation children of billionaires get CEO roles on fictional companies / non-profits only to receive insane compensation, while the board does all the work. Just look at any modern dynastic family in the US, ignoring even the famous names.
Elon Musk bought Twitter and fired 80% of it's staff. Twitter is still perfectly functional (other than scaring off advertisers, but that has nothing to do with head count). Let's not pretend that bullshit jobs are very much real.
And FAANG was able to hire and layoff massive numbers between 2020 and today while increasing revenue. Google is famously a bullshit factory that churns out products only to kill them.
It's a hell of a thing to realize that your only real function in an organization is as a part of some VP or other's empire.
One unfortunate thing is that it pays well. If it didn't pay so well, perhaps there would be more intrinsically motivated folks who would attempt to accomplish something worthwhile regardless of the organization's myriad dysfunctions. As it stands, when I worked at Google, I mostly met people who treated earning the most money as the ultimate objective of their lives, and behaved accordingly (gaming promotion metrics, empire building, angling for peer/spot bonuses, etc.) — there wasn't much of a conception of eudaimonia, or if there was, it was a 'someday I will...', with no plausibility behind those aspirations.
One way to look at that particular event is companies needed to ramp up on product (Zoom, Teams, <remote tools>). It takes a lot to build a product, less so to maintain/operate said product.
When the monkeys are finished writing the story on the typewriter, it doesn't take as many monkeys to hit print on the copier.
"perfectly" functional? Half the pages require a refresh to display more than a spinner and tweets are shown out of chronological order of you're not logged in.
From anecdotal evidence(just reading news reports) and testimonies (verbal anecdotes from people who still work at Twitter IRL), I think Twitter's current headcount is pretty close to what it was when Musk originally bought Twitter.
The difference is they now use a lot of contractors. Many FTE's that survived the acquisition have stayed because the money is good and they don't want to bother with something affecting their work visa status.
I think scaring off advertisers did affect the num of employees needed. Twitter was slightly profitable at the time because they had built out an effective sales org. Musk eliminated most of them, and many of those who kept their jobs soon quit in frustration.
It’s typical for KTLO (keep the lights on) effort to be under 10% of an engineering team’s total load.
Normally this is so the other 90% of effort can go toward additional functionality; but there’s always the option of simply firing a ton of people and reducing the amount of feature development.
The discussion around the twitter purge was dumb because basically nobody involved had experience as an organizational leader.
Twitter/X is not functional at all. You're only looking at it from a technical standpoint and not a money-making standpoint. It has completely collapsed in the money-making department and has lost 71% of its value as a result:
He's lost about $31 billion so far. The website may still function (sometimes, LOL) from a technical perspective but from from a business perspective it is far from functional. Everything I've read (just now, in 5 minutes of searching) suggests that revenue continues to drop and nothing suggests it is on anything but a downward trajectory.
Aside: Before Musk purchased Twitter it was on an upwards trajectory gaining in revenue just about every year though continuously operating at a loss.
Yea, I keep saying that Twitter is in the "Wile E Coyote already ran off the edge of the cliff" phase and they are still moving forward on momentum alone. But, that gets harder and harder to argue the longer Twitter survives. What if some portion of that 80% really were not necessary? It sounds shocking, but the longer Twitter lives, the truer it becomes.
I am in the same camp of thinking that Musk overestimated how many people he could lay off while keeping Twitter going. But it seems plausible to me that Twitter was somewhat overstaffed.
How many employees are “not necessary” depends on your priorities. If you mostly want to keep a site up and running, the requirements are relatively slim. Musk also laid off a large part of the Trust and Safety team, who don’t have much to do with keeping the site running technically but were responsible for moderation. Whether their jobs were “not necessary” depends on your assessment of how much moderation Twitter needs.
For about two years, I was an engineering company's only technical employee and I had little else to do besides answering customer support questions. The business was clearly on its last legs and had been so for years. This was just its last gasp.
As another poster mentioned, it requires very little technical staff to just keep the lights on if you're not doing anything to move the business forward.
It definitely involves doing a bad job at scale. But also perhaps some of those employees were keeping it stable. Many of them were things presumable, like, account managers and stuff for advertisers.
That said, yeah, I agree that it sounded like most of Twitter was bullshit. Actually I'm confused why the OP said "let's not pretend like bullshit jobs are real". Twitter seems to be pretty clear evidence that they are.
(I happen to think they're everywhere and that this article is just terrible. but even worse than bullshit jobs are the bullshit grift economy. After all lots of tech does make money, by doing stupid misanthropic shit. It's bullshit, but not because it's unproductive: just because it's productive at making the world worse for everyone else. Different problem.)
80% of a company's workforce shouldn't be dedicated to marketing
I understand that that's how things are right now, but let me tell you, I fucking hate it. Whatever or whoever will burn it all to the ground, or allow it to, I will support. Disingenuous or not. I don't like the guy and I think he's stupid and has a big ego. But I'm more interested in total marketing death.
Twitter/X is an advertising company. They exist to sell content created by others to advertisers. Of course 80% of the company should be dedicated to doing the thing that brings in revenue. The technical side isn't terribly interesting or important by comparison.
Elon, before he bought Twitter, thought of himself as the customer. He talked about all the things he would do to make his own experience better. But he was never the customer, he was the product. He fired everyone involved in making Twitter work for its real customers and revenue has suffered for it.
I have no idea what proportion of Twitter's jobs were bullshit or not, but it is DEFINITELY less functional than before.
From images routinely failing to load, to the current mess of logins that is the dualistic nature of x.com vs twitter.com (where which accts appear logged in fluctuates constantly), to my current favorite bug of the last month, where it's always stuck in dark mode in mobile browsers...
Honestly, they might as well bring back the Fail Whale.
I have no idea if Twitter was overstaffed or full of bullshit jobs, but this doesn't exactly prove anything. You could eliminate the majority or maybe even the entirety of things like maintenance staff and researchers from plenty of organizations and not see any short-term decline. That doesn't mean they weren't needed. There's also jobs that you know will be needed at some point but not when. This includes obvious things like first responders. Get rid of the fire department and you'll be fine until there's a fire. It includes less obvious things like the mid-career officer bloat in the military, which is there because the military intentionally overstaffs and trains people to do other jobs in case of mass casualty events in which it becomes necessary to immediately move a bunch of people into different jobs.
I like this idea of curiosity-killing concept. Signaling is another example. If someone likes/believes/does something you don't understand, they're just signaling.
People might use it that way, but the original idea of signaling is when people care about publicly displaying their belief in a thing. That’s an operable definition that’s independent of that thing’s merits.
The fact signalling is independent of a thing's merits is part of the reason it's such a thought-terminating cliché.
If someone asks why so many young dancers learn ballet, I can say "signalling" and consider the question answered without having to engage with the availability of instruction, tradition, structure and organisation, how ballet differs from other forms of dance, or really engage in any detailed exploration of the subject at all.
I mean it's also completely worthless as a concept outside of being a thought-terminating cliche. Unless the user is stating they have psychic abilities and can ascertain with certainty someone is signaling of course, but that's not particularly likely. Outside of that, it's a completely non-falsifiable accusation that derails an argument into "you're just saying what you think you should say, not what you actually think" which is, again, completely unknowable with any certainty and also is completely irrelevant to whether the thing in question is good to be saying or not.
Whether you actually believe, for example, a subjugated group in society should have all the rights and freedoms of it's majority, or simply believe saying that will net you social capital, doesn't change whether they do or not, and also doesn't change that such a message is probably, on balance, good to have repeatedly broadcast even if the speaker doesn't believe it with their heart and soul.
I don't really ever hear that said in that scenario. There are many things people do that I don't understand. But there is also something people do that I do understand, and that thing is signalling.
One thing I note is that many people I know who work in food service believe their job is "bullshit", however in food service jobs it is usually directly obvious how somebody benefits from your work.
Those people don't like their work or the way they are treated and they seem to express that they personally find it meaningless.
If I recall the original 'Bullshit jobs' post, even before it was a book, food service jobs (and hairdressing) were specifically mentioned as not bullshit jobs; and that distinction between liking the job vs it being bullshit was stated
yes, they are the example of the distinction between a shit job and a bullshit job. Furthermore they are the canonical example of the bullshit that every job has. As a teen Graeber worked in a kitchen. He and his team cleaned it one night. The boss told them to clean something that was already clean because he could not conceive of the job as being actually complete. I'm probably telling it shitty.
There's a ton of nuance in the article and book that isn't in the title. Same with Debt. People just read other people's takes on his work and get busy imputing. A bullshit job of their own design, if you will.
> food service jobs (and hairdressing) were specifically mentioned as not bullshit jobs
I don't see that in the article; in fact the article mentions "all-night pizza delivery" as a bullshit job (or more precisely a job that only exists because so many other people are working bullshit jobs), which would at least suggest that other food service jobs might be categorized similarly by the author.
> and that distinction between liking the job vs it being bullshit was stated
I don't see this stated in the article. The article does state that the author found many people who believed their own jobs were pointless, and correlates this with those jobs being bullshit; but if anything that suggests that not liking one's job is not very distinct from the job being bullshit.
I can't check but trust you over my memory. It must have been in the book, then, that these points are made
I distincly recall a section on "Why hairdressers are not bullshit jobs", referring to a Hitchhikers Guide joke, and at least one bit about food services being "shit" jobs (but not bullshit jobs). I recall the latter because it was a point of argument with a friend when we read it.
Someone commented something similar below. When I have time I will check
idk. i worked cleaning a lobby and found that my job could be replaced by customers being cleaner. you know, how 98% of humans are at their own home. Peanut shells on floor are not necessary(might even be more effort to hit the floor than your plate). They are going to walk past the garbage can on their way out, they could have carried the trash.
servers today are easily replaced by either tech (ordering system on table, or a bar style ordering system where you get up and order from 2 wait staff). And if we trusted humans(far fetched), a self serve system: pour you own beer, and add it to your tab.
If my task was something the customer could have easily done themselves (and often do for themselves the other 99$ of their life: cart return, bag groceries) I felt useless.
Like I'm walking behind a person littering and picking their trash up. They could just not litter, you know?
Yes - something to that effect is also discussed at length in the book
I think it was in the context of categorizing the kinds of bullshit jobs and the "cleaning" of useless, bullshit-produced littering was one of the examples
From these discussions I'm thinking the book is quite comprhensive on the topic. Several of the comments here are addressed there in one way or another
So it's less that they have a bullshit job than they work in a bullshit economy, that treats people who do work as an extractive resource to be managed by the owner class.
Every time I come across the concept of a "bullshit" job, I remind myself that it's a self-reported metric, and many people who think that their jobs are bullshit are just wrong.
No this is not true. You can easily point out many middle management positions that are basically bullshit jobs. One example I know of in my personal life: People that get promoted because they need to get paid more, because they have been working somewhere for some time, and you need incentives to keep your workers happy and thus you create a bullshit job.
Middle management is a perfect example of it, actually. A lot of time and effort is sometimes spent drafting reports and creating other data, but the person who's creating them never aggregates them from different sources and doesn't make any decisions based on this data, so to him, it looks completely useless and bullshit.
Benefiting others isn't the main metric of a job for the one doing the job. Benefiting himself is the only important metric all the others are accessories.
How many people would do their job if they weren’t getting paid? I’m sure a few would, but for most people I’m sure the paycheck is why they are there.
> Benefiting others isn't the main metric of a job for the one doing the job.
“for the one doing the job”. We are talking about the importance to the employee here, not the importance to other people. It might have a great deal of importance to other people.
Business owners know well that their job is totally dependent upon doing something of value for others.
Employees know well that their job is totally dependent upon benefiting their bosses.
Ergo, everyone's job is (and is known to be) primarily measured by benefiting others.
The devil is in the details with regard to who those other beneficiaries are, but they are never solely oneself, else it ceases to be a job rather quickly.
I don't know what anyone means by 'bullshit jobs' at this point.
The way it is often described to me, the ven diagram of what counts as a bullshit job and that person's lack of understanding / frustration with that job has so much coverage that I'm suspicious of any claim regarding it.
I've certainly worked with people whose job is BS, and seen organizational dysfunction create lost of useless jobs. They exist. But I've almost zero confidence in other people to identify them correctly at scale or identify the reasons. It feels like a very emotional subject.
This is a pretty common thread throughout Graeber's work; incuriosity and stubbornly blinkered views of phenomena as part of a strained argument for left-anarchism. The criticisms of The Dawn of Everything are withering and along these lines.
The article does not really go into depth on this one. I think it happens quite often. I would expect over-hiring is a problem most of us might have experienced first hand, especially in bigger IT companies. Managers hiring more people to delivery faster ending up in more processes, meetings and even slower results. In some cases ven external experts get hired to make these processes more efficient. Once someone does get a "bullshit job", they find enough reasons to keep that job going for longer than necessary.