Bullshit jobs: why they exist and why you might have one

[Theodarzna]

Do you have a job that you secretly believe is pointless?

If so, you have what anthropologist David Graeber calls a “bullshit job.” A professor at the London School of Economics and a leader of the early Occupy Wall Street movement, Graeber has written a new book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory.

He argues that there are millions of people across the world — clerical workers, administrators, consultants, telemarketers, corporate lawyers, service personnel, and many others — who are toiling away in meaningless, unnecessary jobs, and they know it.

It didn’t have to be this way, Graeber says. Technology has advanced to the point where most of the difficult, labour-intensive jobs can be performed by machines. But instead of freeing ourselves from the suffocating 40-hour workweek, we’ve invented a whole universe of futile occupations that are professionally unsatisfying and spiritually empty.

This, at least, is the story he tells in his book. Much of it is persuasive, some of it overly simplistic, but nearly all of it is interesting. I reached out to Graeber to talk about the book and the broader phenomenon of “bullshit jobs.”

I wanted to know how we got to this place, if there are any real alternatives, and what, if anything, people can do about it.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing
You talk about these jobs as morally and spiritually corrosive. What does that mean?

David Graeber
We’re all taught that people want something for nothing, which makes it easy to shame poor people and denigrate the welfare system because everyone is lazy at heart and just wants to mooch off other people.

But the truth is that a lot of people are being handed a lot of money to do nothing. This is true for most of these middle-management positions I’m talking about, and the people doing these jobs are completely unhappy because they know their work is bullshit.

I think most people really do want to believe that they’re contributing to the world in some way, and if you deny that to them, they go crazy or become quietly miserable.

Sean Illing
What’s interesting to me is that this is precisely the outcome we shouldn’t expect in a capitalist system. A free market ought to eliminate inefficient, unnecessary jobs, and yet the reverse has happened. We’ve got all these jobs that really shouldn’t exist but somehow do, and maybe it’s as simple as people need something to do, so we keep inventing bullshit jobs to keep them busy. But I’ll ask you: What the hell happened?

David Graeber
That’s the really interesting thing. You expect this outcome with a Soviet-style system, where you have to have full employment so you make up jobs whether a need exists or not. But this shouldn’t happen in a free market system.

I think one of the reasons is there’s huge political pressure to create jobs coming from all directions. We accept the idea that rich people are job creators, and the more jobs we have, the better. It doesn’t matter if those jobs do something useful; we just assume that more jobs is better no matter what.

We’ve created a whole class of flunkies that essentially exist to improve the lives of actual rich people. Rich people throw money at people who are paid to sit around, add to their glory, and learn to see the world from the perspective of the executive class.

Sean Illing
Many of the non-bullshit jobs, the jobs that are truly useful and necessary, have been lost to automation, and the truth is that they were far more difficult and tedious than the bullshit jobs of today. Is it necessarily a bad thing that they’ve been replaced?

David Graeber
Well, you could also just replace them with no jobs. Great economic thinkers like John Maynard Keynes were predicting that technology would advance such that we would achieve a 15-hour workweek by century’s end, but that didn’t happen. Instead, we just kept inventing bullshit jobs.

But what if we just accepted that technology can perform a lot of the essential tasks and just worked less? What if we just spent more time doing what we actually want rather than sitting in [an] office pretending to work for 40 hours a week?

(Source)

To quote the author/ give a TLR: A lot of bullshit jobs are just manufactured middle-management positions with no real utility in the world, but they exist anyway in order to justify the careers of the people performing them. But if they went away tomorrow, it would make no difference at all. and that’s how you know a job is bullshit: If we suddenly eliminated teachers or garbage collectors or construction workers or law enforcement or whatever, it would really matter. We’d notice the absence. But if bullshit jobs go away, we’re no worse off.

So, would you say you have a Bullshit Job?

[NED funded]

Be me company.

Fire all corporate lawyers

Get frivolously sued by customers

File for bankruptcy.

[Theodarzna]

Be me company.

Fire all corporate lawyers

Get frivolously sued by customers

File for bankruptcy.

Graeber files corporate lawyers under a type of BS Job that is only needed because "The other guy has it", I.E. like an army or an atomic bomb. The world would be a better place without them, but the other guy has them.

Much of his focus is on the bloated administrative sector that has come to define corporate ecosystems. Or more and more University ecosystems.

[Elegiac]

Wow, who would have possible thought that employment is a social construction existing purely for the purpose of filling demand regardless of its actual tangible value in terms of goods produced. *le gasp*

This is nothing but a bullshit attack on the service sector.

[NED funded]

Graeber files corporate lawyers under a type of BS Job that is only needed because "The other guy has it", I.E. like an army or an atomic bomb. The world would be a better place without them, but the other guy has them.

Much of his focus is on the bloated administrative sector that has come to define corporate ecosystems. Or more and more University ecosystems.

Even if the other doesn't have it, making sure that things comply with regulations doesn't seem exactly like a bullshit job.

[Theodarzna]

Even if the other doesn't have it, making sure that things comply with regulations doesn't seem exactly like a bullshit job.

If compliance reports are ever followed that is. Considering the practice of simply considering the fine or fee a cost of doing business, why have them?

[Elegiac]

If compliance reports are ever followed that is. Considering the practice of simply considering the fine or fee a cost of doing business, why have them?

Maybe you should stick to housewifery and leave compliance enforcement to the technocrats, hm?

[Theodarzna]

Wow, who would have possible thought that employment is a social construction existing purely for the purpose of filling demand regardless of its actual tangible value in terms of goods produced. *le gasp*

This is nothing but a bullshit attack on the service sector.

Actually, it is an attack on administrative and clerical jobs. Most services Graeber argues are radically underpaid. Namely the jobs that actually provide an IRL benefit to the world that is tangible. Like teachers, nurses, and the general caring professions. Services aren't the focus unless its the nebulous financial sector.

[Alydael]

I have never been a fan of jobs that don't "add" anything to society. You are just a leech at that point really.

[Deleted]

Name a few.

[Theodarzna]

Name a few.

Here is a description of the idea if you prefer it being spoken aloud.

[Celista]

— clerical workers, administrators, consultants, telemarketers, corporate lawyers, service personnel, and many others —

All of those jobs have an inherent purpose/function, though. I agree that a particular job might be redundant at a particular organization--for example, perhaps you have two corporate lawyers at a midsized business when you only need one--but that doesn't mean that all jobs with that particular title are bullshit.

[jcf190]

All of those jobs have an inherent purpose/function, though. I agree that a particular job might be redundant at a particular organization--for example, perhaps you have two corporate lawyers at a midsized business when you only need one--but that doesn't mean that all jobs with that particular title are bullshit.

That's my issue with this. I'm a teacher, one of the so called "jobs that benefit society." However, I wouldn't be able to do my job without an administrative, service, consultant and clerical staff. Or is there a line being drawn somewhere that I missed?

[Queen of Hamsters]

"It didn’t have to be this way, Graeber says. Technology has advanced to the point where most of the difficult, labour-intensive jobs can be performed by machines. But instead of freeing ourselves from the suffocating 40-hour workweek, we’ve invented a whole universe of futile occupations that are professionally unsatisfying and spiritually empty"

I'm sorry, "we"? No, Capitalism made it this way.

And it won't change, even with full automation of everything that can be automated.

[nymphetsss]

My job is bullshit, society needs it still but ugh.

OT I have a greeter at my bank, she seems pretty useless considering there is a receptionist too

[NED funded]

If compliance reports are ever followed that is. Considering the practice of simply considering the fine or fee a cost of doing business, why have them?

So companies follow no regulations at all and are just there waiting to be sued by someone or paying a fine??

[Celista]

Graeber files corporate lawyers under a type of BS Job that is only needed because "The other guy has it", I.E. like an army or an atomic bomb. The world would be a better place without them, but the other guy has them.

Much of his focus is on the bloated administrative sector that has come to define corporate ecosystems. Or more and more University ecosystems.

As long as it comes with the caveat that most does not equal all, I would agree with that. Healthcare and universities are good examples, I read a paper awhile ago that stated that healthcare administrators now outnumber health care practitioners 10:1. Universities now rely on part-time adjuncts who are paid little more than minimum wage, but administrative salaries have increased significantly.

My theory is that by bloating management staff, it increases the person's at the top sense of self-importance and justifies bloated salaries. For example: overseeing a staff of 500 versus a staff of 100, which one sounds more impressive? Who would you pay more?

[Spectral]

I challenge anyone to top this for obvious bullshit.

[Darknessvamp]

To be honest his claim also sounds bullshit and the fact he has some history with the Occupy Wallstreet Movement kinda lends to that idea. I like how he equates the idea of these jobs existing as soviet but fails to understand the fact they aren't created just to give everyone a job and they aren't just given away either. Isn't it hypocritical to say that and then suggest that the jobs be replaced by automation/no jobs and yet people continue to earn wealth?

(Source)

To quote the author/ give a TLR: A lot of bullshit jobs are just manufactured middle-management positions with no real utility in the world, but they exist anyway in order to justify the careers of the people performing them. But if they went away tomorrow, it would make no difference at all. and that’s how you know a job is bullshit: If we suddenly eliminated teachers or garbage collectors or construction workers or law enforcement or whatever, it would really matter. We’d notice the absence. But if bullshit jobs go away, we’re no worse off.

So, would you say you have a Bullshit Job?

Tbh teachers could technically be replaced by automation at this point via instructing children through a structured digital education programme and would be less erroneous and be more flexible for targeted education than a teacher. It's also a matter of time before we get something like Uber-garbage and automated construction sites what with robotic and AI tech advancing as quickly as it is.

Edit: I'll add that there are some jobs I do think are completely unnecessary but Graeber's reasoning is pretty bull for why they exist and his targets of criticism are far to broad.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

As long as it comes with the caveat that most does not equal all, I would agree with that. Healthcare and universities are good examples, I read a paper awhile ago that stated that healthcare administrators now outnumber health care practitioners 10:1. Universities now rely on part-time adjuncts who are paid little more than minimum wage, but administrative salaries have increased significantly.

My theory is that by bloating management staff, it increases the person's at the top sense of self-importance and justifies bloated salaries. For example: overseeing a staff of 500 versus a staff of 100, which one sounds more impressive? Who would you pay more?

500 because well that's a damn lot of people to watch, at least more then 100. >.>