Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday October 03 2016, @11:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the describing-a-lot-of-jobs dept.

On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber.

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would have advanced sufficiently by century's end that countries like Great Britain or the United States would achieve a 15-hour work week. There's every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn't happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

Why did Keynes' promised utopia – still being eagerly awaited in the '60s – never materialise? The standard line today is that he didn't figure in the massive increase in consumerism. Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we've collectively chosen the latter. This presents a nice morality tale, but even a moment's reflection shows it can't really be true. Yes, we have witnessed the creation of an endless variety of new jobs and industries since the '20s, but very few have anything to do with the production and distribution of sushi, iPhones, or fancy sneakers.

[...] And these numbers do not even reflect on all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones. These are what I propose to call "bullshit jobs."

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 exactly what is not supposed to happen.

http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

David Graeber is a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics.


Ed Note: Link to John Maynard Keynes was NOT in the original article.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @01:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @01:23PM (#409400)

    You are just begging the question. Your model is predicated on the have-nots literally having nothing of value. That's not true at all and without that premise your thesis completely falls apart.

    Furthermore, the amount of severe poverty has been dramatically reduced world-wide over just the last 20 years. Especially in east asia where it has gone from 60% of the population to 3%. [vox-cdn.com]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @04:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @04:18PM (#409488)

    I modded you +1 coz you cited a perfect example of "begging the question"

    cheers,

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 03 2016, @04:40PM

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Monday October 03 2016, @04:40PM (#409503) Homepage Journal

    Your model is predicated on the have-nots literally having nothing of value.

    You can't use the simplification of a simple model to say the model is wrong. The world also doesn't have only two people. If you go that way anything less that universe is imperfect model.

    The basic premise was to show inequality of wealth and work being an essential commodity.

    Furthermore, the amount of severe poverty has been dramatically reduced world-wide over just the last 20 years.

    Umm... which basically proves my point? Isn't that the direct conclusion of what I said? Work is bartered for money hence more equality = more useless work??

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @07:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @07:53PM (#409608)

      > You can't use the simplification of a simple model to say the model is wrong.

      You can't use a simplified model to prove something not captured in the model.

      > Umm... which basically proves my point? Isn't that the direct conclusion of what I said?

      Nope. Here's the details - redistribution is enormously effective as part of the process. [vox.com]