Is your job bullshit?

[Pseudonym]

I've just been reading an article on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs - that is, jobs that don't really need to exist.

It's a thought-provoking article and well worth reading, but if you can't be bothered, here's an except...

On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, by David Graeber.In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved 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 marshaled, 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.
...
How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? How can it not create a sense of deep rage and resentment. Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work. For instance: in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.  Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well.

(It's a great point... Why DO we pay those in essential jobs so badly?)

 

Now, I love my day job, but I have to admit that the earth would continue to turn even if it wasn't blessed with the presence of us advertising creatives.

So what do you do for a crust? And is it essential, or is it bullshit?

[Gym rat]

I work in a gym  and my job is a maintances person but most of the time I have to put with some bullshit like when the students are pigs like when they cant be bothered to flush the loo after they are done on the loo.I got given a hard time by a few members when I was cutting for the Pan Pacific show like some of the comments were you need a roast in you ,your underweight plus a few other mean and nasty comments as well and I came close at times fliping out big time

[Pseudonym]

Yeah, that wasn't quite what I meant, Gymrat.

What I was asking is how essential people think their job is. And I'd say your job as a maintenance person is pretty essential. What you do benefits people much more directly than my job does.

[Michael Knight]

As a supervisor I'm basically a baby sitter for adults.

 

If people did their jobs properly and willingly went the extra mile, then my job would be bullshit. But due to human nature and adults acting like little kids, from an efficiency point of view, my job is essential. 

[AZIDE]

as a CFO of a moderate size multinational company i would disagree with the article. The upper management roles (CEO, COO and CFO etc) of a company (at least in my organisation)  are all vital roles which i doubt could easily be filled by 'anyone'.

When youre talking about hundreds of millions of dollars its important to have the right people providing direction and making the important company decisions. im sure i could do an adequate job cleaning toilets etc, but i doubt that the average team of toilet cleaners could run a large company. even if they could and were 90% as efficient then theyre still losing the company say  $50 million in profit.

Thats why upper management gets paid what it gets paid, why there are comparably large productivity bonuses in such roles. Same as how skippers on a fishing boat get paid so much more than the crew. Their knowlege and experience is vital and not easily replacable, and they have to make the right decisions and are accountable when the wrong decisions are made.having the right person/people in charge is crucial when youre talking about companies/operations dealing with large amounts of money especially as the level of risk increases.

 

i do however agree that many mid-level management roles are unnecessary and i believe that is why so many companies have restructured and removed these roles/levels of management in recent years

[Leeroid]

For instance: in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.  Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well.

 

[Rag the Dog]

i get it pseudo.  i earn twice what my wife earns as a chef and my job is 90% pointless.  I dont hate my job, but i am sure the world would continue without probation officers.  Humans are weird in what they consider valuable, consider auckland house prices and the price of modern art.

 

 

[Kalidane]

The article raises some thought-provoking points.  Leeroid is right that the guy has an agenda but don't let that colour your view of what he is saying (no commo).

 

I know that roofing is harder and more beneficial to the community than what I do in an office (which is arguably wholly unbeneficial) yet roofing pays less than half.  The office job is harder in some ways but still pointless.

 

AZIDE: The area you are addressing (the very top of an organisation) is bizarrely ignored.  It seems it wasn't 'that kind of article'.  The points you make are valid for mine.

 

I read a great rebuttal of this article but can't find the damned thing.  Hopefully I'll have better luck from my work computer where I read it.

[SoulFate]

I used to work in a management role, and in some ways it was a little bit pointless, but mainly because my philosophy was to train my team well enough that they don't need me. That was the sign that I was doing my job well.

I'm working as a mechanic now, which definitely has a positive effect on many more peoples lives, but I get paid waaaaaay less than I used to.

I think it really depends on what you consider to be important

[Pseudonym]

Playing devil's advocate a bit here now...
 

Their knowlege and experience is vital and not easily replacable

I agree that this is why some roles pay more - it's supply and demand. The scarcer something is, the more it's worth. But monetary value doesn't reflect "societal value". Just because a skill is relatively uncommon doesn't make it more beneficial.

Is a CEO on a $1M salary really worth 20 paramedics on a $50k salary? (OK, that's an emotive example, but you take my point!)

Wouldn't society be better off paying people based on how directly they benefit other people? The pure capitalist model seems a bit skewed.

[Kalidane]

 

Playing devil's advocate a bit here now...
 

Their knowlege and experience is vital and not easily replacable

I agree that this is why some roles pay more - it's supply and demand. The scarcer something is, the more it's worth. But monetary value doesn't reflect "societal value". Just because a skill is relatively uncommon doesn't make it more beneficial.

Is a CEO on a $1M salary really worth 20 paramedics on a $50k salary? (OK, that's an emotive example, but you take my point!)

Wouldn't society be better off paying people based on how directly they benefit other people? The pure capitalist model seems a bit skewed.

 

Let's switch the CEO to the head of a District Health Board to be more apples with apples.

 

By virtue of a wealth of experience and optimal resource allocation the kick ass head of DHB (drawn here from far away by the compelling compensation package) would deliver greater benefit than hiring an additional 20 paramedics and leaving existing senior management to run their respective areas.

 

[Pseudonym]

Let's switch the CEO to the head of a District Health Board to be more apples with apples.

Oooh. I think you've got me there. I don't have any counter-logic to that one! *unknw*

OK, I admit defeat to everyone's capitalist arguments.

[Gym rat]

people who winge to me about somthing while I am having a shower or on the loo at work.Like today for examaple when I was on the loo a member started to winge to me about something and I was thinking can't one go to the loo in quite plus I temped to drop the f bomb as well

[Ben0]

LOL

 

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

mobile apps developer.. yup fairly bullshit i suppose in the greater scheme of things