This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If the bureaucracy is being imposed from within the corporation, it's one thing, but it's totally different if it's a necessary response to legislation. At that point it's less about the job itself being bullshit and more about disagreement with the underlying policy. If the job performs the function of complying with the law, it's a fairly large value add compared with the penalties that would be imposed if the work weren't done. To give an example of a regulation that can come across as bullshit to some people, the EPA requires erosion and sedimentation (E&S) permits for construction projects that involve disturbing a certain amount of earth. Depending on the size and location of the project, you may need to apply for a permit, not need anything, or need to have an E&S plan on site but not need prior approval. This third category can come across as bullshit to some people, because it involves paying an engineer thousands of dollars to publish a report that no one is going to read, especially if the conclusion is that no special precautions involving erosion need to be taken.
You could just as soon not get a plan and no one would be the wiser. Except if runoff from the jobsite ends up washing onto your neighbor's property and he asks to see the plan and you don't have one. If you end up getting sued over excessive runoff causing damage, not having a plan to deal with erosion is a pretty big matzo ball to have hanging over the litigation. Sure, the government could eliminate E&S requirements entirely, but that only means that when a problem happens you get to spend several years litigating it. The tradeoff is that you minimize erosion problems on all projects from the beginning, and if you do get sued it's nice to be able to say that you had an E&S plan.
The problem I have with the bullshit jobs theory in general is that somebody who isn't familiar with a business presumes that they know how to run it better and knows what work contributes value and what doesn't. This is the fundamental issue I have with AI gurus saying that LLMs are going to take your job. Really? Because chances are they have no idea what you actually do, let alone what value it provides the company. They think of everything in terms of outputs and assume that being able to generate the output is the beginning and end of the value the employee provides to the company. It's a prime example of Rory Sutherland's Doorman Fallacy: A consultant to a hotel company sees the doorman's job as opening the door, and he tells the hotel that they can save a ton of money by replacing the doorman with an automatic system. But the doorman does more than open the door. He calls cabs, he deals with package deliveries, he provides a certain amount of security, he gives the hotel a degree of prestige, etc. Since it's impossible to quantify how much business you're getting as a result of these little services, it's easy to fall into the trap where you believe that automating away the doorman is an automatic windfall, especially when nobody is ever going to say in a customer survey that the existence of a doorman played any role in selecting the hotel.
I’m more amenable to the idea that some jobs are bullshit. It happens mostly by inertia— we’ve always done it this way, we’ve always had a person to do X thing, so we still need that person doing that thing. Yes you can have value added — people doing a service oriented thing often make the experience of purchasing something a bit nicer. A food-o-mat existed in the 1950s, you simply punk in money and the food would be put behind a little door and it all worked sort of like a giant vending machine. Heck we still have actual vending machines, and you could easily create a food selling business that worked almost entirely by stocking vending machines. But you don’t lose the waitress because there’s simply something pleasant about buying something from a person who makes the experience pleasant. That would require at least some premium to the service. A consumer would have to want to pay more for a person to do that. And for customer facing roles, sure. But the same cannot be said for backend types of work. There’s no reason to pay extra to have a secretary type up your messages and emails. There’s no benefit to having a human make a spreadsheet. No one cares whether their balance sheet was created by a human. So those jobs are more at risk because they don’t get any better because the job was done by a human who made the experience nicer.
I agree, but I don't think that's what Graeber was referring to; hell, I started reading the book before deciding that the whole idea was dogshit and he didn't mention anything like that when describing his categories of bullshit jobs. All that did was show that he has no idea what adds value for a company. For instance, one of his canonical examples was companies that have receptionists even though they only get a couple calls a day. He then shows his hand by saying that the only reason they do that is so they can put on airs for the few customers they actually have. But that can be a source of prestige, and if it ends up being a bad use of money, that's a business decision for the company to make. I"m in law, and it's typical for most firms to only post a general phone number for the company and route all calls through the secretary (though they do other important work as well). I mostly have corporate clients who schedule Zoom calls on the rare occasions they want to speak, so I don't get many normal phone calls. But I do get some, and when I do the secretaries always act suspicious and reluctant when they ask me if I can put them through, as though it would be a huge imposition for me to have to talk to some rando.
Imagine you're running a small law firm that does probate work. It's just you and a secretary who also helps out with the business end of things. You'd like to take all your calls personally, but sometimes you're meeting with a client or at the courthouse and won't be available, and your secretary may be in client meetings with you or running other errands. You may only get two calls a day, but if they're from prospective clients each one could be worth thousands of dollars. You can automate this system and use voicemail or some kind of electronic scheduling service, but when confronted with this, most people will just hang up and call someone else. The receptionist can at least answer basic questions about what the firm does and if you're only tied up for another 20 minutes might be able to get that client in your office that same day.
Graeber seems to think that it's all part of a status game, as if it were all a bunch of greedy capitalists trying to impress each other with how much money they spend. But if you're a client who was actually able to get me on the phone and you show up at the office to a waiting room that's still empty after five minutes because the attorney is either with another client or just doing work, how is that going to affect your impression of the firm? People don't usually show up to law offices for fun reasons, and even something as simple as having someone to tell you to have a seat and the lawyer will be out in a few minutes and would you like some coffee in the meantime adds a lot of value. I'm not saying that it would necessarily make sense for our solo practitioner to do this, just that if a solo told me that he did I wouldn't think it was that unusual.
Which brings me to my final point, which is that Graeber's entire explanation for the phenomenon is bullshit itself. I could sympathize with him more if his theory was that bullshit jobs exist because of legacy practices that haven't been updated, or that some people are bad at business, or that executives are so far removed from the operations of their company that they don't know where value is being created, or that there's excessive regulation. To the contrary, he argues that it's all part of a capitalist system that requires the attorney to chain a young woman to a desk for 8 hours a day in exchange for barely enough money to survive because the system demands control.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link