On Bullshit Jobs

[Lanval]

Or jobs that don't do anything, but are well paid. One of the more fascinating things I've read recently.

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

[Bleyseng]

Haha, its soo true! In Commercial Construction, it was the "Safety Monitor" as required by the State to check on each job weekly and write up reports about the violations. Jeez, we had to fake stuff just so this guy could have stuff to write about to send in.....God, talk about BS and waste of time but he was straight out of school and made $45k.

[RussellK]

we used to just coin those guys overhead........actually having come from a long line of them I see myself as sort of a parasite...so what....feed me

[dingo]

Yeah Keynes was quite familiar with the phenomenon of Bullshit...especially his economic theories, which, propagated by abovementioned London School of Economics played nicely into the hands of banksters and their cohorts in governement.

[Lanval]

Yeah Keynes was quite familiar with the phenomenon of Bullshit...especially his economic theories, which, propagated by abovementioned London School of Economics played nicely into the hands of banksters and their cohorts in governement.

Not sure where this is going... is your point that the guys making this argument are of the same ilk as Keynes? (and can I assume you don't like Keynes?)

[Amskeptic]

Yeah Keynes was quite familiar with the phenomenon of Bullshit...especially his economic theories, which, propagated by abovementioned London School of Economics played nicely into the hands of banksters and their cohorts in governement.

Not sure where this is going... is your point that the guys making this argument are of the same ilk as Keynes? (and can I assume you don't like Keynes?)

I think the above sniping at Keynes is in the service of something all together different than your interesting and I think totally relevant article.

Keynes was yet another human being possessed of significant intelligence who deconstructed the "Classical Universe" that overlaid law, physics, religion, astronomy, etc. As Heinsenberg deconstructed the neat rules we assigned to rogue particles, Keynes deconstructed the neat rules of Capitalism only so far as to say that the private markets were not as balanced and self-correcting as once declared. He suggested that government intervention was a component of a healthy market. Watch who gets pissed at that . . .
What dingo was trying to inpute I do not know, maybe he could try to just state it, instead of what looks like Fox News innuendo, where you the reader have to guess.

. . . I meet serious job every day of this itinerary. Motel maids, garbage men, cops, truckers, on and on, and why is it that they feel so insignificant in their work, while nattily dressed Acura drivers coolly stare right through them in their Very Important Passage through these hick towns on their way to the big city? The wealthy hedge fund manager is in fact, dispensible. I think the author of this article nailed it, We All Know The Bullshit (but are afraid to call it).
Colin

[hippiewannabe]

That article was pretty much an ideological rant, devoid of analysis and facts. Here are much more thoughtful takes on the subject:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... dle-class/

On the other end are so-called manual tasks, which require situational adaptability, visual and language recognition, and in-person interaction. Preparing a meal, driving a truck through city traffic or cleaning a hotel room present mind-bogglingly complex challenges for computers. But they are straightforward for humans, requiring primarily innate abilities like dexterity, sightedness and language recognition, as well as modest training. These workers can’t be replaced by robots, but their skills are not scarce, so they usually make low wages.

Computerization has therefore fostered a polarization of employment, with job growth concentrated in both the highest- and lowest-paid occupations, while jobs in the middle have declined. Surprisingly, overall employment rates have largely been unaffected in states and cities undergoing this rapid polarization. Rather, as employment in routine jobs has ebbed, employment has risen both in high-wage managerial, professional and technical occupations and in low-wage, in-person service occupations.

The outlook for workers who haven’t finished college is uncertain, but not devoid of hope. There will be job opportunities in middle-skill jobs, but not in the traditional blue-collar production and white-collar office jobs of the past. Rather, we expect to see growing employment among the ranks of the “new artisans”: licensed practical nurses and medical assistants; teachers, tutors and learning guides at all educational levels; kitchen designers, construction supervisors and skilled tradespeople of every variety; expert repair and support technicians; and the many people who offer personal training and assistance, like physical therapists, personal trainers, coaches and guides. These workers will adeptly combine technical skills with interpersonal interaction, flexibility and adaptability to offer services that are uniquely human.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... -markets-0

We can't be certain that the robots are coming for all our jobs. Disemployment in administrative jobs could create new, and perhaps highly remunerative, work in sectors or occupations we can't yet anticipate. If we're lucky, that work will be engaging and meaningful. Yet there is a decent chance that "bullshit" administrative jobs are merely a halfway house between "bullshit" industrial jobs and no jobs at all. Not because of the conniving of rich interests, but because machines inevitably outmatch humans at handling bullshit without complaining.

We definitely have big changes to deal with. All increases in living standards come from increases in productivity, and they have been huge. We create much more wealth per hour worked than ever before. So it would be nice to think we could have some utopia like you see in Star Trek. But there, everyone is smart and somehow willing to work even though all their needs are taken care of. In reality, we have a fair amount of stupid, unproductive people, and human nature (mine, at least) is to not work if you don't have to. Our current system is not ideal, but it's the best that's ever been created.

[Cindy]

In my (limited) study of economics, I found Keynes to be the most logical and pragmatic of theorists. I saw no self-interest. He simply considered what would WORK for the system itself. Brilliant guy.

BTW, "Keynesian" is one of my favorite words.

[dingo]

That would explain the (limited) part. Keynes played popularly with politicians, governments and bankers..it allows them to print money at will and thus tax you without you knowing. Keynes will soon be roadkill. Try the Austrian school for better logic.

[Amskeptic]

That would explain the (limited) part. Keynes played popularly with politicians, governments and bankers..it allows them to print money at will and thus tax you without you knowing. Keynes will soon be roadkill. Try the Austrian school for better logic.

Take it easy there, what are your Economics bona fides?

Keynes? Keynes "allows" politicians, governments, and bankers to print money at will? Are you sure you want to lay that at Keyne's feet? I thought it was greed and rationalization and convenience and the explosion of intellectual laziness . . .

Do you really think it is about "taxing you without you knowing"? Is that what it is About?
Consequences are not necessarily Intention. Spin-off consequences of a thoughtful theorist I think can be laid at the feet of those who only think of and for themselves.
Do you think Karl Marx was the "cause" of Soviet-style communism?
Colin

[Cindy]

When I said "limited" it was for the sake of a little humility. Honors economics, graduate studies. I stand by my interpretation.

Cindy

[Lanval]

Well, while I've been not paying attention, this has gotten a bit rancorous. To Hippie and Dingo, I'll point out a single issue that is emblematic of the whole problem.

It is a well established fact (Random Walk Theory) that simply throwing darts at the stock page will enable better returns than all but a tiny percentage of investment professionals. Thus those people do no real work. They are simply parasites in the system. And they are often well paid, beyond all but the highest professions.

I'm not going further than this, taking on this battle in a running set of back and forth examples. I would like to see less knee-jerk jingoism (Djingoism?) and more thoughtful consideration of the real problem. Maybe the original post was an ideological rant, but there are obvious and disturbing truths clearly underpinning it. Let us keep to those concerns.

[dingo]

That would explain the (limited) part. Keynes played popularly with politicians, governments and bankers..it allows them to print money at will and thus tax you without you knowing. Keynes will soon be roadkill. Try the Austrian school for better logic.

Take it easy there, what are your Economics bona fides?

Keynes? Keynes "allows" politicians, governments, and bankers to print money at will? Are you sure you want to lay that at Keyne's feet? I thought it was greed and rationalization and convenience and the explosion of intellectual laziness . . .

Colin

I know nothing of Keynes personal motivations, but his theories were in sync with the era's notions of being able to mathematically quantify natural systems and human behavior, and thus manipulate it. He was thus an advocate of constant central tinkering to encourage growth, and this played just fine into the hands of bankers, Fed, government and others for whom the printing of money is a boon. It worked ok for a short while, but by the 1960s, giant gaping holes appeared for which the Keynes manual had no answers. Keynes layed an academic and intellectual framework, which economists and their political aficionados cling to, despite the recent decades of booms, busts and recessions. All that is left to the central planners is more QE or less QE..and either one is a dead-end. The game is up, but the generations of tenured economists will not step out and say 'weve been wrong all along !' though Greenspan has mumbled quietly to that effect.

[Cindy]

Keynes did not encourage "constant central tinkering," more like planned interference when the markets, predictably, showed a need. Bankers and politicians, at least those who supported the "free market," did not care for his approach, as they considered interference of any kind off-limits. So how could Keynes have "played into their hands"? And what do you mean, "despite recent decades of booms, busts and recessions"? Keynes was ALL about the inevitability of the business cycle. He never suggested these phases could be avoided, only that they could be managed. The fact that they still occur doesn't prove his theories wrong. That statement makes no sense.

Cindy

[dingo]

so how did they 'manage' the 2008 'business cycle' ???