Huge misunderstanding of David Graeber's idea. Essentially a response which is actually an advertisement for a consultancy. Graeber doesn't attack specific occupations (the article's author didn't even bother finishing his initial 'bullshit jobs' piece, let alone the new book that fleshes out the idea). Instead, he examines why so many of us experience our work as meaningless - what is missing from occupations that would provide hedonic utility, fulfilment, engagement and intrinsic motivation. That's one aspect of Graeber's argument - the other side, again missed by the articles author - is that market 'efficiency' increases inequality, which has driven down the cost of labour and led to middle class occupations becoming curation of a bureaucratic process, rather than fulfilling, imaginative, measurably impactful work. Something, in Graeber's view, and mine, intrinsically destructive of human dignity.
I find a lot of beauty in the pedantry and borderline neurosis of effective organization, but I suppose that is not what you meant by a curation of bureaucracy.
Fulfilling, imaginative, and measurably impactful work is hard. It is nearly impossible for a single person to produce it consistently. It is not guaranteed to be created. There is no formula or set of guidelines, way to live, or belief system that leads to it. Some of the best work comes from necessity, others seemingly from lethargy.
Some bullshit work is more like distributing the tasks that a single person can no longer manage, because everyone is tired. I recall Graeber making a point about the number of hours worked per week, but even then. The expectation to dazzle reliably is a huge undertaking, and I certainly do not know of any way to do it without risking burn out every few years. And that's me speaking as a perfectionist, overachiever - who at the end of every day will still push myself harder than the day before, even when it hurts. I learned an unfortunate lesson that pain and passion doesn't always bear fruit - and in that I found destruction instead.
It's more about having humility towards every person that contributes to a 'bullshit' job, which the macroscopic view and big data tend to heavily ignore. People are not data points, and their lives have immeasurable value even when they have to drag through every day. We don't have a control society for comparison. That said, part of me agrees with you, but I think speculation is mostly useless aside from guiding your own personal direction.
> Clearly if nobody did this work then advantageous but sophisticated business deals could not happen; companies and people would be less aware of their choices and pay more for an inferior product;
What? What I see on the professional ad market is that you pay more if you believe in it. Trusting the crowds opinion leads to far better results and you save money.
Right now those bullshit jobs created a world where people throw money out their windows because they have been taught to love the logo of the product. Bullshit creates bullshit.
I don't see how this business deals thing won't work. It's not like having business deals is a new concept to humanity.
> And ultimately global productivity would significantly decrease.
That escalated fast...of course no detailed explanation followed. I see that analysts and similar are relevant for that cause but his examples right above that statement are just more then poorly chosen.
> At Domini, we look at...
Right. Now I get it. This is just another bullshit product by one of the bullshit jobs. Thanks for the example.
This is basically a advertisement plug for the blog author's company, trying to ride on a popular and controversial article, catering to those (many) that disagree with it.
There are worse marketing vehicles, I guess, but it makes me glad I'm not a marketing guy.
Part of the reason those jobs feel like bullshit is because they are future oriented. The market feedback mechanism in early stage [1] sectors of the economy is less direct and more variable than in later stage sectors such as retail. Work can thus feel less real to our brains and there is more opportunity for bullshit to get funded (e.g. Color).
When was the last time advertising helped anyone gauge their options or pick out the best choice? These days, the goal of advertising is to make our selection more obscure and leave us picking up an inferior product because it had a catchy jingle.
Not only does this post misunderstand Graeber's original essay, it misunderstands its own arguments and purpose.
> companies and people would be less aware of their choices and pay more for an inferior product
The problem with advertising is that it is a race of who can shout the loudest, and as usual, the man with the most money wins. Unfortunately, advertising is not at all about correctly informing potential customers.
very lightweight: Human inefficiency, marketplace inefficiency, tool inefficiency, all solved with human labour. And that is why it feels “bullshit”. Because it is inefficiency that hasn’t yet been solved by technology.
I laughed more about the idea that the social media marketing vectors that are Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter deprecated "bullshit work". And even the automagic research assistant that is Google inadvertently spawned the SEO industry
