• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

is your entire career pointless? are you working in a bullshit job?

L2R

L2R

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Apr 19, 2001
Messages
43,522
Location
≠_≠'
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. 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.

So what are these new jobs, precisely? A recent report comparing employment in the US between 1910 and 2000 gives us a clear picture (and I note, one pretty much exactly echoed in the UK). Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers” tripled, growing “from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.” In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be).

....
Click to expand...

more here
http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
 
I'm actually quite satisfied with my career atm.. It's tough and we are short staffed but it helps when you work with amazing people everyday.
 
My current job is bullshit, but without people like me, none of you would have water pipes!
 
My current job is complete, pointless bullshit. Our sales team cold-calls businesses and straight-up manipulates them into thinking that we're they're regular supplier, we then order supplies from a legitimate vendor, and then ship them right back out the door, at a huge markup. It's like getting paid to dig a hole and fill it back up again.

Needless to say I'm looking for another job. -__-
 
I'm not really sure where this guy is coming from as tradesmen, teachers and other people working the necessary jobs do get paid quite well. If anything, the reason teachers and transit workers are reviled when they start striking is because suddenly the single mother working retail has to pay money she can't afford for a cab to take her to work. Suddenly, the single mother working retail has to find someone to babysit her kid during the day so she can keep her job. A lot of people depending on those services don't want to wake up to learn their day is suddenly going to become twice as expensive and twice as hectic. So yeah, that tends to make the public upset.

The article switches focus confusingly. In one paragraph, the author argues that the existence of these bullshit jobs makes no economic sense. Then a few paragraphs later he seems to have jumped ship to the view that the jobs aren't beneficial to society. The first assumption is clearly wrong, as it would be hella dumb for any profitable company to employ people that don't either a) help reclaim lost profit or b) generate additional profit. I find it strange how all the bullshit jobs mentioned do accomplish either a or b and yet there is no mention of some truly pointless jobs that accomplish neither. Ah but I know why, it's because most of those jobs require a degree in social sciences, a broad field of study under which anthropology happens to fall (the author is an anthropologist). Yessir, a whole field of study for people who want to make bullshit studies that mean absolutely nothing but give newspapers a reason to publish some new or rehashed crap about some link found between breathing air and having cancer. If that's not economically and socially pointless, then I don't know what I'm talking about. I gotta say though, I really can't imagine there would be any catastrophic changes if anthropologists were to disappear overnight. People in glass houses...
 
I had a really sweet job that I shouldn't have ever left but I did because I didn't like some of the decisions made by the people above me and like a week after I said I was going to go back to school they fired my manager and like I shouldn't have even needed a manager in the first place. A lot of people work for companies that legitimately provide tangible goods/services for customers but those people don't really do shit for the company that couldn't or isn't already done by someone else. Those people really suck, because from the outside they can act like they work for such an important job and are so vital to a key outcome taking place, when they really just make sure other people are actually doing that, and when they see that they are, they just find something else to fuck up.

I should probably see what's what with the place but at the same time the job I have now is easy as fuck, but pays about half of what I used to get after all the bs union dues are taken out. idk, I also use maybe half the amount of drugs I did at the first job so it kind of evens out but it's always something to keep in the back of my mind I guess. I should just try to go back before the people who hired me in the first place don't work there anymore lol
 
thujone said:
If anything, the reason teachers and transit workers are reviled when they start striking is because suddenly the single mother working retail has to pay money she can't afford for a cab to take her to work. Suddenly, the single mother working retail has to find someone to babysit her kid during the day so she can keep her job. A lot of people depending on those services don't want to wake up to learn their day is suddenly going to become twice as expensive and twice as hectic. So yeah, that tends to make the public upset.
Click to expand...

This bit is a perfect example of what the writer talked about in the later parts of the paper. The system is designed in such a way that when one segment of the productive class (either the teacher or the retail worker) bucks against the system in an organized way (by striking or any other form of group negotiation) it inconveniences the rest of the productive class and creates animosity against those trying to get what they deserve. The single mother isn't wrong to get upset, but the system is designed such that it is nearly impossible for her to see the real cause of it.

thujone said:
I'm not really sure where this guy is coming from as tradesmen, teachers and other people working the necessary jobs do get paid quite well.
...
The article switches focus confusingly. In one paragraph, the author argues that the existence of these bullshit jobs makes no economic sense. Then a few paragraphs later he seems to have jumped ship to the view that the jobs aren't beneficial to society. The first assumption is clearly wrong, as it would be hella dumb for any profitable company to employ people that don't either a) help reclaim lost profit or b) generate additional profit.
Click to expand...

Being paid "quite well" is a very relative term. They're paid quite well compared to what? Here's a relevant quote from the article :

the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations.

With the exception of telemarketers (who are paid quite poorly and should probably be lumped in with the laborers, not the "admiinistrative" sector), all of these professions are paid far, far more than productive jobs but add very little or nothing to society. Yes, perhaps they do increase revenue and possibly even profit for the companies they work for, but only in a vampiric way. The revenue produced by this type of job is ALWAYS at the expense of either other (usually smaller) businesses or their middle or lower class employees/customers/clients.

Financial services? Bain Capital - that's what that industry has to offer to society. People doing this kind of blood-sucking work are paid anywhere from 100k to the millions.
Corporate law? This is an industry that exists solely to protect corporations from this industry.
Academic administration? I doubt I have to say much to convince you of the uselessness of this industry, from the anti-academia tone of your post.
Health administration? I seem to recall some discussion about the cost of healthcare skyrocketing. I wonder if this industry is a piece of that puzzle.

etc. etc.

All of those jobs, while offering nothing but zero-sum (probably negative-sum, in reality) growth, are paid vastly more than the jobs where people actually produce things or provide an end-user service of actual value. Those are the salaries you should be comparing to when you say that teachers and tradesmen are paid "quite well".
 
thujone said:
I'm not really sure where this guy is coming from as tradesmen, teachers and other people working the necessary jobs do get paid quite well. If anything, the reason teachers and transit workers are reviled when they start striking is because suddenly the single mother working retail has to pay money she can't afford for a cab to take her to work. Suddenly, the single mother working retail has to find someone to babysit her kid during the day so she can keep her job. A lot of people depending on those services don't want to wake up to learn their day is suddenly going to become twice as expensive and twice as hectic. So yeah, that tends to make the public upset.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live but around my parts, teachers don't get paid a lot. The entry-level salary for teachers is less than $28K per year.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=25769806050

That's not a lot of bread for someone fresh out of college with possible student loans to pay off. $27,320 annual salary / 10 months / 4 weeks / 40 hours = $17.08 per hour. Oh wait, but they get paid year round even though they work 10 months, so $27,320 / 12 months / 4 / 40 = $14.23 per hour. $2,277 per month is not a lot when a fourth of your salary goes to student loan payments and more than a third of your salary goes towards rent or mortgage.

The article switches focus confusingly. In one paragraph, the author argues that the existence of these bullshit jobs makes no economic sense. Then a few paragraphs later he seems to have jumped ship to the view that the jobs aren't beneficial to society. The first assumption is clearly wrong, as it would be hella dumb for any profitable company to employ people that don't either a) help reclaim lost profit or b) generate additional profit. I find it strange how all the bullshit jobs mentioned do accomplish either a or b and yet there is no mention of some truly pointless jobs that accomplish neither. Ah but I know why, it's because most of those jobs require a degree in social sciences, a broad field of study under which anthropology happens to fall (the author is an anthropologist). Yessir, a whole field of study for people who want to make bullshit studies that mean absolutely nothing but give newspapers a reason to publish some new or rehashed crap about some link found between breathing air and having cancer. If that's not economically and socially pointless, then I don't know what I'm talking about. I gotta say though, I really can't imagine there would be any catastrophic changes if anthropologists were to disappear overnight. People in glass houses...
Click to expand...

The field of anthropology is not some homogeneous group of people who all think alike and have the same opinions on Western economies. On the contrary, there is much diversity even within groups who share similar theoretical perspectives. IOW just because you disagree with one or a few anthropologists does not mean all anthropologists are shit. I'm sure there are plenty of anthropologists who disagree with the author.
 
yea ofc it's just one guy's take on the matter, my general skepticism for the usefulness of anthropology in general comes from having been in a social sciences program where i was aiming to get into anthro. it's fascinating stuff and has some practical applications but by the author's criteria it would fall under the bullshit job heading, since it wouldn't cause society to collapse if the profession disappeared overnight. generally it can be said that people who are passionate and driven in whatever their field of study is can make a difference in the way society functions but since there are so many kids that wind up in university straight out of high-school, with no clue what they really want to do in their life, a lot of them end up graduating and falling into pointless jobs. it's a bit of a slap in the face to say that we should all be working less when for some people it's a lot harder to come by money than it is for a university professor likely earning upwards of 125k annually. it's hard not to get the urge to punch academics in the face when they start spewing some social theory that has little basis in reality.

also, you say that teachers aren't paid a lot where you are. they are paid very well; get summers off, and are basically set for life here in Canada. what this has lead to is an oversaturation in the field of teaching. I've known people that went to teacher's college only to wind up working at Home Depot because there's more supply than there is demand. The barrier for entry is low, and the pay is high, so it's not rocket science to figure out that it's an easy path to a stable career. That is, until all the jobs in the field fill up. Are teachers necessary? Yes, teaching is definitely not a bullshit job, but paying teachers more than they should be earning is not the answer unless the barrier for entry is raised. I mean nuclear physicists get paid even more money, and they are in high demand, but people aren't clamouring to become nuclear physicists because the barrier for entry is high. I guess we have to keep in mind the tendency of humans to take the path of least resistance when trying to figure out how to diminish the supply of so-called bullshit jobs, without diluting the quality of work in the jobs that are actually necessary to society.
 
scureto1 said:
Being paid "quite well" is a very relative term. They're paid quite well compared to what? Here's a relevant quote from the article :

the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations.

With the exception of telemarketers (who are paid quite poorly and should probably be lumped in with the laborers, not the "admiinistrative" sector), all of these professions are paid far, far more than productive jobs but add very little or nothing to society. Yes, perhaps they do increase revenue and possibly even profit for the companies they work for, but only in a vampiric way. The revenue produced by this type of job is ALWAYS at the expense of either other (usually smaller) businesses or their middle or lower class employees/customers/clients.

Financial services? Bain Capital - that's what that industry has to offer to society. People doing this kind of blood-sucking work are paid anywhere from 100k to the millions.
Corporate law? This is an industry that exists solely to protect corporations from this industry.
Academic administration? I doubt I have to say much to convince you of the uselessness of this industry, from the anti-academia tone of your post.
Health administration? I seem to recall some discussion about the cost of healthcare skyrocketing. I wonder if this industry is a piece of that puzzle.

etc. etc.

All of those jobs, while offering nothing but zero-sum (probably negative-sum, in reality) growth, are paid vastly more than the jobs where people actually produce things or provide an end-user service of actual value. Those are the salaries you should be comparing to when you say that teachers and tradesmen are paid "quite well".
Click to expand...

Naïve and completely wrong. Just like the article.
 
I'm a projects manager and can say
1) I'm happy with my job and find it interesting
2) I am making a positive difference.
 
fuck no, my field is bioclimatic architecture and structural engineering. if i mess up, shit comes down on other shit and/or people, man. liable for two decades.
 
I love my job!! It can be complicated and stressful at times but I love solving problems and helping people out... which is a lot of what I do. A lot of critical thinking. It's definitely not a BS job, my job is quite important. When the person who originally had my job quit, they needed someone in there ASAP to help out (meee!!!)
 
i enjoy the field i work in. i work with people who have special needs and i like being able to improve their lives. mostly i teach them social skills and help them interact with "typical" people.

i am paid decently, but i do what i do because i enjoy it. i am rather certain my job can't be done by a computer or outsourced since it involves face to face interaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top