honestly i agree with David Graeber that yes these are bullshit jobs like dog washer and stuff like this but i think that it is important and essential to have these jobs because it give people that have a lower education a chance to make money but, like the economist says technology is increasing and this is detrimental to people who don't have a high education because technology is replacing them and in the end if this process keeps going it will lead to a higher unemployment rate. maybe i got this all wrong but, i feel like if i had a business i would rather have human beings than technology to work with the equipment because i imagine that they would know more and i would just have more trust in them overall and plus it means that not many people would be unemployed which in my eyes is a semi good thing... AM period 6
I agree with the follow up for The Economist Article that complexity is what makes us rich. Nothing in this world is easy and free, earning millions of dollars or even billions takes a whole lot of work and complex thinking. The essay by David Graeber does have a point but at the same time, its the human evolution that creates the demand of new jobs and thus the supply. Technology has made our lives easier, totally revolutionized the world but at the same time it has created new jobs, new competitions and new ways of doing business. There cant be a bs job because then one would be earning no or bs money and that isnt the case. Many are getting paid and making a living out of these bs jobs. these jobs cater to human needs and money rules the world so these jobs are needed to have a living and to be comfortable in life. So i disagree with Mr. Graeber and agree with the follow up from the Economist. - N.G. period 9
I think the point of this essay is that the power goes to the people with all the money. This is a sad thought, because all the innovation outside the rich's mindset would evaporate from lack of financial support.
I felt that these two articles were very interesting even though they were somewhat biased on both accounts. In the first article, I agreed with the fact that real, productive workers are grossly underpaid and they are somewhat exploited for their physical labor. This is shown by the larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed that make them a part of the ruling class. This according to the author is the only reason why we have not followed the path John Keynes predicted. However, in the second article, the other author believes that the complexity of the structure of the work force is what has made the country rich. He also goes on to say that the reason the workers who have time-consuming and strenuous labor jobs are not being that well compensated possibly because they are. The only difference is now our definition of hard work has changed; we thought that the definition meant that it was actual physical work but nowadays it stretches to manual and office work. Overall, I would say that I agree with the first article more because it actually shows how the easier, less strenuous jobs are receiving better paychecks at the end of the month compared to the harder, back-breaking jobs which clearly deserves a better paycheck because more effort is being exerted. -Maresa M. Period 8.
I thought the first article was both an interesting and highly opinionated take on the job market. There were comments I both agreed with and disagreed with. I supported the authors claim that there are certain jobs that are unnecessary, and this in turn has a negative impact on our society. For example, I agreed with the authors fish frying example, which to me represented how people won't put in all of their time and efforts to do jobs they have no true passion for. This has potential to result in a dangerously stagnant world that does not move forward in a perpetually competitive world . I also agree with the authors claim that workers in certain fields contribute more than others do to, and for this, these individuals should be compensated more fairly than they currently are. However, I felt that the author was too narrow minded in his definition of what constitutes as an important job and what does not. He specifically said that jobs in the industry and farm sector were of greater significance than jobs in "professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service" areas. I think there are several jobs in which people from the evidently "insignificant" areas do contribute greatly. When the author made slightly parochial comments like this, I felt that he appeared to take an overly biased take on this matter, thereby decreasing the credibility of his argument.
I felt that the second article accurately stated that the seemingly meaningless jobs are actually necessary to help the complicated whole function efficiently (the author referred to this as specialization). In that sense, the hidden premise of this article is that the more complex our society is, the better it will function. I both agree and disagree with this. On one hand, we must not fall behind in a competitive yet interconnected market: we need meaningless jobs because other countries have them too. But, in the other hand, I wonder if we actually need them to be self-sufficient.Shweta Lodha
I think that nowadays we deem jobs and professions that may not necessarily be more important than others, but may require more work to get there in terms of education level and experience, as more valuable. I feel like we use higher salaries for these jobs as a form of self-motivation, to make up for and congratulate ourselves on the difficult journey we endured to be where we are. I agree with the article from "The Economist" that even though we might not always see the point of something, it could still be an important piece to the puzzle. Sometimes we have to look at the big picture to appreciate every small component that makes it up. It's like, even with a million-piece jigsaw puzzle, it still wouldn't be as beautiful or complete if it was missing one piece. Even if it were to be proven that some jobs are in fact meaningless, there will never be enough crucial or necessary jobs available to keep the entire general population employed, and the only think worse than a lump of untapped potential is a lump that sits there and serves no function at all.
In my opinion, I feel that the author of "Bullshit Jobs" has a good grasp on the economy of our contemporary world. There are various jobs with meaningless value yet our economy still provides opportunities for these jobs. I think that by allowing a supply for these types of jobs, the people with these jobs are taking away opportunities for others who actually contribute to the world. Even with the technological capabilities we have today, we are still offering meaningless jobs when they could be simply executed by machines. I also believe that the second author's notion is a reasonable solution as it would emphasize more specialization which could benefit the economy as a whole. -Kevin Chao Period 8
In my opinion, both David Graeber’s essay “On The Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs” and the follow-up “Labour markets: On ‘bullshit jobs’” offered compelling arguments and claims. Without a doubt, I was surprised by Keynes’ prediction that by the end of the 20th century, the advancement of technology would allow for a 15-hour workweek; the fact that we are indeed capable of doing so in this day and age is even more shocking, especially because such a scenario seems infeasible at first glance. However, after further examination, I agree that our modern economy involves lots of people doing meaningless tasks they do not enjoy. Most importantly, I agree with Graeber’s point that the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it. I sincerely believe that without nurses, garbage collectors, mechanics, teachers, and dockworkers, our world would, by no means, function efficiently. In other words, CEOs, PR researchers, and telemarketers are not nearly as essential to the maintenance of our society. An exception to this rule is in the field in medicine; they meaningfully contribute to the human condition, while simultaneously earning a significant salary. At the same time, the writer of the follow-up made a valid counterargument; it is only possible to manage such a complex economy by breaking businesses up into different kinds of tasks, allowing for a very high level of specialization. Craftsman managers or generalists are impractically and economically unworkable. All in all, the controversy is a very gray matter that has numerous viewpoints.
In the Economist I understand why the author would question the other article. I do agree when he says that it just doesn't make scene for big corporations to hire people for no reason. Big businesses hire those people in order to make a bigger profit. But then why do we need three people to sell a package of meat in Russia? I mainly would argue that America does have bullshit jobs. He makes a very good point that in a capitalism world it is not ideal to be creating jobs that we don't really need. I think it also reflects on us as a society do we value the job or do we value the meanings and reputation behind the job that shows us to be a working and innovating country? What also pulls me toward this argument is the fact that jobs such as poets and musicians; who contribute to society much more than corporate firm lawyers are not being represented as they should. I do believe that there is this invisible upper hand putting a value on every job and if your job does not fit in with what they see as great; those people get little to nothing for their contributions. But then I go back and agree with the other article where he points out the innovation of technology. Technology over the years has become so highly advanced you have to replace jobs taken over by the machine for those workers who were once seen very valuable to the workforce. So in that respect no job is useless. You don’t want to get rid of an employee who has extreme talent and replace him with a machine. So you create another job for him where he could put his talents elsewhere and contribute back to society.
As time passes, technology inevitably improves and advances to a point that it could replace humans in their area of work. This, in turn, has caused disemployment and even employment in jobs that may be useless or 'bullshit' to the employees. However, the article by The Economist reacting to the On the Phenomenon on Bullshit Jobs essay reveals a fatal flaw in Graeber's argument. Technology also introduces an element of complexity that requires the employment of people on many different levels of work, that might be considered trivial to some but is nevertheless necessary. For example, Graeber believes that a manager is a bullshit job but according to The Economist, it is essential to control the other levels of work that technology has complicated. AB
David Graeber discusses his views on the phenomenon of "Bullshit jobs" and argues that there are pointless jobs out there that should not exist, especially since they do not benefit anyone. He also said that technology should be helping people to work less hours, although it has done the opposite in reality. I believe that there is no such thing as a "bullshit job" because everyone is needed to contribute to our society no matter how small the task may be. It is true that some people have jobs that are much harder physically, but other jobs are harder mentally and that is how it evens out. People are needed to fill in all of these jobs so that our society can function properly. Even though one job in particular may not contribute much, it does nourish our economy. The article following up Graebers opinion on "bullshit jobs" countered much of what he said. I agree that technology did not lower the working time for humans although it did simplify the work process. Technology, and even robots in the future, will eventually replace humans in certain jobs, but not all. Humans will always be needed for some jobs in particular and will never be replaced. I agree that robots will not complain about the "bullshit of work" and therefore may replace humans.
no matter the jobs are meaningless or what, they get paid. stop complaining about your contribution to the world, you cannot change anything in the world. get the money and go. they are still a lot of people unemployed, they want to get paid so badly. life is just earning money and spending the money. dont complain about the job because luckily you have a job. per 9 yan
The essay was interesting because he talks about how he thought technology would cut down peoples hours but it has added more. He says that people are working more in "services" to make someone else happy instead of themselves. He suggests that people should work on things that would make them happy not others. The article plays upon the essay, it discusses how robots and technology are in fact cutting down our hours. We have less work to do because of it and he thinks that maybe one day robots will steal our jobs.
According to John Maynard Keynes, technology was supposed to lead to a decrease in the amount of work people have to do. But instead, it has done the opposite: countless jobs have been created that are predominantly pointless. Jobs like financial services, telemarketing, and public relations- all jobs that we once made do without – only created to keep everyone in our society working. I agree that this concept is discrediting the USA’s loyalty to a capitalistic job market and I also think that it is shameful that we find it unacceptable to not be working every day of our lives. With competition becoming a large factor in everything we do, it’s hard to NOT feel obligated to be working all the time. The reaction written by The Economist addresses a valid point. I completely agree with David Graeber’s claims that the job market is creating a more competitive and mechanical society that does not value enjoyment in career but I think that soon enough, the demand for human labor will greatly decrease due to the emergence of new machines and robots. (Ariana Stefanidis)
Wow. The notion of "bullshit jobs" suggested by David Graeber is EXACTLY what I've thought about jobs for a very long time. Just like Graeber, I thought that there are hordes of useless jobs. For instance, I visited a samsung electronics mall in the city and there were employees, in spiffy-looking uniforms, guarding the entrance. Or so I thought. In fact, their job was to greet people that came in and left. That was their job. To greet people. I honestly can't think of any job that's more bullshit than that. Is this what our society has come to? If technology has improved so much and reduced human labor so much, shouldn't there be less jobs?
In regards to the article on the Economist, I'll have to disagree with the article. The author of this article blatantly assumes that complexity = better. Our society and economy has clearly gotten a lot more complex than the 20th century, yet is it truly better when it doesn't improve our lives? Telemarketers, for example, are yet another part of our economy that Graeber would regard to be "bullshit", but a factor that makes our economy more complex. But telemarketers haven't improved our lives, so it can't be assumed to be better.
The cabinet and the fish analogy really helped me comprehend the consequences of employing people for these made-up jobs just to keep them busy. I agree that a person who is skilled in making cabinets should not be encouraged to fry fish when it is not even remotely as necessary as making cabinets. The outcome is clearly poor, and you end up with bunch of badly cooked fish. I certainly see no point in this because it’s not benefitting anyone. However, at the same time, I also agree with the other argument where its main point is that people have no right to declare that one job is more important than the other. A successful musician who has influenced a wide variety of people all over the world might claim that his job is pointless and insignificant; in my opinion, the importance of a job comes from your own personal opinions and experiences. However, the author of this article manages to formulate an objective measure for this claim by saying he’s not sure how the humanity would suffer were all private CEOs, lobbyists, telemarketers vanish in comparison to how the humanity would suffer were all nurses, garbage collectors, mechanics similarly vanish. After reading the response article on The Economist, I understand the author’s point of view as well. Clearly, the advanced technology cannot replace every job out there since there are still many jobs that need “high level of physical dexterity and task flexibility.” He argues that most jobs in most periods have undoubtedly been staffed by people who would prefer to be doing something else; it’s just that people are complaining that they are not getting enough free time outside of work. After reading both of these articles, I have mixed feelings as to where I stand on this idea of “made-up” jobs, but I certainly believe that if you strongly believe that your job is important, then it probably is important.
Won Park period 9 It is very interesting how Graeber thinks that the top 1% knows they are paying these people for "bullshit" jobs. But the economist makes a good point. Technology has not helped people have more free time. It has actually made more busy work for companies and corporations. Maybe the work is useless but it must be done. That is why the pay of these workers have increased in correlation with the tedious work they do. To be efficient companies must break up the work. That is why many workers may think their jobs are useless. When doing repetitive work you only see a part of the process. Everything comes together for the end result.
I find it to be a satire on the labor market since it pokes fun at certain jobs and even goes as far as to use somewhat strong language to describe how they stand in the labor market. The response is also interesting, since it analyzes it in an appropriate manner.
I found both articles quite intriguing. According to the essay, "Bullshit jobs," I noticed that people are willing to sacrifice their Heath and the opportunity to work less hours, to have "more toys and pleasures." I've noticed that in the lives of people I know who work. The essay also says that because of these unnecessary jobs, people who actually work hard and maintain their lives, are being laid off. Also, the essay picked on fact that the 1% of America controls the market so they decide which jobs are necessary and which aren't. The article in the Economist, explained the reason for all this was because as technology improves, it becomes easier to dispense human labour. But I would also like to see the answer to the question, "why aren't workers rewarded with high wages for their suffering?" I believe lots of working people would also want to know the answer and see the solution to that question.
This article is humorous however the author gets his true purpose across. I have to agree that there are some jobs that are unnecessary and truly have no purpose however these jobs are what keeps our economy flowing and surging. Unemployment has been an issue since the most recent recession and the need for as many jobs as we can get has created the need for more and more of these so called "Unnecessary" jobs. Stephen F.
I really like this essay and the follow up article. I sympathize a lot with David Graeber's statements on how, as controversial as it sounds, some jobs aren't really necessary in our society. I've always thought that if we were to remove some more unimportant or adverse jobs from our society, such as telemarketers or lawyers, we could instead devote more resources to what he calls "service" jobs, allowing everyone to work less hours than we do now. With more resources put into things like making food and improving medicine, we could prevent starvation and disease and advance technology at a faster rate.
In response to On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber I believe that it is true that in society we are forced sometimes to have careers we are not passionate about; this either happens because there is no demand in the labor market for our particular passion or because our passion does not receive a sustainable salary. Also, it is true that there are people who are paid to do nothing and people who are unemployed, which is not fair at all. But, I do not understand how we should be working 3 to 4 hour days in the author’s opinion. If we only worked 3 to 4 hour days we would not be receiving enough money to meet our needs and wants. Also, I think it is unfair of the author to say that certain jobs are bullshit jobs because they actually do contribute to society; for example, businesses wouldn’t be able to run without a human services department to deal with employee problems. On the other hand, The Economist is more logical. It does not make sense for our labor market to have unimportant jobs because why would the rich want to give away their money for no reason. Also, it is true that technology has advanced to make jobs simpler, but that does not mean administrative jobs and other jobs are meaningless. This article makes a good point that the job market has evolved and has become more complex; therefore we need these specialized administrative and other jobs. The Economist made a strong rebuttal against Graeber and makes him look so stupid!
There is a movement towards full automation as computing technology becomes more powerful and ubiquitous that looks poised to topple the current economic system. As noted, many jobs as "bullshit" and seemingly pointless administrative jobs and many are replaceable, in theory, through further refinement of automation. Should that happen, however, large swaths of jobs would disappear from many areas of the income spectrum and likely jack up unemployment rates. Perhaps one day, not everybody has to be working and actively providing to society. A post-scarcity society wrought through complete automation of menial tasks would require a massive shift in mentality given the current view that those who don't work are dead weight to society and deserve nothing. JW Per. 9
This situation is a tricky one to form an opinion on. If you feel that the jobs should be eliminated, we're stuck with the problem of how to give people jobs, but if we keep the useless ones, then we wonder why we aren't progressing to the standards that we want to be at. I'm just as torn on the subject as anyone else would, to be honest. I do, however, feel that we should do something to solve this problem. I would consider the possibility to try and eliminate the jobs that can be replaced by technology for a certain area to see the trends of what the jobless people would do, as unethical as it appears to be. If we see some light through this idea, then maybe we can get somewhere towards the standards that we want in terms of technological advancements without having a price to pay for the people that need to find new, needed jobs.
I agree with the general premise of the first article. Menial jobs are beginning to be performed through the use of machines, relieving people of this tedious duty. However, as time passes and the recession progressively worsens, many Americans are in a struggle for jobs. Unemployment has been increasing, demonstrating the need for new jobs. I think this is the reason new jobs are being created, even though they may not be extraordinarily substantive. So I do disagree with John Riordan when he claims that the creation of new jobs is just an administrative ploy to busy the people. As David Graeber claims, I don’t think the protests and riots in various countries are a result of workers being “too happy.” Every American needs to be able to support either themselves or loved ones, which is why they need a sustainable job regardless of the fact that they might be “BS” -TB Period 9 AP Economics
After both the essay and the Economist, I thought that it was very interesting to see other perspectives on the current economic situation. There are jobs out there that are not in demand and is of no use. One of the reasons why I enjoyed reading this essay is because of the way that it was written and because of its truancy. The essay was not only amusing but also true. For example Graeber stated “Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments, I came up with one possible vision of hell. Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinet-makers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Neither does the task really need to be done – at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow, they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets, and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities, that before long there’s endless piles of useless badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop and it’s all anyone really does.” I think that this “fried fish” analogy is a perfect representation of the current state of our economy. Everyone is has gone countless years of schooling, drowned themselves in student debt just to be doing a job that doesn’t require much skill and it pointless.
Shivani Sharma pd 9 Both articles bring up interesting points, having different opinions. "The Phenomenon of Bullshit" article claims that our capital society has been able to shell out a significant amount of money for pointless jobs. I do believe there are such things as pointless jobs that shadow domestic servants, in industry, and the farming sector. These important jobs would greatly affect society if they were to go away. I feel like the hardest part of job distinction is not what people are doing, it's about how meaningful their jobs are. The sad part is, is what the rest of society will give credit to that is what people gravitate to. And since the supply and demand of high held jobs cannot be given to everybody, that is where these pointless fill in jobs come in. It's a difficult problem to figure out, but self awareness of the significance of one's job would be a good start. In the Economist article, a problem is brought up about technology and it's role in employment. The benefit of technology is it's ability to increase productivity, but it leaves some people jobless. Also it's interesting to hear that some clerical workers aren't satisfied with the amount they are paid, even those it has increased over the years. They are unsatisfied because they are compared to the administrative jobs that seem to do less than the clerical workers do, and seem to get paid more. It is this job gap that confuses people and the redistribution of money and power that needs to be reconsidered.
Do bullshit jobs exist? Sometimes, I cant but help agree with the author here -- there are some jobs that have no meaning whatsoever yet give out so much money that it blows my mind. I am a big supporter of practicality; a person's worth should be proportional to his own wage. That is why I want to be an engineer; as an engineer, I can use my own knowledge and make my own worth through my work in benefiting society. Yet, in society, the people that have the meaningless jobs end up with the most money, and the people with an actual jobs get lower wages. I cannot blame the people too -- who wouldn't want to go to the job with higher wages? The blame, like the article says, rests completely on the people in charge, the top who dont want to lose their position, power, or money. I definitely agree with the author: bullshit jobs exist -Jim Tse.
AP Econ Pd.8 Chirag Soni I partially agree with both articles. In David Graeber’s article I do agree that there are useless jobs out there that probably can be automated; however these jobs are essential to the people of America. If we continue automating our jobs less people will be able to be employed leading into a higher rate of unemployment. It is very idealistic to say that the world’s pleasures will be of service to everyone else. I am pretty sure that if a large amount of the world’s population is given the chance to pursue their pleasure there would be a steadily rising crime rate. The article that the Economics released made more sense by bringing up points like why would an employer pay someone to do a useless job, it just doesn’t make sense. However; they also agreed with David Graeber to a certain extent by saying how the increase in automated jobs has increased the pay for other workers.
I think a key difference between the points of view expressed in these essays is that while Graeber says a rise in consumerism is the cause for the “bullshit” jobs that in turn cause a longer work week than Keynes expected, the response article posits the view that the increasing complexity of the economy and the decline of jobs that can be easily automated are to blame. Implicit is the claim that Keynes did not expect this complexity, and those with “bullshit” jobs are a necessary means of dealing with it. As for the view that jobs are increasingly meaningless as useful jobs are automated away, the response article suggests that the most efficient way for administrators to get things done is for them to allocate repetitive tasks requiring high specialization, analogous to the factory work of another era. This work (Graeber uses the example of human resources) may seem unimportant from the perspective of a worker, but from the perspective of the administrator, (who needs to hire workers to complete other seemingly menial tasks) it is essential. Another weakness of the first essay, in my opinion, is the position that factory jobs can be compared to others that have value to society. While it is true that factory workers on strike could have caused a middle class person to be unable to buy a product that the factory produces, the fact that factory workers were so quickly replaced with machines when that was technologically and financially viable shows that their jobs weren’t so important after all; what was more important was products were produced, not that the factory workers had anything to do with it, and I think this is a key difference that Graeber neglects.
Although David Graeber’s essay is amusing, I do not fully agree with him. Yes, our workforce is largely made up of “bullshit” jobs but that is the stage our economy has evolved to. With new technology replacing jobs once done by humans, we need to find new ones that would allow us to continue to make a living. As the Economist says our economy has grown increasingly complex and “bullshit” jobs such as administration and clerk work is needed to manage it’s complexity. These jobs expand into many areas because there is a demand for them, as there once was a demand for labor jobs, therefore they are not bullshit jobs. AB pd. 9
I do agree with David Graeber's idea that there are many "bullshit" jobs out there and that these jobs could be easily automated or are even just unnecessary. Graeber quoted John Maynard Keynes, who said that by the end of the 20th century, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour workweek. And I do think it is possible for people to not have to work more than 15 hours a week. But I completely understand why that is not the case for people nowadays. I think that people want to work more than 15 hours a week because they want to get paid for more than 15 hours of work. If on an hourly wage of even 25 dollars an hour, with a 15-hour workweek, a person would only make $375. And after expenses that person would have close to nothing left. In the article from “The Economist,” the author wrote, “The issue is that too little of the recent gains from technological advance and economic growth have gone toward giving people the time and resources to enjoy their lives outside work.” I also think that this is the main reason why people work so much. Even though we have the technology to allow people to enjoy their lives, our system doesn’t allow them to because money needs to be earned to support families. -Arjun L
After reading the essay, I cannot help but feel concerned for the current state of our society. One of the most significant points brought up by Graeber was that “the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.” At first, I did not agree with this. The first thing that popped into my mind when I read was doctors and how high their salaries were. However, after making note of that as an exception to the rule, I had trouble thinking of other jobs that also ruled out as exceptions. I eventually gave up on trying to find exceptions that were not there and agreed with that point. The majority of jobs that involve manual labor (construction workers, garbage men, police officers, etc.) do not pay that much, especially in comparison to other jobs that don’t benefit others nearly as much (lawyers, wall street brokers, etc.). However, once I read the response to that essay, my mindset changed a bit. The writer of the article brought up a good retort to the essay. He said that “most jobs in most periods have undoubtedly been staffed by people who would prefer to be doing something else.” This is undoubtedly true. There will always be people who are unhappy with their jobs, so the whole debate comes down to whether the jobs are actually “bullshit” or if workers are simply unhappy. -KH8
I find much of Graeber's article problematic. He fails to recognize many key points, leading to an incredibly biased, probably inaccurate conclusion. Firstly, many of the so-called "bullshit jobs" may actually be jobs people enjoy. And many of these jobs aren't as nonimportant as he says they are. People working in PR may enjoy their jobs. And I think many would find PR workers to be important in advertising and increasingly in social media. And as for those paper pushers? Their jobs allows the higher ups to increase their productivity, since they don't have to worry about doing that job. Besides, some of those paper pushers will likely end up rising up in the workplace, gaining a better position. Corporate lawyers may actually enjoy their jobs. Yes, perhaps they'd rather be musicians or artists or whatnot, but in our society, it's not economically viable unless you make it big. So maybe that artist/singer/etc fell back on another passion of his/hers, and that might lead to what Graeber considers a "bullshit job." Additionally, he mentions that firms don't want to keep people happy because happy people will rebel. But history and common sense would lead to a different conclusion. If people are happy, they will be content and okay with the situation. They won't have or feel a need to rise up and rebel. On the other hand, discontent people WILL. In addition, he fails to realize that while technology definitely does help increase productivity for many, this also leads to the demand for more because it's possible to do more. Those working in industrial jobs, such as factory workers, will likely have less to do and many will probably lose their jobs. Then they have no option but to go after those "bullshit jobs." The thing is, "bullshit jobs" are still better than no job at all, as hard as that may be to believe. And for people working in the service sector and/or white collar workers, technological advancements mean that people can work remotely and can do much more with their time. They're expected to do more because they have the ability, with the aid of technology, to do more. They are expected to work more to make up for all that technology can do. And so many work at home, on weekends, on vacation, and more; it's because you can. In the past, it was hard to work on something from home if it's at the office. Now, you can bring a laptop home or even use the internet or cloud sharing service. There's more possibility. Lastly, Graeber believes/assumes that we, as a whole, blame the worker rather than the employer who start or perpetuate the issue. While it may be true in some scenarios, such as a railroad strike, I think that even more so, people don't. People do blame the rich, powerful, and often corrupt. People tend to blame the system, not the victims of it. Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a good number of people out there that agree that teachers deserve more pay and respect. I think most people acknowledge the system in our society, which perpetuates the issue.
The Economist article, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, an example of a well-written argument/counter-argument. I agree with most, if not all, of his points. Yes, it's true. Most of the jobs lost weren't necessarily the best jobs--they were the often tedious, unpleasant ones. Machines can now do the jobs workers used to have to do, and so job growth has shifted to the service/administrative sector. And while Graeber's so-called "bullshit jobs" aren't always the most desirable, they're better than no job. The conditions are often still better than the jobs before. And he makes the good point that the real problem is that the technological advances haven't translated to more time and shorter work weeks/hours. The system is too complex, and we would have to change so much of it if we were to shorten work weeks. Jessica pd 9
I find it funny that counterproductive jobs make the most out of their time, but jobs like teaching and constriction barley make a comparison to a CEO. I think that the economy is intentionally built upon creating jobs that are not to be enjoyed, but to be arduous. If there were to be jobs that people might actually enjoy, and also make a decent pay out of, there would be a crisis who gets the job out of 10,000 applicants who want in on the action. I believe that this system was created as a way to keep those who want to get for "pleasure" and those who will put hours of work into something that is, in reality, meaningless to society. Those who work get paid, those who have "fun" suffer the consequences. paridhi vayda
Jobs in the future are something I think about a lot. Being employed isn't enough for me, I need to be happy with what I am doing and feel that what I am doing is important. So when I read the "Bullshit Jobs" article, I was scared. I don't like thinking that someday my job will be some bullshit assignment that is just there to fill up space. I agree a lot more with the David Graeber argument than the Economist one. I can see jobs becoming less and less important, and people just doing them because there is nothing else to do.
I was amazed right at the start when i heard that technically we could have a 15 hour work week if we wanted,as a result of advanced technology but instead opted fro more hours and more money. Typical. I also agree that the real bullshit jobs are the jobs that we have just to employ people and not the lesser paying jobs. For example the hand washer/ towel boy in the bathrooms are ridiculous. Another point was when the ex singer became a lawyer he felt his job was useless even though he probably is making more than he did before, because of the fact that he is one in a million lawyers that people probably don't need. The labor market is a complex place and the values we place on certain jobs are sometimes done without real appreciation and understanding of their value
I don't know if I agree with Graeber's idea that the majority of jobs in today's world are "bullshit jobs." Yes, labor has shifted from primary fields to secondary and tertiary fields, but that does not mean the jobs are useless. In fact, I think jobs have become more productive. We have improved efficiency by replacing human labor with machines. That way, the human labor can be used in other, more difficult areas. I do agree, however, that people dedicate too much unnecessary time to work. With the increase of wages and productivity, there should also be a decrease in work hours.
Anthropologist David Graeber brought up a few good points; however, I agree with the follow up more. Graeber didn't focus on what I thought were the important points: as the follow up said, ever since industrialization, there has always been many jobs considered to be useless, or to use Graeber's terminology, "bullshit." But what Greaber mentioned, but failed to investigate in more detail was why technology wasn't playing a role. The follow up article brought up the question, Why hasn't technology implemented itself in the workplace in the form of fewer hours?" I would have liked the original article to divulge into that more because it is curious. Eshawn Sharma per. 8
The part of both essays that stood out the most to me was the the ending of the Economist essay. It states that me chines will do the bs jobs without complaining and that is the biggest advantage and disadvantage of using a computer or machine to do the job for you. If its a machine they will keep doing it the same way and the process will never improve put i person will find ways to make it better or more efficient. This is why you need both machines and people to complete all jobs efficiently. Thomas F
Jugal Pd. 8 Before either of the articles mentioned it, the first question that popped into my mind was "Why would these businesses, which spend money on research with the intent to increase efficiency (decreasing costs in any way possible and increasing sales in any way possible) spend money on people that, according to Graeber, contribute nothing to their profit?" Graeber trys to explain this utterly illogical phenomenon by highlighting companies' perspective of "a happy and productive population with free time on their hands" as "a mortal danger." Although Graeber fails to convince me with his explanation of this point, I completely agree that there are many useless jobs that fail to be paid what they deserve; what they deserve being less than what they currently receive. I also agree with R.A.'s response that managerial jobs that require education and are not as easily filled as jobs which are less intensive intellectually (i.e. construction) deserve to be paid more than these jobs which have more candidates. I do not, however, agree with the fat bonuses that allow people who possess these managerial jobs to live with a standard of living much better than the workers in less intellectual occupations. So what other jobs am I talking about when I say they deserve to be paid much less? Professional athletes. Taking NBA Basketball as an example, I understand that people are simply willing to pay the exorbitant ticket prices allowing for billions of dollars to make up the NBA segment and that the primary reason the NBA exists is due to the skills of the players, but Lebron James should not be making $20,000,000 a year. Instead, it should be recognized that the entertainment provided by placing a ball in a hoop does not contribute to society as much as other occupations in which workers do not make as much. Ticket prices should be lowered so more people can make it out to the games, and sponsors should put a cap on just how much they are willing to spend on NBA advertising just so the industry doesn't become filled with so much money they don't know what to do with it. This went really off topic.
The first essay was pretty humorous because i agreed with a lot of it. There are many jobs out there that pay a lot despite the uselessness of the job. I found the second article to be interesting because it made a lot of really great points. Both sides made some really strong points.
I personally like this blog because it gives me a legitimate excuse to say bullshit on a homework assignment. Like the previous blog, this blog had quite bit to do with technological influence in industry. However, the views on how this new technology impacts industry, in both articles (one more than the other), is quit radical. In the article by Graeber, he says that the workforce, primarily in the industry countries, is composed of "bullshit jobs." These jobs include mainly administrative jobs. His argument is with out these jobs, there would be no dicernable difference in the world. However if there were to be a sudden decline in jobs concerning lets say anthropology, then the world would be flung into utter chaos. Opposing his views, an article form the economist takes a slightly less radical stance and basically say that what Graeber is saying is in fact bullshit in itself. The article says that the reason for all these administrative jobs is due to the increase of technology over the years. Technology in essence has taken over the more menial and tedious jobs. The global economy has also become extremely complex over the years. Because of this, specialized administration has been made to oversee particular parts of businesses to make sure they run smoothly. My take on this whole matter is that these jobs are kind os bullshit, but we need them. Whether these jobs are necessary or not, they still employ people. I think everyone would rather have a meaningless job than not. And I'm okay with having such a long workday. I constantly make the joke than after my dad retires, he's going be bored out of his mind because he's not going o have anything to do. In a way, this is true. My dad spend so much time at work. Thats practically all he does. He's at work probably more than he is home. I don't know what he'll do after he retires. My point is that such a long workday keeps you busy. Yes its nice to relax, but if you relax all the time, that becomes boring, and thus not so relaxing. Both articles give good point, but I wouldn't say I completely agree with either of them. I would say I am in the middle if anything. -Period 8 / TM
Sometimes, I've wondered who does some of those made up jobs like telemarketing, and more importantly, whether they actually wanted to be doing those jobs. I feel that many people come into their 14 hour job only to go home and complain about it, and as the fundamentals of economics states, hiring people who aren't the best and most motivated at what they do won't yield the greatest efficiency in the industry. That explains why most people have a 40% efficiency in the workplace. However, what to do- there's too many people with college degrees and not enough useful jobs to give them. Since laziness isn't the capitalist way, the only solution to this problem is to make up useless jobs for people to do. Also, in the initial article, the author stated that our jobs are catering to the top 1% of the nation that essentially controls what is important and what isn't in the world- which is why we have almost no songwriters but tons of lawyers. After reading that, I realized how true is was and how sad it was to. Everyone in school, despite their passion, wants to go into law or STEMs, but that's because (let's be honest)- we want a job. If our true passion is becoming a musician, well, what's the chances we will make money doing that? At least with doctors, there's a certain sense of security. And the fact that top 1% controls this makes them sound evil in a way, but then again, it's the top 1% that own all the leading industries in the US, so this would make perfect sense. However, the biggest realization that I've gotten from this article is that I may go into the workplace only to hate my job. Because so many people will be having the same major as I do, I will be forced to take some corporate job that's essentially useless, and hate it---and that's something I fear in the future. - Maisha Savani Pd.8
I was extremely surprised by David Graeber’s essay on bullshit jobs. He goes on in his essay to talk about meaningless or bullshit jobs that are created to satisfy the public and account for the jobs lost because of an increase in the capabilities of technology. He says these jobs are concentrated in professional, managerial, clerical, sales and service areas and that the population would be just fine without these jobs. I have to disagree with this main premise. To some extent, these jobs are necessary, even if they aren’t changing the world or directly helping the world’s population. These jobs help the growth of companies and corporations, companies that do end up supplying a product or service that changes the world. Like the article in the Economist stated, no company would like to employ workers that it doesn’t need. Given the opportunity to cut labor costs with minimal change to profit, every company would take up that chance. These jobs are kept because they bring some value to the company in some aspect, and therefore would not be bullshit. But Graeber goes on to say in his essay that technological advances should have reduced the work week to 3-4 days and that as a result people would have the time to pursue other interests that would impact the world if their job didn’t- such as tutoring children or helping a charity. But the fact of the matter is that with more time, for every person that does use his extra time to help the world in some facet, there are multiple people who would take that time to sleep or watch T.V. And so I find myself agreeing with the article in the Economist, that the issue is technological gains have not gone towards giving people free time instead of the fact that people used to have meaningful jobs and now they do not because of technology.
Having such advanced technological improvements makes the jobs of many more efficient although it takes away employment from others. I believe that we should be happy with the job we have and love it rather just be employed with some "bullshit job" that you don't even find beneficial. The Strike Magazine article talked about jobs in the Soviet Union where it took 3 clerks to sell a piece of meat. To me that is pointless to have sort of like an assembly line of people doing such a small task that one person is capable of. I disagree with this excerpt from the article that said that "a productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger" because it means that we are either too lazy to work or working just for the money. I believe this means that we don’t want anyone relying on others for money and living which means no leisure for all which is why we have pointless jobs. -Lauren Thomas per 6
I agree with the point on the first link that there are many "useless" jobs that do not contribute anything, and it is unjust for the people working in the useless jobs to be paid far more than the people who are working in jobs that are essential for humanity. Without the important jobs, humans would not be able to function, yet they are being payed less than the jobs that are not actually needed, and humanity could do away with without being harmed, or like the article says, "might markedly improve!" I also think that the author of the second link makes a compelling argument, as he shows that the people who work in useful jobs today are still earning more than the industrial laborers from the past, and their jobs are even easier than the industrial laborers who were useful as well, as they have technology that helps them tremendously, so their jobs are not nearly as tedious. - Karan L. Period 8
This topic is interesting to me because on one hand, we are drawn to the money and don't care if we just add to the system, but on the other hand, if we don't challenge these norms, then as a society, we will never progress. Why this is scary is that the people who create the jobs that have high salaries are just 1% of the population and they have no intentions of letting their cushy positions up. Personally, I like the useless jobs because I'm not very good at doing things that matter and I would be doing something useless anyways. Yay for that 1%!
I agree with the follow up economist point of view. There are jobs that seem to be tedious and unnecessary, but those jobs are created to satisfy our growth as a species. These so-called “bullshit” jobs make the economy more complex and diverse. If corporations didn’t invest their capital in “bullshit jobs” and just increased the workers wages the gap between the employed and unemployed would increase exponentially. Unemployment would reach startling heights in this Darwinistic economy. We are a species that have to ability to weigh out each option presented. If there were no “bullshit jobs” our options would decrease. Options are our bargaining tool against corporations. Corporations would set the laws and all of the work and progress Union groups put forth would be degraded to nothing. The jobs are ever so decreasing because technology has been advancing ever so tenaciously. Every job created was made for a certain purpose. The 24-hour a day pizza place made a midnight shift for delivery because enough people wan pizza at midnight. Soon there will be a machine that will deliver pizzas at any time and the need for another "bullshit job" has been created. There is a demand for that job. If there weren’t demand there wouldn’t be a job. -Per.9
While reading the essay by the anthropologist, I was convinced that he was right. Everything he was saying seemed to make sense. And the fact that I had this same thought a couple of weeks ago made his claim seem even more valid. I remember having a conversation with you about how technological advancement may take jobs away from an economy, so the idea of jobs being made for no good reason seems to make sense. But after reading the rebuttal in the second link, my opinion was changed. I realized that these jobs that may seem pointless serve a much greater purpose. It's just that our economy has come to the point where specialization is so high that people rarely ever notice their true function. This idea of a very specialized economy reminds me of a video I saw on Facebook about a man who grows cocoa beans for a living but has never had chocolate in his life. It's so common for people to lose sight of what role they're playing in an economy that people often mistake their jobs as useless. But putting the idea of useless jobs aside, I want to comment on something else in these two articles: the idea of technological innovation. The line in the second link where the author, just for a second, entertains the idea of computers becoming complex enough to do administrative jobs scares me and excites me. I love the idea of technology advancing, but what purpose do we serve if computers do everything? This is something I'm anxious to be able to hopefully answer one day when I'm older. B.T Period 8
I agree with the follow up for The Economist Article that nothing is easy in life, and hard work and determination is what gets us to the top.. The essay by David Graeber saying its the human evolution that creates the demand of new jobs and thus the supply also brings up a good point. Technology inarguably has made our lives easier, and as a result totally revolutionized the world. At the same time it has created new jobs, new ways of doing business and new competitions. There, in my opinion, is no such thing as a "BS" job, because that job even if the world can live without it, provided money and opportunity to people working it. It allows people to be able to provide for themselves and their families as well ass stimulate the economy. Many are getting paid and making a living out of these jobs. t. So i disagree with Mr. Graeber that we don't need these "BS" jobs and agree with the follow up from the Economist. - Yash Shah period 8
I think this essays point of view was very strange. It is a very thought provoking idea that so many normal jobs in our society can be deemed as not needed. I do agree that there are a few jobs that would barely be noticed if they were to cease to exist, but I also feel that David Graeber is not in any position to compensate for so many useless jobs. What I mean by this is that I don’t think the way he was oversimplifying what some jobs entail was fair, as I don’t think he truly knows all the work behind some of these jobs. I really liked the article that almost mocked Graeber’s argument because I feel like there were a lot of loose ends presented that needed a little poking at. I also liked how even though the second article went against much of the first it did address potential for some of the things Graeber argued. For example, there was some agreement on the topic of industrial jobs being more mechanical and less of a need for human work in these fields. Overall, it was hard to try to agree with Graeber when I found him so unqualified to be saying the things he was. -Tara O'Shea
honestly i agree with David Graeber that yes these are bullshit jobs like dog washer and stuff like this but i think that it is important and essential to have these jobs because it give people that have a lower education a chance to make money but, like the economist says technology is increasing and this is detrimental to people who don't have a high education because technology is replacing them and in the end if this process keeps going it will lead to a higher unemployment rate. maybe i got this all wrong but, i feel like if i had a business i would rather have human beings than technology to work with the equipment because i imagine that they would know more and i would just have more trust in them overall and plus it means that not many people would be unemployed which in my eyes is a semi good thing...
ReplyDeleteAM period 6
I agree with the follow up for The Economist Article that complexity is what makes us rich. Nothing in this world is easy and free, earning millions of dollars or even billions takes a whole lot of work and complex thinking. The essay by David Graeber does have a point but at the same time, its the human evolution that creates the demand of new jobs and thus the supply. Technology has made our lives easier, totally revolutionized the world but at the same time it has created new jobs, new competitions and new ways of doing business. There cant be a bs job because then one would be earning no or bs money and that isnt the case. Many are getting paid and making a living out of these bs jobs. these jobs cater to human needs and money rules the world so these jobs are needed to have a living and to be comfortable in life. So i disagree with Mr. Graeber and agree with the follow up from the Economist.
ReplyDelete- N.G. period 9
I think the point of this essay is that the power goes to the people with all the money. This is a sad thought, because all the innovation outside the rich's mindset would evaporate from lack of financial support.
ReplyDeleteI felt that these two articles were very interesting even though they were somewhat biased on both accounts. In the first article, I agreed with the fact that real, productive workers are grossly underpaid and they are somewhat exploited for their physical labor. This is shown by the larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed that make them a part of the ruling class. This according to the author is the only reason why we have not followed the path John Keynes predicted. However, in the second article, the other author believes that the complexity of the structure of the work force is what has made the country rich. He also goes on to say that the reason the workers who have time-consuming and strenuous labor jobs are not being that well compensated possibly because they are. The only difference is now our definition of hard work has changed; we thought that the definition meant that it was actual physical work but nowadays it stretches to manual and office work. Overall, I would say that I agree with the first article more because it actually shows how the easier, less strenuous jobs are receiving better paychecks at the end of the month compared to the harder, back-breaking jobs which clearly deserves a better paycheck because more effort is being exerted.
ReplyDelete-Maresa M. Period 8.
I thought the first article was both an interesting and highly opinionated take on the job market. There were comments I both agreed with and disagreed with. I supported the authors claim that there are certain jobs that are unnecessary, and this in turn has a negative impact on our society. For example, I agreed with the authors fish frying example, which to me represented how people won't put in all of their time and efforts to do jobs they have no true passion for. This has potential to result in a dangerously stagnant world that does not move forward in a perpetually competitive world . I also agree with the authors claim that workers in certain fields contribute more than others do to, and for this, these individuals should be compensated more fairly than they currently are. However, I felt that the author was too narrow minded in his definition of what constitutes as an important job and what does not. He specifically said that jobs in the industry and farm sector were of greater significance than jobs in "professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service" areas. I think there are several jobs in which people from the evidently "insignificant" areas do contribute greatly. When the author made slightly parochial comments like this, I felt that he appeared to take an overly biased take on this matter, thereby decreasing the credibility of his argument.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the second article accurately stated that the seemingly meaningless jobs are actually necessary to help the complicated whole function efficiently (the author referred to this as specialization). In that sense, the hidden premise of this article is that the more complex our society is, the better it will function. I both agree and disagree with this. On one hand, we must not fall behind in a competitive yet interconnected market: we need meaningless jobs because other countries have them too. But, in the other hand, I wonder if we actually need them to be self-sufficient.Shweta Lodha
I think that nowadays we deem jobs and professions that may not necessarily be more important than others, but may require more work to get there in terms of education level and experience, as more valuable. I feel like we use higher salaries for these jobs as a form of self-motivation, to make up for and congratulate ourselves on the difficult journey we endured to be where we are. I agree with the article from "The Economist" that even though we might not always see the point of something, it could still be an important piece to the puzzle. Sometimes we have to look at the big picture to appreciate every small component that makes it up. It's like, even with a million-piece jigsaw puzzle, it still wouldn't be as beautiful or complete if it was missing one piece. Even if it were to be proven that some jobs are in fact meaningless, there will never be enough crucial or necessary jobs available to keep the entire general population employed, and the only think worse than a lump of untapped potential is a lump that sits there and serves no function at all.
ReplyDelete- VL Period 8
In my opinion, I feel that the author of "Bullshit Jobs" has a good grasp on the economy of our contemporary world. There are various jobs with meaningless value yet our economy still provides opportunities for these jobs. I think that by allowing a supply for these types of jobs, the people with these jobs are taking away opportunities for others who actually contribute to the world. Even with the technological capabilities we have today, we are still offering meaningless jobs when they could be simply executed by machines. I also believe that the second author's notion is a reasonable solution as it would emphasize more specialization which could benefit the economy as a whole.
ReplyDelete-Kevin Chao Period 8
Zeeshan Anwar – Period 8
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, both David Graeber’s essay “On The Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs” and the follow-up “Labour markets: On ‘bullshit jobs’” offered compelling arguments and claims. Without a doubt, I was surprised by Keynes’ prediction that by the end of the 20th century, the advancement of technology would allow for a 15-hour workweek; the fact that we are indeed capable of doing so in this day and age is even more shocking, especially because such a scenario seems infeasible at first glance. However, after further examination, I agree that our modern economy involves lots of people doing meaningless tasks they do not enjoy. Most importantly, I agree with Graeber’s point that the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it. I sincerely believe that without nurses, garbage collectors, mechanics, teachers, and dockworkers, our world would, by no means, function efficiently. In other words, CEOs, PR researchers, and telemarketers are not nearly as essential to the maintenance of our society. An exception to this rule is in the field in medicine; they meaningfully contribute to the human condition, while simultaneously earning a significant salary. At the same time, the writer of the follow-up made a valid counterargument; it is only possible to manage such a complex economy by breaking businesses up into different kinds of tasks, allowing for a very high level of specialization. Craftsman managers or generalists are impractically and economically unworkable. All in all, the controversy is a very gray matter that has numerous viewpoints.
In the Economist I understand why the author would question the other article. I do agree when he says that it just doesn't make scene for big corporations to hire people for no reason. Big businesses hire those people in order to make a bigger profit. But then why do we need three people to sell a package of meat in Russia? I mainly would argue that America does have bullshit jobs. He makes a very good point that in a capitalism world it is not ideal to be creating jobs that we don't really need. I think it also reflects on us as a society do we value the job or do we value the meanings and reputation behind the job that shows us to be a working and innovating country? What also pulls me toward this argument is the fact that jobs such as poets and musicians; who contribute to society much more than corporate firm lawyers are not being represented as they should. I do believe that there is this invisible upper hand putting a value on every job and if your job does not fit in with what they see as great; those people get little to nothing for their contributions. But then I go back and agree with the other article where he points out the innovation of technology. Technology over the years has become so highly advanced you have to replace jobs taken over by the machine for those workers who were once seen very valuable to the workforce. So in that respect no job is useless. You don’t want to get rid of an employee who has extreme talent and replace him with a machine. So you create another job for him where he could put his talents elsewhere and contribute back to society.
ReplyDeleteSRB PERIOD 6
As time passes, technology inevitably improves and advances to a point that it could replace humans in their area of work. This, in turn, has caused disemployment and even employment in jobs that may be useless or 'bullshit' to the employees. However, the article by The Economist reacting to the On the Phenomenon on Bullshit Jobs essay reveals a fatal flaw in Graeber's argument. Technology also introduces an element of complexity that requires the employment of people on many different levels of work, that might be considered trivial to some but is nevertheless necessary. For example, Graeber believes that a manager is a bullshit job but according to The Economist, it is essential to control the other levels of work that technology has complicated.
ReplyDeleteAB
Robert Lis- Pd9
ReplyDeleteDavid Graeber discusses his views on the phenomenon of "Bullshit jobs" and argues that there are pointless jobs out there that should not exist, especially since they do not benefit anyone. He also said that technology should be helping people to work less hours, although it has done the opposite in reality. I believe that there is no such thing as a "bullshit job" because everyone is needed to contribute to our society no matter how small the task may be. It is true that some people have jobs that are much harder physically, but other jobs are harder mentally and that is how it evens out. People are needed to fill in all of these jobs so that our society can function properly. Even though one job in particular may not contribute much, it does nourish our economy.
The article following up Graebers opinion on "bullshit jobs" countered much of what he said. I agree that technology did not lower the working time for humans although it did simplify the work process. Technology, and even robots in the future, will eventually replace humans in certain jobs, but not all. Humans will always be needed for some jobs in particular and will never be replaced. I agree that robots will not complain about the "bullshit of work" and therefore may replace humans.
no matter the jobs are meaningless or what, they get paid. stop complaining about your contribution to the world, you cannot change anything in the world. get the money and go. they are still a lot of people unemployed, they want to get paid so badly. life is just earning money and spending the money. dont complain about the job because luckily you have a job.
ReplyDeleteper 9
yan
The essay was interesting because he talks about how he thought technology would cut down peoples hours but it has added more. He says that people are working more in "services" to make someone else happy instead of themselves. He suggests that people should work on things that would make them happy not others. The article plays upon the essay, it discusses how robots and technology are in fact cutting down our hours. We have less work to do because of it and he thinks that maybe one day robots will steal our jobs.
ReplyDelete-VG Prd. 6
According to John Maynard Keynes, technology was supposed to lead to a decrease in the amount of work people have to do. But instead, it has done the opposite: countless jobs have been created that are predominantly pointless. Jobs like financial services, telemarketing, and public relations- all jobs that we once made do without – only created to keep everyone in our society working. I agree that this concept is discrediting the USA’s loyalty to a capitalistic job market and I also think that it is shameful that we find it unacceptable to not be working every day of our lives. With competition becoming a large factor in everything we do, it’s hard to NOT feel obligated to be working all the time. The reaction written by The Economist addresses a valid point. I completely agree with David Graeber’s claims that the job market is creating a more competitive and mechanical society that does not value enjoyment in career but I think that soon enough, the demand for human labor will greatly decrease due to the emergence of new machines and robots. (Ariana Stefanidis)
ReplyDeleteWow. The notion of "bullshit jobs" suggested by David Graeber is EXACTLY what I've thought about jobs for a very long time. Just like Graeber, I thought that there are hordes of useless jobs. For instance, I visited a samsung electronics mall in the city and there were employees, in spiffy-looking uniforms, guarding the entrance. Or so I thought. In fact, their job was to greet people that came in and left. That was their job. To greet people. I honestly can't think of any job that's more bullshit than that. Is this what our society has come to? If technology has improved so much and reduced human labor so much, shouldn't there be less jobs?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the article on the Economist, I'll have to disagree with the article. The author of this article blatantly assumes that complexity = better. Our society and economy has clearly gotten a lot more complex than the 20th century, yet is it truly better when it doesn't improve our lives? Telemarketers, for example, are yet another part of our economy that Graeber would regard to be "bullshit", but a factor that makes our economy more complex. But telemarketers haven't improved our lives, so it can't be assumed to be better.
Ben Jung period 9
R.L. Per. 8
ReplyDeleteThe cabinet and the fish analogy really helped me comprehend the consequences of employing people for these made-up jobs just to keep them busy. I agree that a person who is skilled in making cabinets should not be encouraged to fry fish when it is not even remotely as necessary as making cabinets. The outcome is clearly poor, and you end up with bunch of badly cooked fish. I certainly see no point in this because it’s not benefitting anyone. However, at the same time, I also agree with the other argument where its main point is that people have no right to declare that one job is more important than the other. A successful musician who has influenced a wide variety of people all over the world might claim that his job is pointless and insignificant; in my opinion, the importance of a job comes from your own personal opinions and experiences. However, the author of this article manages to formulate an objective measure for this claim by saying he’s not sure how the humanity would suffer were all private CEOs, lobbyists, telemarketers vanish in comparison to how the humanity would suffer were all nurses, garbage collectors, mechanics similarly vanish. After reading the response article on The Economist, I understand the author’s point of view as well. Clearly, the advanced technology cannot replace every job out there since there are still many jobs that need “high level of physical dexterity and task flexibility.” He argues that most jobs in most periods have undoubtedly been staffed by people who would prefer to be doing something else; it’s just that people are complaining that they are not getting enough free time outside of work. After reading both of these articles, I have mixed feelings as to where I stand on this idea of “made-up” jobs, but I certainly believe that if you strongly believe that your job is important, then it probably is important.
Won Park period 9
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting how Graeber thinks that the top 1% knows they are paying these people for "bullshit" jobs. But the economist makes a good point. Technology has not helped people have more free time. It has actually made more busy work for companies and corporations. Maybe the work is useless but it must be done. That is why the pay of these workers have increased in correlation with the tedious work they do. To be efficient companies must break up the work. That is why many workers may think their jobs are useless. When doing repetitive work you only see a part of the process. Everything comes together for the end result.
I find it to be a satire on the labor market since it pokes fun at certain jobs and even goes as far as to use somewhat strong language to describe how they stand in the labor market. The response is also interesting, since it analyzes it in an appropriate manner.
ReplyDeleteI found both articles quite intriguing. According to the essay, "Bullshit jobs," I noticed that people are willing to sacrifice their Heath and the opportunity to work less hours, to have "more toys and pleasures." I've noticed that in the lives of people I know who work. The essay also says that because of these unnecessary jobs, people who actually work hard and maintain their lives, are being laid off. Also, the essay picked on fact that the 1% of America controls the market so they decide which jobs are necessary and which aren't. The article in the Economist, explained the reason for all this was because as technology improves, it becomes easier to dispense human labour. But I would also like to see the answer to the question, "why aren't workers rewarded with high wages for their suffering?" I believe lots of working people would also want to know the answer and see the solution to that question.
ReplyDelete- Lydia G
This article is humorous however the author gets his true purpose across. I have to agree that there are some jobs that are unnecessary and truly have no purpose however these jobs are what keeps our economy flowing and surging. Unemployment has been an issue since the most recent recession and the need for as many jobs as we can get has created the need for more and more of these so called "Unnecessary" jobs. Stephen F.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Chen - Period 9
ReplyDeleteI really like this essay and the follow up article. I sympathize a lot with David Graeber's statements on how, as controversial as it sounds, some jobs aren't really necessary in our society. I've always thought that if we were to remove some more unimportant or adverse jobs from our society, such as telemarketers or lawyers, we could instead devote more resources to what he calls "service" jobs, allowing everyone to work less hours than we do now. With more resources put into things like making food and improving medicine, we could prevent starvation and disease and advance technology at a faster rate.
In response to On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber I believe that it is true that in society we are forced sometimes to have careers we are not passionate about; this either happens because there is no demand in the labor market for our particular passion or because our passion does not receive a sustainable salary. Also, it is true that there are people who are paid to do nothing and people who are unemployed, which is not fair at all. But, I do not understand how we should be working 3 to 4 hour days in the author’s opinion. If we only worked 3 to 4 hour days we would not be receiving enough money to meet our needs and wants. Also, I think it is unfair of the author to say that certain jobs are bullshit jobs because they actually do contribute to society; for example, businesses wouldn’t be able to run without a human services department to deal with employee problems. On the other hand, The Economist is more logical. It does not make sense for our labor market to have unimportant jobs because why would the rich want to give away their money for no reason. Also, it is true that technology has advanced to make jobs simpler, but that does not mean administrative jobs and other jobs are meaningless. This article makes a good point that the job market has evolved and has become more complex; therefore we need these specialized administrative and other jobs. The Economist made a strong rebuttal against Graeber and makes him look so stupid!
ReplyDeleteLauren S. Period 6
There is a movement towards full automation as computing technology becomes more powerful and ubiquitous that looks poised to topple the current economic system. As noted, many jobs as "bullshit" and seemingly pointless administrative jobs and many are replaceable, in theory, through further refinement of automation. Should that happen, however, large swaths of jobs would disappear from many areas of the income spectrum and likely jack up unemployment rates. Perhaps one day, not everybody has to be working and actively providing to society. A post-scarcity society wrought through complete automation of menial tasks would require a massive shift in mentality given the current view that those who don't work are dead weight to society and deserve nothing.
ReplyDeleteJW Per. 9
AHirani Prd. 9
ReplyDeleteThis situation is a tricky one to form an opinion on. If you feel that the jobs should be eliminated, we're stuck with the problem of how to give people jobs, but if we keep the useless ones, then we wonder why we aren't progressing to the standards that we want to be at. I'm just as torn on the subject as anyone else would, to be honest. I do, however, feel that we should do something to solve this problem. I would consider the possibility to try and eliminate the jobs that can be replaced by technology for a certain area to see the trends of what the jobless people would do, as unethical as it appears to be. If we see some light through this idea, then maybe we can get somewhere towards the standards that we want in terms of technological advancements without having a price to pay for the people that need to find new, needed jobs.
I agree with the general premise of the first article. Menial jobs are beginning to be performed through the use of machines, relieving people of this tedious duty. However, as time passes and the recession progressively worsens, many Americans are in a struggle for jobs. Unemployment has been increasing, demonstrating the need for new jobs. I think this is the reason new jobs are being created, even though they may not be extraordinarily substantive. So I do disagree with John Riordan when he claims that the creation of new jobs is just an administrative ploy to busy the people. As David Graeber claims, I don’t think the protests and riots in various countries are a result of workers being “too happy.” Every American needs to be able to support either themselves or loved ones, which is why they need a sustainable job regardless of the fact that they might be “BS”
ReplyDelete-TB Period 9 AP Economics
After both the essay and the Economist, I thought that it was very interesting to see other perspectives on the current economic situation. There are jobs out there that are not in demand and is of no use. One of the reasons why I enjoyed reading this essay is because of the way that it was written and because of its truancy. The essay was not only amusing but also true. For example Graeber stated “Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments, I came up with one possible vision of hell. Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinet-makers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Neither does the task really need to be done – at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow, they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets, and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities, that before long there’s endless piles of useless badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop and it’s all anyone really does.” I think that this “fried fish” analogy is a perfect representation of the current state of our economy. Everyone is has gone countless years of schooling, drowned themselves in student debt just to be doing a job that doesn’t require much skill and it pointless.
ReplyDeleteMelinda Ramroop
Period 6
Economics
Shivani Sharma pd 9
ReplyDeleteBoth articles bring up interesting points, having different opinions. "The Phenomenon of Bullshit" article claims that our capital society has been able to shell out a significant amount of money for pointless jobs. I do believe there are such things as pointless jobs that shadow domestic servants, in industry, and the farming sector. These important jobs would greatly affect society if they were to go away. I feel like the hardest part of job distinction is not what people are doing, it's about how meaningful their jobs are. The sad part is, is what the rest of society will give credit to that is what people gravitate to. And since the supply and demand of high held jobs cannot be given to everybody, that is where these pointless fill in jobs come in. It's a difficult problem to figure out, but self awareness of the significance of one's job would be a good start. In the Economist article, a problem is brought up about technology and it's role in employment. The benefit of technology is it's ability to increase productivity, but it leaves some people jobless. Also it's interesting to hear that some clerical workers aren't satisfied with the amount they are paid, even those it has increased over the years. They are unsatisfied because they are compared to the administrative jobs that seem to do less than the clerical workers do, and seem to get paid more. It is this job gap that confuses people and the redistribution of money and power that needs to be reconsidered.
Do bullshit jobs exist? Sometimes, I cant but help agree with the author here -- there are some jobs that have no meaning whatsoever yet give out so much money that it blows my mind. I am a big supporter of practicality; a person's worth should be proportional to his own wage. That is why I want to be an engineer; as an engineer, I can use my own knowledge and make my own worth through my work in benefiting society. Yet, in society, the people that have the meaningless jobs end up with the most money, and the people with an actual jobs get lower wages. I cannot blame the people too -- who wouldn't want to go to the job with higher wages? The blame, like the article says, rests completely on the people in charge, the top who dont want to lose their position, power, or money. I definitely agree with the author: bullshit jobs exist
ReplyDelete-Jim Tse.
ReplyDeleteAP Econ Pd.8 Chirag Soni
I partially agree with both articles. In David Graeber’s article I do agree that there are useless jobs out there that probably can be automated; however these jobs are essential to the people of America. If we continue automating our jobs less people will be able to be employed leading into a higher rate of unemployment. It is very idealistic to say that the world’s pleasures will be of service to everyone else. I am pretty sure that if a large amount of the world’s population is given the chance to pursue their pleasure there would be a steadily rising crime rate. The article that the Economics released made more sense by bringing up points like why would an employer pay someone to do a useless job, it just doesn’t make sense. However; they also agreed with David Graeber to a certain extent by saying how the increase in automated jobs has increased the pay for other workers.
I think a key difference between the points of view expressed in these essays is that while Graeber says a rise in consumerism is the cause for the “bullshit” jobs that in turn cause a longer work week than Keynes expected, the response article posits the view that the increasing complexity of the economy and the decline of jobs that can be easily automated are to blame. Implicit is the claim that Keynes did not expect this complexity, and those with “bullshit” jobs are a necessary means of dealing with it. As for the view that jobs are increasingly meaningless as useful jobs are automated away, the response article suggests that the most efficient way for administrators to get things done is for them to allocate repetitive tasks requiring high specialization, analogous to the factory work of another era. This work (Graeber uses the example of human resources) may seem unimportant from the perspective of a worker, but from the perspective of the administrator, (who needs to hire workers to complete other seemingly menial tasks) it is essential. Another weakness of the first essay, in my opinion, is the position that factory jobs can be compared to others that have value to society. While it is true that factory workers on strike could have caused a middle class person to be unable to buy a product that the factory produces, the fact that factory workers were so quickly replaced with machines when that was technologically and financially viable shows that their jobs weren’t so important after all; what was more important was products were produced, not that the factory workers had anything to do with it, and I think this is a key difference that Graeber neglects.
ReplyDeleteKaran Singhal
AP Econ Pd. 9
Although David Graeber’s essay is amusing, I do not fully agree with him. Yes, our workforce is largely made up of “bullshit” jobs but that is the stage our economy has evolved to. With new technology replacing jobs once done by humans, we need to find new ones that would allow us to continue to make a living. As the Economist says our economy has grown increasingly complex and “bullshit” jobs such as administration and clerk work is needed to manage it’s complexity. These jobs expand into many areas because there is a demand for them, as there once was a demand for labor jobs, therefore they are not bullshit jobs.
ReplyDeleteAB pd. 9
I do agree with David Graeber's idea that there are many "bullshit" jobs out there and that these jobs could be easily automated or are even just unnecessary. Graeber quoted John Maynard Keynes, who said that by the end of the 20th century, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour workweek. And I do think it is possible for people to not have to work more than 15 hours a week. But I completely understand why that is not the case for people nowadays. I think that people want to work more than 15 hours a week because they want to get paid for more than 15 hours of work. If on an hourly wage of even 25 dollars an hour, with a 15-hour workweek, a person would only make $375. And after expenses that person would have close to nothing left. In the article from “The Economist,” the author wrote, “The issue is that too little of the recent gains from technological advance and economic growth have gone toward giving people the time and resources to enjoy their lives outside work.” I also think that this is the main reason why people work so much. Even though we have the technology to allow people to enjoy their lives, our system doesn’t allow them to because money needs to be earned to support families.
ReplyDelete-Arjun L
After reading the essay, I cannot help but feel concerned for the current state of our society. One of the most significant points brought up by Graeber was that “the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.” At first, I did not agree with this. The first thing that popped into my mind when I read was doctors and how high their salaries were. However, after making note of that as an exception to the rule, I had trouble thinking of other jobs that also ruled out as exceptions. I eventually gave up on trying to find exceptions that were not there and agreed with that point. The majority of jobs that involve manual labor (construction workers, garbage men, police officers, etc.) do not pay that much, especially in comparison to other jobs that don’t benefit others nearly as much (lawyers, wall street brokers, etc.). However, once I read the response to that essay, my mindset changed a bit. The writer of the article brought up a good retort to the essay. He said that “most jobs in most periods have undoubtedly been staffed by people who would prefer to be doing something else.” This is undoubtedly true. There will always be people who are unhappy with their jobs, so the whole debate comes down to whether the jobs are actually “bullshit” or if workers are simply unhappy.
ReplyDelete-KH8
I find much of Graeber's article problematic. He fails to recognize many key points, leading to an incredibly biased, probably inaccurate conclusion. Firstly, many of the so-called "bullshit jobs" may actually be jobs people enjoy. And many of these jobs aren't as nonimportant as he says they are. People working in PR may enjoy their jobs. And I think many would find PR workers to be important in advertising and increasingly in social media. And as for those paper pushers? Their jobs allows the higher ups to increase their productivity, since they don't have to worry about doing that job. Besides, some of those paper pushers will likely end up rising up in the workplace, gaining a better position. Corporate lawyers may actually enjoy their jobs. Yes, perhaps they'd rather be musicians or artists or whatnot, but in our society, it's not economically viable unless you make it big. So maybe that artist/singer/etc fell back on another passion of his/hers, and that might lead to what Graeber considers a "bullshit job." Additionally, he mentions that firms don't want to keep people happy because happy people will rebel. But history and common sense would lead to a different conclusion. If people are happy, they will be content and okay with the situation. They won't have or feel a need to rise up and rebel. On the other hand, discontent people WILL. In addition, he fails to realize that while technology definitely does help increase productivity for many, this also leads to the demand for more because it's possible to do more. Those working in industrial jobs, such as factory workers, will likely have less to do and many will probably lose their jobs. Then they have no option but to go after those "bullshit jobs." The thing is, "bullshit jobs" are still better than no job at all, as hard as that may be to believe. And for people working in the service sector and/or white collar workers, technological advancements mean that people can work remotely and can do much more with their time. They're expected to do more because they have the ability, with the aid of technology, to do more. They are expected to work more to make up for all that technology can do. And so many work at home, on weekends, on vacation, and more; it's because you can. In the past, it was hard to work on something from home if it's at the office. Now, you can bring a laptop home or even use the internet or cloud sharing service. There's more possibility. Lastly, Graeber believes/assumes that we, as a whole, blame the worker rather than the employer who start or perpetuate the issue. While it may be true in some scenarios, such as a railroad strike, I think that even more so, people don't. People do blame the rich, powerful, and often corrupt. People tend to blame the system, not the victims of it. Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a good number of people out there that agree that teachers deserve more pay and respect. I think most people acknowledge the system in our society, which perpetuates the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist article, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, an example of a well-written argument/counter-argument. I agree with most, if not all, of his points. Yes, it's true. Most of the jobs lost weren't necessarily the best jobs--they were the often tedious, unpleasant ones. Machines can now do the jobs workers used to have to do, and so job growth has shifted to the service/administrative sector. And while Graeber's so-called "bullshit jobs" aren't always the most desirable, they're better than no job. The conditions are often still better than the jobs before. And he makes the good point that the real problem is that the technological advances haven't translated to more time and shorter work weeks/hours. The system is too complex, and we would have to change so much of it if we were to shorten work weeks.
Jessica pd 9
I find it funny that counterproductive jobs make the most out of their time, but jobs like teaching and constriction barley make a comparison to a CEO. I think that the economy is intentionally built upon creating jobs that are not to be enjoyed, but to be arduous. If there were to be jobs that people might actually enjoy, and also make a decent pay out of, there would be a crisis who gets the job out of 10,000 applicants who want in on the action. I believe that this system was created as a way to keep those who want to get for "pleasure" and those who will put hours of work into something that is, in reality, meaningless to society. Those who work get paid, those who have "fun" suffer the consequences. paridhi vayda
ReplyDeleteJobs in the future are something I think about a lot. Being employed isn't enough for me, I need to be happy with what I am doing and feel that what I am doing is important. So when I read the "Bullshit Jobs" article, I was scared. I don't like thinking that someday my job will be some bullshit assignment that is just there to fill up space. I agree a lot more with the David Graeber argument than the Economist one. I can see jobs becoming less and less important, and people just doing them because there is nothing else to do.
ReplyDeleteI was amazed right at the start when i heard that technically we could have a 15 hour work week if we wanted,as a result of advanced technology but instead opted fro more hours and more money. Typical. I also agree that the real bullshit jobs are the jobs that we have just to employ people and not the lesser paying jobs. For example the hand washer/ towel boy in the bathrooms are ridiculous. Another point was when the ex singer became a lawyer he felt his job was useless even though he probably is making more than he did before, because of the fact that he is one in a million lawyers that people probably don't need. The labor market is a complex place and the values we place on certain jobs are sometimes done without real appreciation and understanding of their value
ReplyDelete-KJ PD 8
I don't know if I agree with Graeber's idea that the majority of jobs in today's world are "bullshit jobs." Yes, labor has shifted from primary fields to secondary and tertiary fields, but that does not mean the jobs are useless. In fact, I think jobs have become more productive. We have improved efficiency by replacing human labor with machines. That way, the human labor can be used in other, more difficult areas. I do agree, however, that people dedicate too much unnecessary time to work. With the increase of wages and productivity, there should also be a decrease in work hours.
ReplyDeleteAnthropologist David Graeber brought up a few good points; however, I agree with the follow up more. Graeber didn't focus on what I thought were the important points: as the follow up said, ever since industrialization, there has always been many jobs considered to be useless, or to use Graeber's terminology, "bullshit." But what Greaber mentioned, but failed to investigate in more detail was why technology wasn't playing a role. The follow up article brought up the question, Why hasn't technology implemented itself in the workplace in the form of fewer hours?" I would have liked the original article to divulge into that more because it is curious.
ReplyDeleteEshawn Sharma per. 8
The part of both essays that stood out the most to me was the the ending of the Economist essay. It states that me chines will do the bs jobs without complaining and that is the biggest advantage and disadvantage of using a computer or machine to do the job for you. If its a machine they will keep doing it the same way and the process will never improve put i person will find ways to make it better or more efficient. This is why you need both machines and people to complete all jobs efficiently.
ReplyDeleteThomas F
Jugal Pd. 8
ReplyDeleteBefore either of the articles mentioned it, the first question that popped into my mind was "Why would these businesses, which spend money on research with the intent to increase efficiency (decreasing costs in any way possible and increasing sales in any way possible) spend money on people that, according to Graeber, contribute nothing to their profit?" Graeber trys to explain this utterly illogical phenomenon by highlighting companies' perspective of "a happy and productive population with free time on their hands" as "a mortal danger." Although Graeber fails to convince me with his explanation of this point, I completely agree that there are many useless jobs that fail to be paid what they deserve; what they deserve being less than what they currently receive. I also agree with R.A.'s response that managerial jobs that require education and are not as easily filled as jobs which are less intensive intellectually (i.e. construction) deserve to be paid more than these jobs which have more candidates. I do not, however, agree with the fat bonuses that allow people who possess these managerial jobs to live with a standard of living much better than the workers in less intellectual occupations. So what other jobs am I talking about when I say they deserve to be paid much less? Professional athletes. Taking NBA Basketball as an example, I understand that people are simply willing to pay the exorbitant ticket prices allowing for billions of dollars to make up the NBA segment and that the primary reason the NBA exists is due to the skills of the players, but Lebron James should not be making $20,000,000 a year. Instead, it should be recognized that the entertainment provided by placing a ball in a hoop does not contribute to society as much as other occupations in which workers do not make as much. Ticket prices should be lowered so more people can make it out to the games, and sponsors should put a cap on just how much they are willing to spend on NBA advertising just so the industry doesn't become filled with so much money they don't know what to do with it. This went really off topic.
The first essay was pretty humorous because i agreed with a lot of it. There are many jobs out there that pay a lot despite the uselessness of the job. I found the second article to be interesting because it made a lot of really great points. Both sides made some really strong points.
ReplyDeleteKK period 8
I personally like this blog because it gives me a legitimate excuse to say bullshit on a homework assignment. Like the previous blog, this blog had quite bit to do with technological influence in industry. However, the views on how this new technology impacts industry, in both articles (one more than the other), is quit radical. In the article by Graeber, he says that the workforce, primarily in the industry countries, is composed of "bullshit jobs." These jobs include mainly administrative jobs. His argument is with out these jobs, there would be no dicernable difference in the world. However if there were to be a sudden decline in jobs concerning lets say anthropology, then the world would be flung into utter chaos. Opposing his views, an article form the economist takes a slightly less radical stance and basically say that what Graeber is saying is in fact bullshit in itself. The article says that the reason for all these administrative jobs is due to the increase of technology over the years. Technology in essence has taken over the more menial and tedious jobs. The global economy has also become extremely complex over the years. Because of this, specialized administration has been made to oversee particular parts of businesses to make sure they run smoothly. My take on this whole matter is that these jobs are kind os bullshit, but we need them. Whether these jobs are necessary or not, they still employ people. I think everyone would rather have a meaningless job than not. And I'm okay with having such a long workday. I constantly make the joke than after my dad retires, he's going be bored out of his mind because he's not going o have anything to do. In a way, this is true. My dad spend so much time at work. Thats practically all he does. He's at work probably more than he is home. I don't know what he'll do after he retires. My point is that such a long workday keeps you busy. Yes its nice to relax, but if you relax all the time, that becomes boring, and thus not so relaxing. Both articles give good point, but I wouldn't say I completely agree with either of them. I would say I am in the middle if anything.
ReplyDelete-Period 8 / TM
Sometimes, I've wondered who does some of those made up jobs like telemarketing, and more importantly, whether they actually wanted to be doing those jobs. I feel that many people come into their 14 hour job only to go home and complain about it, and as the fundamentals of economics states, hiring people who aren't the best and most motivated at what they do won't yield the greatest efficiency in the industry. That explains why most people have a 40% efficiency in the workplace. However, what to do- there's too many people with college degrees and not enough useful jobs to give them. Since laziness isn't the capitalist way, the only solution to this problem is to make up useless jobs for people to do. Also, in the initial article, the author stated that our jobs are catering to the top 1% of the nation that essentially controls what is important and what isn't in the world- which is why we have almost no songwriters but tons of lawyers. After reading that, I realized how true is was and how sad it was to. Everyone in school, despite their passion, wants to go into law or STEMs, but that's because (let's be honest)- we want a job. If our true passion is becoming a musician, well, what's the chances we will make money doing that? At least with doctors, there's a certain sense of security. And the fact that top 1% controls this makes them sound evil in a way, but then again, it's the top 1% that own all the leading industries in the US, so this would make perfect sense. However, the biggest realization that I've gotten from this article is that I may go into the workplace only to hate my job. Because so many people will be having the same major as I do, I will be forced to take some corporate job that's essentially useless, and hate it---and that's something I fear in the future.
ReplyDelete- Maisha Savani Pd.8
I was extremely surprised by David Graeber’s essay on bullshit jobs. He goes on in his essay to talk about meaningless or bullshit jobs that are created to satisfy the public and account for the jobs lost because of an increase in the capabilities of technology. He says these jobs are concentrated in professional, managerial, clerical, sales and service areas and that the population would be just fine without these jobs. I have to disagree with this main premise. To some extent, these jobs are necessary, even if they aren’t changing the world or directly helping the world’s population. These jobs help the growth of companies and corporations, companies that do end up supplying a product or service that changes the world. Like the article in the Economist stated, no company would like to employ workers that it doesn’t need. Given the opportunity to cut labor costs with minimal change to profit, every company would take up that chance. These jobs are kept because they bring some value to the company in some aspect, and therefore would not be bullshit. But Graeber goes on to say in his essay that technological advances should have reduced the work week to 3-4 days and that as a result people would have the time to pursue other interests that would impact the world if their job didn’t- such as tutoring children or helping a charity. But the fact of the matter is that with more time, for every person that does use his extra time to help the world in some facet, there are multiple people who would take that time to sleep or watch T.V. And so I find myself agreeing with the article in the Economist, that the issue is technological gains have not gone towards giving people free time instead of the fact that people used to have meaningful jobs and now they do not because of technology.
ReplyDeleteHaving such advanced technological improvements makes the jobs of many more efficient although it takes away employment from others. I believe that we should be happy with the job we have and love it rather just be employed with some "bullshit job" that you don't even find beneficial. The Strike Magazine article talked about jobs in the Soviet Union where it took 3 clerks to sell a piece of meat. To me that is pointless to have sort of like an assembly line of people doing such a small task that one person is capable of. I disagree with this excerpt from the article that said that "a productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger" because it means that we are either too lazy to work or working just for the money. I believe this means that we don’t want anyone relying on others for money and living which means no leisure for all which is why we have pointless jobs.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Thomas per 6
I agree with the point on the first link that there are many "useless" jobs that do not contribute anything, and it is unjust for the people working in the useless jobs to be paid far more than the people who are working in jobs that are essential for humanity. Without the important jobs, humans would not be able to function, yet they are being payed less than the jobs that are not actually needed, and humanity could do away with without being harmed, or like the article says, "might markedly improve!" I also think that the author of the second link makes a compelling argument, as he shows that the people who work in useful jobs today are still earning more than the industrial laborers from the past, and their jobs are even easier than the industrial laborers who were useful as well, as they have technology that helps them tremendously, so their jobs are not nearly as tedious.
ReplyDelete- Karan L. Period 8
This topic is interesting to me because on one hand, we are drawn to the money and don't care if we just add to the system, but on the other hand, if we don't challenge these norms, then as a society, we will never progress. Why this is scary is that the people who create the jobs that have high salaries are just 1% of the population and they have no intentions of letting their cushy positions up. Personally, I like the useless jobs because I'm not very good at doing things that matter and I would be doing something useless anyways. Yay for that 1%!
ReplyDeleteD.C. Period 8
I agree with the follow up economist point of view. There are jobs that seem to be tedious and unnecessary, but those jobs are created to satisfy our growth as a species. These so-called “bullshit” jobs make the economy more complex and diverse. If corporations didn’t invest their capital in “bullshit jobs” and just increased the workers wages the gap between the employed and unemployed would increase exponentially. Unemployment would reach startling heights in this Darwinistic economy. We are a species that have to ability to weigh out each option presented. If there were no “bullshit jobs” our options would decrease. Options are our bargaining tool against corporations. Corporations would set the laws and all of the work and progress Union groups put forth would be degraded to nothing. The jobs are ever so decreasing because technology has been advancing ever so tenaciously. Every job created was made for a certain purpose. The 24-hour a day pizza place made a midnight shift for delivery because enough people wan pizza at midnight. Soon there will be a machine that will deliver pizzas at any time and the need for another "bullshit job" has been created. There is a demand for that job. If there weren’t demand there wouldn’t be a job.
ReplyDelete-Per.9
While reading the essay by the anthropologist, I was convinced that he was right. Everything he was saying seemed to make sense. And the fact that I had this same thought a couple of weeks ago made his claim seem even more valid. I remember having a conversation with you about how technological advancement may take jobs away from an economy, so the idea of jobs being made for no good reason seems to make sense. But after reading the rebuttal in the second link, my opinion was changed. I realized that these jobs that may seem pointless serve a much greater purpose. It's just that our economy has come to the point where specialization is so high that people rarely ever notice their true function. This idea of a very specialized economy reminds me of a video I saw on Facebook about a man who grows cocoa beans for a living but has never had chocolate in his life. It's so common for people to lose sight of what role they're playing in an economy that people often mistake their jobs as useless. But putting the idea of useless jobs aside, I want to comment on something else in these two articles: the idea of technological innovation. The line in the second link where the author, just for a second, entertains the idea of computers becoming complex enough to do administrative jobs scares me and excites me. I love the idea of technology advancing, but what purpose do we serve if computers do everything? This is something I'm anxious to be able to hopefully answer one day when I'm older.
ReplyDeleteB.T Period 8
I agree with the follow up for The Economist Article that nothing is easy in life, and hard work and determination is what gets us to the top.. The essay by David Graeber saying its the human evolution that creates the demand of new jobs and thus the supply also brings up a good point. Technology inarguably has made our lives easier, and as a result totally revolutionized the world. At the same time it has created new jobs, new ways of doing business and new competitions. There, in my opinion, is no such thing as a "BS" job, because that job even if the world can live without it, provided money and opportunity to people working it. It allows people to be able to provide for themselves and their families as well ass stimulate the economy. Many are getting paid and making a living out of these jobs. t. So i disagree with Mr. Graeber that we don't need these "BS" jobs and agree with the follow up from the Economist. - Yash Shah period 8
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think this essays point of view was very strange. It is a very thought provoking idea that so many normal jobs in our society can be deemed as not needed. I do agree that there are a few jobs that would barely be noticed if they were to cease to exist, but I also feel that David Graeber is not in any position to compensate for so many useless jobs. What I mean by this is that I don’t think the way he was oversimplifying what some jobs entail was fair, as I don’t think he truly knows all the work behind some of these jobs. I really liked the article that almost mocked Graeber’s argument because I feel like there were a lot of loose ends presented that needed a little poking at. I also liked how even though the second article went against much of the first it did address potential for some of the things Graeber argued. For example, there was some agreement on the topic of industrial jobs being more mechanical and less of a need for human work in these fields. Overall, it was hard to try to agree with Graeber when I found him so unqualified to be saying the things he was. -Tara O'Shea