Bullcrap Jobs (1 Viewer)

[Dedfin]

The notion of work for pay is going to have to be reexamined in the relatively near term future (next 50 - 100 years).

Machine learning + robotics + nanomachines/tech = post scarcity world. Society will have to decide if this means having 1000 quadrillionaires with the rest of us living off of some UBI or the entire world agreeing to live in a casteless society free to pursue each individual's inspirations.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

the last 10 years or so of my employment consisted of helping to manage our companies efforts to raise electric rates to appropriately reflect a fair rate of return on the company's invested capital ...recover our expenses at no additional earnings to our customers.  

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The legal work I do that I get paid for..... probably mostly BS because of inherent biases in systems.

The legal work I do pro bono is vital to constitutional rights that affect everyone. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

Voted no, but I’ve often said about 90% of my job could be done by a chimp (my coworkers disagree). The other 10% requires problem solving and technical expertise that warrants the years of training. Pretty similar to @Henry Ford

 

[NREC34]

I missed this topic originally but I bookmarked an interesting thread about it a while back from a guy I follow on Twitter.  
 

I think a lot of these jobs will disappear soon if the depression hits. 
 

Link

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century's end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There's every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn't happen.

I think there are two main reasons for this. (1) Education, health care, and housing are really freaking expensive in terms of average hourly wages after accounting for taxes, subsidies, and other transfers, so most people can't afford to work any less and still meet these basic needs; and (2) people tend to undervalue leisure while overvaluing material things (often for reasons related to status), so they tend to keep working additional hours even after they've got their basic necessities covered.

Both of these are complicated problems. The reasons for the spiraling-out-of-control costs of education, health care, and housing seem to be a genuine mystery that smart people have come up with only partial, mutually inconsistent, competing explanations for. Maybe we'll eventually figure out some combination of regulatory reforms, subsidies, income guarantees, whatever, that will ameliorate that problem.

The second one might be the less tractable of the two, grounded as it is in human nature itself.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think there are two main reasons for this. (1) Education, health care, and housing are really freaking expensive in terms of average hourly wages after accounting for taxes, subsidies, and other transfers, so most people can't afford to work any less and still meet these basic needs; and (2) people tend to undervalue leisure while overvaluing material things (often for reasons related to status), so they tend to keep working additional hours even after they've got their basic necessities covered.

Both of these are complicated problems. The reasons for the spiraling-out-of-control costs of education, health care, and housing seem to be a genuine mystery that smart people have come up with only partial, mutually inconsistent, competing explanations for. Maybe we'll eventually figure out some combination of regulatory reforms, subsidies, income guarantees, whatever, that will ameliorate that problem.

The second one might be the less tractable of the two, grounded as it is in human nature itself.

I am confused by some of this but I am tired and not sober so not going to try right now.  But I REALLY love talking about this stuff so somebody quote me tomorrow (Wednesday) so I won’t forget.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am confused by some of this but I am tired and not sober so not going to try right now.  But I REALLY love talking about this stuff so somebody quote me tomorrow (Wednesday) so I won’t forget.

I probably didn't express myself clearly in my previous post, but I'm saying:

I agree that, as a general rule, if our goal is to optimize for overall life satisfaction and happiness, people work too dang much.

That's partially because many people have to work full-time just to afford basic housing, health care, and education (their own student loans or their children's tuition). This is a problem stemming from how society is organized, though figuring out the exact causes and the most appropriate solutions seems really hard.

It's also partially because even people who make enough money to easily afford basic housing, health care, and education still feel like they should work a whole lot and maximize their financial success so that others will think well of them. This problem is less about social organization and more about human nature, which makes it even harder to solve.

 

[Manster]

I would assume most bullcrap jobs are in the public sector

 

[CentralPA]

I don't think I have a bull crap job but a lot of people think it is.  The wonderful world of IT Helpdesk.

 

[kface]

I would assume most bullcrap jobs are in the public sector

It depends on how you describe bullcrap...in the public sector you are generally doing public good for less money (at the top end anyway)

 

[Rich Conway]

I would assume most bullcrap jobs are in the public sector

Huh.  I would assume the opposite.  For example, I would consider most jobs in the financial sector (the sector that just moves money from one party to another) to be bullcrap.  To be more specific, and to piggyback on a couple previous posts, if job X is very important to company Y but company Y may not be important to society in any meaningful way, then I still consider job X to be a bullcrap (i.e. unnecessary) job.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Huh.  I would assume the opposite.  For example, I would consider most jobs in the financial sector (the sector that just moves money from one party to another) to be bullcrap.  To be more specific, and to piggyback on a couple previous posts, if job X is very important to company Y but company Y may not be important to society in any meaningful way, then I still consider job X to be a bullcrap (i.e. unnecessary) job.

I share Manster's suspicion, but it's not a trivial thing to analyze.

There are different types of bullcrap jobs we'd expect to find in the different sectors.

And some bullcrap jobs, like lobbying politicians to capture rents, are private-sector only on a technicality.

 

[Rich Conway]

There are different types of bullcrap jobs we'd expect to find in the different sectors.

Absolutely.

And some bullcrap jobs, like lobbying politicians to capture rents, are private-sector only on a technicality.

I don't know that I agree with this.  A job that consists of attempting to enrich private individuals at the expense of the public certainly sounds like a private sector job to me.  Although, I suppose we have to further break that down, considering that many actual politicians' jobs fit that description exactly.

In some cases, the sector for which those lobbyists work is a sector that doesn't need to exist at all.  I certainly wouldn't classify lobbying jobs for those sectors as "private sector on a technicality".

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I probably didn't express myself clearly in my previous post, but I'm saying:

I agree that, as a general rule, if our goal is to optimize for overall life satisfaction and happiness, people work too dang much.

That's partially because many people have to work full-time just to afford basic housing, health care, and education (their own student loans or their children's tuition). This is a problem stemming from how society is organized, though figuring out the exact causes and the most appropriate solutions seems really hard.

It's also partially because even people who make enough money to easily afford basic housing, health care, and education still feel like they should work a whole lot and maximize their financial success so that others will think well of them. This problem is less about social organization and more about human nature, which makes it even harder to solve.

Thanks Maurile.  I think my confusion is because your answer doesn't seem to contradict the argument made by the author of Bullcrap Jobs.  His argument is something like "we could all be working 15 hours a week right now if we just structured our society differently" and your first response is "yeah, but we can't do it because of the way our society is structured."  Can you imagine how we might restructure our society so that people worked a lot less?  Would that life be better than the life most of us are living now?  My answer would be yes to both questions, which is why I think we should be actively trying to do this.  

And I think your second point about human nature may be more about human nature living in our capitalistic, materialistic society.  I can imagine a world in which people tried to impress one another with things like how good they are at writing poetry or how kind they are to strangers, not with how much expensive stuff they can buy.  Maybe I'm naive on this one though.

 

[Sand]

I think there are two main reasons for this. (1) Education, health care, and housing are really freaking expensive in terms of average hourly wages after accounting for taxes, subsidies, and other transfers, so most people can't afford to work any less and still meet these basic needs; and (2) people tend to undervalue leisure while overvaluing material things (often for reasons related to status), so they tend to keep working additional hours even after they've got their basic necessities covered.

1. There nature of capitalism means that the prices of these items rise to the capacity of the largest group of payers.

2.  Your right on status symbols.  I just remind myself that 75% of those BMWs, Mercedes, Land Rover, etc. Are leased - rented.  

In my case I work a lot as it's a binary choice.  Either I work insanely hard (which gives me enough to save about 40% each year) or I don't work.  Part time or 40 hours isn't a choice.  I suspect there are a lot of folks like that, as well 

 

[Manster]

Huh.  I would assume the opposite.  For example, I would consider most jobs in the financial sector (the sector that just moves money from one party to another) to be bullcrap.  To be more specific, and to piggyback on a couple previous posts, if job X is very important to company Y but company Y may not be important to society in any meaningful way, then I still consider job X to be a bullcrap (i.e. unnecessary) job.

As a general rule private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed.  Is this the case 100% of the time?  Of course not.  The public sector has no skin in the game.  Essentially endless revenue from taxpayers.  Not only that, but government agencies will literally create jobs, or buy assets just to spend the money so they can justify getting it in the next budget......I've seen this happen with my own eyes.

 

[Manster]

It depends on how you describe bullcrap...in the public sector you are generally doing public good for less money (at the top end anyway)

You are also creating an environment of complacency with unions protecting lazy workers......they collect a paycheck, and have great benies.......go thru the motions.

My wife worked for a state agency and left because she has a strong work ethic and saw that hard work doesn't really pay off in the setting she was in.

I'm not saying all gub employees are lazy or it's all bullcrap.....what I'm saying is, that environment tends to allow for bullcrap.

 

[kface]

You are also creating an environment of complacency with unions protecting lazy workers......they collect a paycheck, and have great benies.......go thru the motions.

My wife worked for a state agency and left because she has a strong work ethic and saw that hard work doesn't really pay off in the setting she was in.

I'm not saying all gub employees are lazy or it's all bullcrap.....what I'm saying is, that environment tends to allow for bullcrap.

Not even all gov employees are unionized and sure that happens some but it happens every where.  30% of this country is lazy no matter the job.  I'm also not sure where the myth of the unfireable gov employee comes from.  I worked for the city of seattle and the disciplinary policy was

1. verbal warning

2. written letter

3. unpaid suspension

4. termination

That's right in the union contract.  I personally let go 3 union workers when i was there.  

Edit to add that there is no reason for working OT that is for sure.  There are no bonuses and there is very little chain for promotion in the public service.  Most people are stuck within a couple of bars are where they are now.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As a general rule private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed. 

That's the prevailing view, but the author of the book makes a pretty convincing case that this is not actually true.

In any case, the way you're thinking about this is the way we've been influenced to think of things our whole lives - that the invisible hand is making everything better for everyone, but in a lot of cases that's just not true at all.  I'll give two very simple examples:

1) Imagine there are two companies that make identical toothpastes.  In our current system, each company will hire an army of people to conduct marketing surveys and to create advertising and packaging, etc. that will persuade people to buy their toothpaste instead of their competitor's toothpaste.  They will attempt to convince people that thier tootpaste is better (even though it isn't) or that their toothpaste is a status symbol, etc.  Now imagine that after all of this investment by both sides, the two companies each have a market share of 50%.  If that's true, society would be much better off if these toothpaste companies just took their marketing budget and gave it to the advertising/marketing people, without them actually working for it.  Consumers wouldn't suffer, the companies' bottom lines would be the same, and the advertising guys could hang out playing ping pong and having sex all day instead of going to the office.  

2) Imagine a telemarking company.  Their business model is to call lots of people, especially the elderly, and sell them a bunch of stuff they don't actually need and which will not make their lives better.  They are a very lean and efficient operation and are very profitable.  But we would all be better off if they didn't exist.

 

[Rich Conway]

As a general rule private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed.  Is this the case 100% of the time?  Of course not.  The public sector has no skin in the game.  Essentially endless revenue from taxpayers.  Not only that, but government agencies will literally create jobs, or buy assets just to spend the money so they can justify getting it in the next budget......I've seen this happen with my own eyes.

There was a time when I would have agreed with much of this.  I no longer do.

Specifically, it is absolutely not the case that private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed.  For starters, I would argue that the very existence of private sector lobbyists disproves this.  Also, whether a specific private company succeeds or not is not necessarily relevant to whether the private company or its sector is "necessary to society".  Clearly, this is a matter of worldview, but as I noted above, I think most of the financial sector provides no tangible benefit to society, and as such, most jobs within that sector are bullcrap jobs (from the perspective of society at large) even if the jobs are important to the specific company.

 

[Sand]

There was a time when I would have agreed with much of this.  I no longer do.

Specifically, it is absolutely not the case that private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed.  For starters, I would argue that the very existence of private sector lobbyists disproves this.  Also, whether a specific private company succeeds or not is not necessarily relevant to whether the private company or its sector is "necessary to society".  Clearly, this is a matter of worldview, but as I noted above, I think most of the financial sector provides no tangible benefit to society, and as such, most jobs within that sector are bullcrap jobs (from the perspective of society at large) even if the jobs are important to the specific company.

This just shows that rent-seeking for public funds is a lean and efficient way to accrue profits.  And it is.  Huge payoff, in general.

I generally agree with you on many financial sector jobs.

 

[kface]

There was a time when I would have agreed with much of this.  I no longer do.

Specifically, it is absolutely not the case that private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed.  For starters, I would argue that the very existence of private sector lobbyists disproves this.  Also, whether a specific private company succeeds or not is not necessarily relevant to whether the private company or its sector is "necessary to society".  Clearly, this is a matter of worldview, but as I noted above, I think most of the financial sector provides no tangible benefit to society, and as such, most jobs within that sector are bullcrap jobs (from the perspective of society at large) even if the jobs are important to the specific company.

Most of what we celebrate is rich people moving around money from other rich people.  It's all bullcrap

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

 I think my confusion is because your answer doesn't seem to contradict the argument made by the author of Bullcrap Jobs.

I was agreeing with him on the point that people work too dang much.

There are other things in the larger excerpt I don't agree with. I'll post more later because I have a lot of thoughts on the subject as a whole, and I'm vain enough to think they're worth sharing.

In the meantime, I'll mention that my second point above forms a self-sustaining cycle: the main reason people work so many hours producing saleable widgets is that people want to accumulate so many dang widgets.

 

[Manster]

There was a time when I would have agreed with much of this.  I no longer do.

Specifically, it is absolutely not the case that private industry must be lean and efficient to succeed.  For starters, I would argue that the very existence of private sector lobbyists disproves this.  Also, whether a specific private company succeeds or not is not necessarily relevant to whether the private company or its sector is "necessary to society".  Clearly, this is a matter of worldview, but as I noted above, I think most of the financial sector provides no tangible benefit to society, and as such, most jobs within that sector are bullcrap jobs (from the perspective of society at large) even if the jobs are important to the specific company.

So you're focusing on the financial sector......I'm talking about businesses that have to make a profit, or they go under.  If the demand is there, and the business is run properly, there is success.......I spose there could still be bullcrap jobs associated with such an example, but, by necessity, the bullcrapness would be very limited for success.

 

[Manster]

Not even all gov employees are unionized and sure that happens some but it happens every where.  30% of this country is lazy no matter the job.  I'm also not sure where the myth of the unfireable gov employee comes from.  I worked for the city of seattle and the disciplinary policy was

1. verbal warning

2. written letter

3. unpaid suspension

4. termination

That's right in the union contract.  I personally let go 3 union workers when i was there.  

Edit to add that there is no reason for working OT that is for sure.  There are no bonuses and there is very little chain for promotion in the public service.  Most people are stuck within a couple of bars are where they are now.  

It's very easy to go thru the motions and do just enough to keep your job in that setting......I've seen it.  You can explain it any way you want.  The fact is, the public sector breeds complacency and waste.

 

[kface]

It's very easy to go thru the motions and do just enough to keep your job in that setting......I've seen it.  You can explain it any way you want.  The fact is, the public sector breeds complacency and waste.

We will just agree to disagree i guess.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In the meantime, I'll mention that my second point above forms a self-sustaining cycle: the main reason people work so many hours producing saleable widgets is that people want to accumulate so many dang widgets.

I think there’s a difference between1) someone who wants to accumulate widgets because widgets improve his life; and 2) someone who wants to accumulate widgets as a status symbol.  My personal view is that most widget collectors fall into the latter category, and that making changes to the way our society operates would greatly reduce how much they wanted widgets.

 

[Rich Conway]

So you're focusing on the financial sector......I'm talking about businesses that have to make a profit, or they go under.  If the demand is there, and the business is run properly, there is success.......I spose there could still be bullcrap jobs associated with such an example, but, by necessity, the bullcrapness would be very limited for success.

I think there are lots of other sectors that are generally bullcrap.  @fatguyinalittlecoat offered the example above of the advertising sector, and I'd largely agree.  I'd argue that for the most part, marketing and advertising provide no tangible benefit to society at large, and one could therefore argue that all the jobs within those sectors are largely bullcrap, whether or not the jobs themselves provide benefit to the company.  In essence, I'm arguing there is a significant difference between "Job X is useful and necessary to the profits of Company Y" and "Company Y is useful and necessary to society as a whole".

 

[Manster]

I think there are lots of other sectors that are generally bullcrap.  @fatguyinalittlecoat offered the example above of the advertising sector, and I'd largely agree.  I'd argue that for the most part, marketing and advertising provide no tangible benefit to society at large, and one could therefore argue that all the jobs within those sectors are largely bullcrap, whether or not the jobs themselves provide benefit to the company.  In essence, I'm arguing there is a significant difference between "Job X is useful and necessary to the profits of Company Y" and "Company Y is useful and necessary to society as a whole".

Yea I get what you're saying. 

I haven't read the book, and we coming from two different places.  

 

[Dickies]

I don't think I have a bull crap job but a lot of people think it is.  The wonderful world of IT Helpdesk.

Definitely a bull crap job. I sent you guys $100 in GameStop gift cards and you didn’t even fix my problem. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would assume most bullcrap jobs are in the public sector

It's not always clear how to categorize public versus private in this context, IMO. If you'll indulge me, I'll take a multi-step detour on the way to making that point.

Suppose the government thinks that all aerobics studios should be accessible to people in wheelchairs, and they require the installment of ramps where necessary to make them so.

Let's say it will cost $5,000 to install a ramp in my aerobics studio. There are two approaches the government could take: it could tax me $5,000 and then use the proceeds to build a ramp itself, or it could require me to build the ramp. It's the exact same result either way, but the accounting is different because only the first option becomes part of the government's budget. Aside from the technical accounting, should we consider the first a public expense and the second a private expense? Since they're functionally equivalent, I don't think they should be categorized differently for purposes of distinguishing between public and private expenditures. I'd call them both public, but they're at least ambiguous.

In the context of bullcrap jobs, suppose the government hires somebody to fill out, collate, organize, staple, and file completely pointless paperwork all day. That's a public-sector bullcrap job, right? Now suppose that a private company hires somebody to fill out, collate, organize, staple, and file completely pointless paperwork all day that is mandated by the government. Does that make it a private-sector bullcrap job? I'd categorize that as a public-sector job as well, though it's at least ambiguous. It's not who's signing the paycheck that matters, IMO; it's who's creating the busywork.

This is why I'd consider lobbying politicians to be a form of public-sector work, though there are a few more steps to get there than in the above examples.

In any case, I'd say that most bullcrap jobs fall into one of the following categories:

1. Jobs that are completely unproductive. The archetypal example is paying someone to dig a ditch and then fill it up again, over and over. The effort is completely wasted. (The work done by H&R Block and TurboTax arguably fit predominantly into this category since the IRS already has the info on people's 1040s -- and I'd consider these to be public-sector bullcrap jobs for the reasons stated a few paragraphs up.)

2. Jobs that, instead of creating wealth via positive-sum transactions, strive to reallocate existing wealth in zero-sum (or negative-sum) transactions. The telemarketers selling useless goods or services to old people qualify here. So do financial advisers who come up with ways to move their clients' money offshore to avoid taxes. So, arguably, do day-traders and maybe poker players (see my next post).

3-10. [Reserved because there must be more categories, but they're not coming to me right now.]

We should expect the bulk of the bullcrap jobs in category #1 to be in the public sector. Private employers have obvious incentives to avoid paying people to do nothing of value. Sometimes there really are $20 bills lying on the ground, but they typically don't stay there for long. Useless jobs in the private sector are $20 bills waiting to be picked up by employers. Public-sector employers, however, don't have the same incentive to eliminate such jobs.

The bullcrap jobs in category #2 could be in either the private or public sectors or, as in the case of lobbyists, some combination that's hard to classify. But I submit that most jobs that appear at first glance to be in category #2 are really not bullcrap jobs after all upon further examination. An example would be a business litigation attorney who participates in the process of pushing money back and forth between insurance companies. It seems kind of pointless in a given case. But enforcing established rules in a somewhat reliable, vaguely sensible way is important to creating a productive business environment in general. The tedium of being a cog in the wheel isn't bullcrap if the wheel does something valuable. A lot of the financial sector is like this, IMO.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I enjoyed this post from over 20 years ago in rec.gambling.poker. I'm happy that I was able to find it via google.

A professional poker player contemplates what line of work he's in. (Which ones are bullcrap?)

You can use different perspectives, without accepting one perspective as the correct perspective.

The leech perspective:

I am a leech.  You won't find me sucking blood, but I do feed slowly on the money of my hosts.  I don't produce any goods or services of value to society.  Instead, I have to rely on those who are brain surgeons or lawyers or restaurant owners or drug dealers to go make a lot of money supplying goods and services to society so that I can make a meaningless existence off a portion of what they earn. The transfer of money to sustain my existence is very wasteful, as for every dollar I suck, another dollar leaks into ultimate leeches: the casinos and the government.  The fishies would be better off without me.  So would the casinos, because I take a lot of money out of the poker economy to support myself.  I am a harmful parasite.

The prop perspective:

I am a prop. [Cardrooms will sometimes pay a regular player a small amount to sit at a table in order to get a game going. These are known as prop players. -- MT.] You won't find me on the casino payrolls, because they don't pay me anything directly - I'm not a hired prop.  But I help get games started and support short-handed games, which helps the casino cardroom make money. Sometimes I'm simply the difference between the casino having N tables and N-1 tables going.  My objective is to make money for myself, but many of the things I do to make money actually help the cardroom.  A healthy cardroom means more money for me, so I'll even make the occasional sacrifice for the cardroom's benefit. I am not a parasite; I am a symbiote.

The entertainer perspective:

I am an entertainer.  You won't find me in the Las Vegas yellow pages, but instead at the poker tables.  I provide entertainment to the fishies. I even provide entertainment to my fellow professional poker players. The casino charges everyone to play.  I charge the fishies even more to play with me, but the charge is hidden in the gambling, just like in the gambling games out on the main casino floor.  The fishies usually suspect they are paying some extra charges on average to me, but they also know they have a shot at taking my money.  And they are happy to have a game, which I help provide.  I try to keep them happy by chatting with them, even talking strategy with them if they want.  If they ask if I'm a professional, I'll tell them the truth.  If a pot is pushed incorrectly to me, I'll push it to the fishy who can't read his hand any better than the dealer - cardspeak, after all.  I can be honest and give them assistance; they are still going to pay me for their entertainment, and in the long run they'll keep coming back for more if they are happy that everything is honest.  I am a good host.

The gambler perspective:

I am a gambler.  You won't find me playing keno, because I'm a poker player.  But I'm not making any apologies to the fishies, because sometimes I'm the fish.  There is no way to mathematically prove I am playing with an advantage.  Even if I'm a superior player, it's possible for the rest of the table to conspire, either intentionally or unintentionally, to make me play at a disadvantage at any time, no matter what my past track record.  There is no optimal poker strategy - how to best play depends on how your opponents are playing, and it can be *impossible* for you to avoid losing on average edge against certain configurations of "suboptimal" opponents.  Also, I know with 100% confidence that some players cheat, especially some that look all the world like total fish - that is one case in which I become the fish.  I'm betting that I am playing with an overall edge, but it's inherently a gamble, and so there is not a sharp line between winners and losers, professionals and fish.  I fear deep down I am a problem gambler.

The wise guy perspective:

I am a wise guy.  You won't find me doing hits for the mafia, because I'm too busy running my own racket at the poker tables.  De marks brings the monies to play cards, and I send dem home brokes, see?  Dey are suckers who *want* to lose their monies.  If it wasn't me to take it from them, it would be some odder wise guy to take it from them.  If it takes a few moves to ensure dat the suckers lose deir monies to me before some other wise guy, well, den, it takes a few moves.  A wise guy should never wise up a sucker, of course, or let dem know dey've been had.  Some wise guys have a few scams dey run at the tables to get even more out of the suckers, like selling international calling cards dat don't work.  I gotta get in on dat action too.  I am the con man dat Doug Grant says I am.

I am a leech, prop, entertainer, gambler, and wise guy, and in that order, so I'm mostly leech and I have hardly any wise guy in me.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

3-10. [Reserved because there must be more categories, but they're not coming to me right now.]

****

 Private employers have obvious incentives to avoid paying people to do nothing of value. 

With respect to your quote at the top, here is the taxonomy of BS jobs according to the author:

flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants

goons, who oppose other goons hired by other companies, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists

duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags don't arrive

box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it isn't, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers

taskmasters, who manage—or create extra work for—those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals

***
 

With respect to your sentence about Incentives to eliminate unproductive private sector jobs, one insight in the book is that there are sometimes competing incentives to do the exact opposite (see “flunkies”, above).

 

[Manster]

It's not always clear how to categorize public versus private in this context, IMO. If you'll indulge me, I'll take a multi-step detour on the way to making that point.

Suppose the government thinks that all aerobics studios should be accessible to people in wheelchairs, and they require the installment of ramps where necessary to make them so.

Let's say it will cost $5,000 to install a ramp in my aerobics studio. There are two approaches the government could take: it could tax me $5,000 and then use the proceeds to build a ramp itself, or it could require me to build the ramp. It's the exact same result either way, but the accounting is different because only the first option becomes part of the government's budget. Aside from the technical accounting, should we consider the first a public expense and the second a private expense? Since they're functionally equivalent, I don't think they should be categorized differently for purposes of distinguishing between public and private expenditures. I'd call them both public, but they're at least ambiguous.

In the context of bullcrap jobs, suppose the government hires somebody to fill out, collate, organize, staple, and file completely pointless paperwork all day. That's a public-sector bullcrap job, right? Now suppose that a private company hires somebody to fill out, collate, organize, staple, and file completely pointless paperwork all day that is mandated by the government. Does that make it a private-sector bullcrap job? I'd categorize that as a public-sector job as well, though it's at least ambiguous. It's not who's signing the paycheck that matters, IMO; it's who's creating the busywork.

This is why I'd consider lobbying politicians to be a form of public-sector work, though there are a few more steps to get there than in the above examples.

In any case, I'd say that most bullcrap jobs fall into one of the following categories:

1. Jobs that are completely unproductive. The archetypal example is paying someone to dig a ditch and then fill it up again, over and over. The effort is completely wasted. (The work done by H&R Block and TurboTax arguably fit predominantly into this category since the IRS already has the info on people's 1040s -- and I'd consider these to be public-sector bullcrap jobs for the reasons stated a few paragraphs up.)

2. Jobs that, instead of creating wealth via positive-sum transactions, strive to reallocate existing wealth in zero-sum (or negative-sum) transactions. The telemarketers selling useless goods or services to old people qualify here. So do financial advisers who come up with ways to move their clients' money offshore to avoid taxes. So, arguably, do day-traders and maybe poker players (see my next post).

3-10. [Reserved because there must be more categories, but they're not coming to me right now.]

We should expect the bulk of the bullcrap jobs in category #1 to be in the public sector. Private employers have obvious incentives to avoid paying people to do nothing of value. Sometimes there really are $20 bills lying on the ground, but they typically don't stay there for long. Useless jobs in the private sector are $20 bills waiting to be picked up by employers. Public-sector employers, however, don't have the same incentive to eliminate such jobs.

The bullcrap jobs in category #2 could be in either the private or public sectors or, as in the case of lobbyists, some combination that's hard to classify. But I submit that most jobs that appear at first glance to be in category #2 are really not bullcrap jobs after all upon further examination. An example would be a business litigation attorney who participates in the process of pushing money back and forth between insurance companies. It seems kind of pointless in a given case. But enforcing established rules in a somewhat reliable, vaguely sensible way is important to creating a productive business environment in general. The tedium of being a cog in the wheel isn't bullcrap if the wheel does something valuable.

I see your point.  I know I'm getting crusty in middle age.....I admit it.  

I just can't get past the fact that bullcrap jobs, whether they be public/private, or ambiguous, seem to be a product of government inefficiency......that, and our progressive nature.....we have overcomplicated life.  Some of this is necessary, but when lawyers can become wealthy based on deciphering crap for the average schmuck, seems like a problem to me......one that will only get worse as we go on

 

[Rich Conway]

I see your point.  I know I'm getting crusty in middle age.....I admit it.  

I just can't get past the fact that bullcrap jobs, whether they be public/private, or ambiguous, seem to be a product of government inefficiency......that, and our progressive nature.....we have overcomplicated life.  Some of this is necessary, but when lawyers can become wealthy based on deciphering crap for the average schmuck, seems like a problem to me......one that will only get worse as we go on

I'd argue that, in the aggregate, lawyers become wealthy not by deciphering crap for the average Joe, but rather by creating the overly complex crap in the first place.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

With respect to your quote at the top, here is the taxonomy of BS jobs according to the author:

flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants

goons, who oppose other goons hired by other companies, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists

duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags don't arrive

box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it isn't, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers

taskmasters, who manage—or create extra work for—those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals

***
 

With respect to your sentence about Incentives to eliminate unproductive private sector jobs, one insight in the book is that there are sometimes competing incentives to do the exact opposite (see “flunkies”, above).

Thanks for the taxonomy. Some of those don't seem like bullcrap. The ones that do seem like bullcrap seem to fit into one of the two categories I listed. (I guess I'm a lumper rather than a splitter.) I should modify my statement, though, that private-sector employers have an incentive to eliminate unproductive jobs. That's true in the simple case where an employer is a sole proprietor. It becomes less true when the employer is a corporation or other bureaucratic entity. A manager's priorities may be different from the shareholders' priorities. A manager may like having an administrative assistant who isn't really worth the cost as long as the cost isn't coming out of his own pocket; a manager may prefer a short-term fix when a permanent solution would make more sense for the shareholders (who generally have a longer time-horizon), etc.

There are principle-agent problems all around us -- inescapably, I think -- but I don't see them as being all that relevant to the issue of whether people spend too much time working. In any case, to the extent that certain bullcrap jobs fit into my Category #1 (which would include most flunkies, duct-tapers, box-tickers, and taskmasters), the complaint seems to amount to: "businesses should really try to be more efficient." They generally are trying, but they'll never be perfect. To the extent that the author has some practical ideas for reducing inefficiencies, I'd expect employers to be all ears. "Quit wasting money on so many administrative assistants" is precisely the kind of thing a business consulting firm might say, so maybe the author should enter that field.

Goons are the most interesting category because their wasted labor seems more avoidable -- or, rather, less avoidable from the standpoint of an individual business, but perhaps more avoidable via public policy choices.

 

[the moops]

 the advertising guys could hang out playing ping pong and having sex all day instead of going to the office

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it's obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It's not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish.

The fact that private equity CEOs make more money than garbage collectors is about as much of a paradox as the fact that diamonds cost more money than water. Water is far, far more useful. Nobody ever died from a lack of diamonds. Water is essential for drinking, bathing, agriculture, and wet tee-shirt contests. Diamonds are comparatively dumb.

Water is cheap not because it provides less utility than diamonds, but because it's plentiful and therefore easy to acquire. Similarly, there are many more people capable of collecting garbage than there are of doing whatever private equity CEOs do. This is an important part of organizing resource allocation and the pricing mechanism that drives production in a capitalist economic system, but I don't really want to get into that right now. I mention it mainly because it's relevant to toothpaste and housing (discussed below).

I posted earlier that many people have to work full-time just in order to afford housing, health care, and education. These things have all become ridiculously expensive. Here's a long article about it. (Side note: SSC is back up!!) From the article: "In the past fifty years, education costs have doubled, college costs have dectupled, health insurance costs have dectupled, subway costs have at least dectupled, and housing costs have increased by about fifty percent [in real terms]. US health care costs about four times as much as equivalent health care in other First World countries; US subways cost about eight times as much as equivalent subways in other First World countries."

What is making these things so ridiculously expensive, and thus requiring so many people to spend all their time working so that they can afford them?

It's a mystery. That article describes some of the commonly proposed reasons, then explains why none of them can be the full story.

I think that housing and education share an important feature: they are positional goods. In your toothpaste example, if there are two toothpaste producers and toothpaste costs $1/tube to produce, and if you and I each have $1 in our pockets that we're willing to spend on toothpaste, we'll each be able to buy a tube. The price will be $1. If we each have $10 in our pockets that we're willing to spend on toothpaste, the price will still be $1 because, in a competitive market, price = cost of production.

Housing doesn't work that way, though, because land doesn't really have a cost of production. There's a limited amount of it, and therefore a limited amount of housing. If you and I each have $100K we're willing to spend on a particular house, we'll bid the price up to $100K. If we suddenly have $1 million burning holes in our pockets instead, the price of the house will go up to $1 million. It's not like the toothpaste because the producer can't simply make more: there's a fixed amount, so the price is determined not by the cost of production, but by a bidding war.

This means that the government can't make housing more affordable by offering subsidies. The effect of the subsidy is to put $1 million in our pockets instead of $100K. But rather than making housing more affordable, that just makes it more expensive.

Education at elite (expensive) universities is similar to housing in that respect. There are a limited number of spots in Harvard's incoming class. Harvard can't really create more spots (without forfeiting its exclusivity, which makes it a different product), so there is, in effect, a bidding war for the fixed number of spots it has. As with housing, subsidies won't make Harvard more affordable: they'll just make it more expensive.

This makes spiraling housing and education costs a hard problem to solve. (Authorizing more housing construction would be a great first step -- though not in any particular community's backyard, of course.)

Health care has different problems, which are probably even harder to solve.

The upshot, though, is that housing, education, and health care, together, are eating up everything a normal wage-earner can afford with a full-time job. So working less than full-time is not an option for most people, even though 15-hour workweeks would otherwise be pretty sweet.

 

[Sand]

This means that the government can't make housing more affordable by offering subsidies. The effect of the subsidy is to put $1 million in our pockets instead of $100K. But rather than making housing more affordable, that just makes it more expensive.

Pell grants have been shown to have inflate college costs by a good bit.  So this applies there, as well.

This COVID thing will be a shakeout for many colleges as now the emperor has no clothes and students see what they're really getting, to some extent.  There was a story that up to 4,000 colleges may close due to this.  Creative destruction at work - one hopes what springs up after all this is more lean and cost focused. 

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Very interesting thread.  Sorry to jump in late, but in the discussion about people working 40+ hour weeks as either a necessity or as an ability to gain status, I would add a third - people who are forced by the culture/society to conform to the 40+ hour week or forgo the labor market.  I know I would personally take a 20% pay cut for working 20% less hours.  It would hurt my financial situation obviously, but I value my free time.  Talk to people who have tried to go part time in the corporate world, though - in my experience even the ones who somehow manage to get a company to agree are under constant pressure to increase their hours.

 

[kface]

Very interesting thread.  Sorry to jump in late, but in the discussion about people working 40+ hour weeks as either a necessity or as an ability to gain status, I would add a third - people who are forced by the culture/society to conform to the 40+ hour week or forgo the labor market.  I know I would personally take a 20% pay cut for working 20% less hours.  It would hurt my financial situation obviously, but I value my free time.  Talk to people who have tried to go part time in the corporate world, though - in my experience even the ones who somehow manage to get a company to agree are under constant pressure to increase their hours.

This is such an american thing its crazy...they have some how convinced us to be free slaves in a lot of ways.

And before someone chimes in with 'do whatever you want', the marketplace isn't built that way.  It's incredibly hard to compete when other companies are forcing low wage workers to put in 50 hours a week.  

 

[Manster]

This is such an american thing its crazy...they have some how convinced us to be free slaves in a lot of ways.

And before someone chimes in with 'do whatever you want', the marketplace isn't built that way.  It's incredibly hard to compete when other companies are forcing low wage workers to put in 50 hours a week.  

But you can overcome being a low wage worker in our society with hard work and good choices

 

[kface]

But you can overcome being a low wage worker in our society with hard work and good choices

I'm not speaking to low wage...I'm a professional engineer with a PhD and an MBA.  I started my career at 33,000 per year and worked often 60 hours per week because that's what engineering is.  I was like that for about 5-10 years.  They have since switched that by farming out the low level engineering work to third world countries where they can pay the people $30 per day.  

That's hard to compete with unless you are willing to exploit others in competing.  I'm not willing to do that.

 

[Manster]

I'm not speaking to low wage...I'm a professional engineer with a PhD and an MBA.  I started my career at 33,000 per year and worked often 60 hours per week because that's what engineering is.  I was like that for about 5-10 years.  They have since switched that by farming out the low level engineering work to third world countries where they can pay the people $30 per day.  

Well ain't that a #####

 

[kface]

Well ain't that a #####

That's a corrupt scam of a system if you ask me.  You should be able to cut yourself out a pretty nice life being a professional engineer and that's not the case in most places.  You'll work your tail off for nothing.

I remember telling my boss in my year end review that i worked the math with my OT and they were actually paying me $6 per hour

 

[Manster]

That's a corrupt scam of a system if you ask me.  You should be able to cut yourself out a pretty nice life being a professional engineer and that's not the case in most places.  You'll work your tail off for nothing.

I remember telling my boss in my year end review that i worked the math with my OT and they were actually paying me $6 per hour

Right......and I was told by a student advisor, as a high school senior entering college, that if I were a minority, or female, I'd have a better shot at a good job in the field I was choosing.....this was back in the mid '90's.

It was a bit disheartening, and I didn't really know what to believe at the time......ultimately, I chose a different route.

 

[kface]

Right......and I was told by a student advisor, as a high school senior entering college, that if I were a minority, or female, I'd have a better shot at a good job in the field I was choosing.....this was back in the mid '90's.

It was a bit disheartening, and I didn't really know what to believe at the time......ultimately, I chose a different route.

it's anecdotal but when i started i shared an office with an immigrant from India.  It was well known in the office that even though I worked less hard than him and we started at the same time in the same position they were paying him much less than me.  I can only speak to engineering but it's kind of an old man's club.  Being a female does nothing for you.  

The only field i can think of that maybe that is true is medicine or nursing.  

 

[Dr_Zaius]

But you can overcome being a low wage worker in our society with hard work and good choices

I definitely think that people confuse "wants" and "needs" and thus vastly overestimate how much money it takes to live a meaningful life, but I still go back to the expectation of a certain amount of time spent working.  I've been salary for 20 years, and my take-home pay has definitely gone up over that time.  But for the most part the only changes I can push for is in compensation, not time spent working.  If my manager offered me a 5% raise and I countered by saying "since you think I'm earning 105% of my salary, how about I just work 5% less and keep my salary constant", he'd look at me like I was from Jupiter.  It's not something that most people are even conditioned to entertain as an option.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Let's do a thought experiment, two smart STEM guys of equal ability take a salaried job at a major US company.  They both put in 20 hours a week of solid, top-notch work that provides real value to the company.

1. Bob does his 20 hours as a frenzy of activity, and then decides he'd rather be playing Call of Duty with the rest of his time.  Comes in late, leaves early.
   
2. Dave spreads his 20 hours out and spends another 30 hours a week in the office talking about football, surfing the web, walking aimlessly around the building, getting himself invited to meetings where he has no input or relevance, etc....
   

One of these two has an opportunity for advancement.  The other is going to soon be out of job.