Bullshit Jobs: A Theory

One winter afternoon, I patiently sat baking for 15 eternal minutes in a tiny, wood-fired, hillside sauna somewhere in the Vermont woods & then plunged directly into a freezing cold , nearby brook thru a freshly chopped hole in the ice. During the insanely fast rollercoaster sequence of limb flailing, spiking temperature gradients & spontaneous yelling that came next, I quickly realized that the old me had been summarily replaced & would never get a chance to appreciate the amazing refreshment now afforded the dripping wet & gasping eponymous substitute I had suddenly turned into ! In a kindred shocking way, David Graeber’s immensely thrilling book , ‘Bull Shit Jobs’ swiftly yanks the curtain off our clownish & brutal world of modern employment w/ a joyful combination of calibrated insight & trenchant wit that fellow conceptual artists as variously inspired as Karl Marx ( ‘Grundrisse’ ) & Grace Slick ( ‘White Rabbit‘ ) would both seriously cherish while laughing their respective asses off . Fair warning! ‘Bull Shit Jobs’ is a transformative ‘gateway book ‘… a shaman-less ayahuasca of the human soul that unmistakably shows you exactly why most of today’s jobs mirror those “… pills that mother gives you “ ( Ibid. , ‘ White Rabbit ‘ - performed by either Grace Slick or Gillian Welch ) in that they ( you ) truly “ don’t do anything at all ! “ -J.Joslin ( @ Detroit near Canada…)

Graeber is one of those people whose life and work makes their death all the more tragic. Every thought he expresses in this book makes me think of what the world has lost by way of his death. The eloquence and clarity of thought conveyed in this are beyond anything I could hope to achieve in my lifetime, but you know what? It also makes me want to try.

This book originated in an article on the phenomenon of meaningless (but proliferating) jobs. Hundreds of thousands of individuals responded to it and their comments were utilized to fashion a taxonomy of what the author terms ‘bullshit’ jobs. For example: 'duct-tape jobs' in which individuals patch together things already available; 'box ticking jobs' in which people are employed to respond to a claimed but fatuous need. The book is fascinating in its anecdotes and examples. These satisfy the terms for success which the author establishes: "The main point of this book was not to propose concrete policy prescriptions, but to start us thinking and arguing about what a genuine free society might actually be like" (p. 285). Thinking about what a genuinely free society might be like is a worthy task, one that might well occupy the time of a trapped paper pusher preparing reports that no one will read or ticking boxes on forms that will be audited by reviewers who will then forward them to supervisors who will file them in drawers that no one will ever open again. The author gives several examples of individuals who spend their days avoiding work that strikes them as worthless and devoting their hours to more wholesome and useful tasks. The very real problem is that these largely meaningless jobs are an omnipresent (and growing) phenomenon and solving the problems they create is a significant desideratum. For example, in universities the number of non-teaching staff has increased by 240% over the last few years. These people contribute very little to the overall effort. If they disappeared the money saved could be used to lower tuition (a true problem) or to hire individuals to teach freshman composition (a real need). Many were hired to palliate university constituencies which senior administrators want to silence or keep at arm's length. While this is interesting to 'think about' it is even more compelling as a problem requiring a solution. The solution: hiring senior administrators with the fortitude to confront aggrieved constituencies and inform them that the purpose of the university is to teach and do research, not create comfort zones. This requires trustees who share the goal of focusing on central functions rather than peripheral ones. The problem grows because these deanlings, deanlets and assistant deputy vice provosts are careerists who seek advancement. Advancement is achieved through the creation of 'programs'; these programs require additional staff, assistants to the additional staff, work space, heat/light/air conditioning and so on. There is no incentive to do anything but proliferate. Solution: hire senior administrators who only solve real problems and recruit underlings with the charge that they are to save money, not spend more, and solve problems, not create new ones by forcing the reallocation of funds from central functions to (their) peripheral ones. The author's perspective is both helpful and challenging. He is a self-professed anarchist. The good thing is that he is skeptical of both large governments and large corporations. The bad thing is that he is skeptical of 'policy' changes; his preference is to find grassroots movements that might be singled out and encouraged. This gives him a unique perspective; he criticizes both the left and the right. Bravo. However, he is unable to suggest solutions to the horrific problem which he has identified. For example, within universities one of the most frequently-recommended solutions (most recently articulated by Richard Vedder) to bureaucratic proliferation, the politicization of student support staff, grade inflation, the gutting of core curricula, and other problems is the closing of all colleges of education. That will require a battle plan and an actual battle, not just the thinking about an ideal world. He offers two major metaphors for our current condition. The first is a neo-feudalization of society in which a hierarchical system of dependency is created within workspaces, one that can ultimately be seen as a morbid desire to control. I think this is imprecise, because there was a reciprocal relationship within feudalism in which the lord would protect his serfs by ceding land to them and by risking his life for them in battle. That is different than having a martinet or power-tripping boss who brutalizes subordinates in order to salve his or her own ego. Another metaphor or, better, point of analysis, is far more interesting. He suggests that we are seeing the ethos of 'finance' extending to all aspects of human work. In other words, instead of having an individual capitalist invest his own money in a business, hiring workers, selling products, and so on, we have (for example) complex organizations created by large company takeovers. A film studio, e.g., once run by an entrepreneur who knew the entertainment industry, loved movies, hired his writing crew and his acting crew, etc. and greenlighted pictures by himself or with one other individual is now taken over by some other large, non-filmmaking organization. Instead of a 'clean' and orderly operation the company is suddenly infested with individuals who want to personally capitalize on a viable operation, rent-seek for themselves within that operation and, often, create ways for making money that are tangential to the original organization. For example, car makers do not make money selling cars; they make money on car loans with high interest rates or infinitely-complex 'insurance deals' that customers succumb to as a result of obfuscation or duplicity. Another way to think about it: I grew up in Cincinnati where there was a great proliferation of Savings and Loans. The notion was that the community pooled its savings and money was then lent to fellow citizens so that they could own homes. The loans were at, let us say, 7%; the investors/savers received 3-4% on their money and the savings and loan took the 3-4% as their profit. Clean. Simple. Compare that with a world in which money is made by selling unintelligible financial derivatives. This is 'capitalism' but it is a betrayal of 'purer' and 'cleaner' forms of capitalism. It is the case, e.g., that business schools are contemptuous of 'manufacturing' as an academic track (if they consider it at all) and tend to privilege 'finance' as their key area. 'Finance' is the top field at the nation's top business school. I think Professor Graeber is onto something here; certainly the modern university has been despoiled by a vast and growing school of lampreys who drain its resources and divert it from its original, central purposes. One last caveat. Professor Graeber tends to make easy generalizations that are highly questionable. For example, in defending the notion of a guaranteed basic income, he writes, "Most people would prefer not to spend their days sitting around watching TV and the handful who really are inclined to be total parasites are not going to be a significant burden on society, since the total amount of work required to maintain people in comfort and security is not that formidable. The compulsive workaholics who insist on doing far more than they really have to would more than compensate for the occasional slackers" (p. 281) Say what? He needs to have a look at the patterns of behavior of contemporary college students enumerated by Professors Arum and Roksa in their book ACADEMICALLY ADRIFT. “Socializing” has displaced “studying.” Bottom line: the book is very thought-provoking (which is its purpose) but the subject is so important that we need to hear more.

I was laid off about more than 8 months ago from my second corporate job. I fell into despair after I was terminated from my first day back from vacation. A vacation very much needed after enduring months of workplace bullying. I read this book hoping to get a better understanding of why I was treated as badly as I was prior to my sudden termination. And while I didn't exactly get the answer I was looking for, this book taught me how Western society imprisons you into an abusive cycle of depending on work for survival and access to basic needs, without the inherent benefits that allow you to live a meaningful or authentic life. It taught me the logic behind corporations and their fake niceties that disguise a bitter contempt for the working class or every man. How businesses rely on unethical and sketchy tactics to justify their existence and stay afloat. Some jobs exists for data or quotas, some jobs exists because managers are lazy or need a scapegoat, and some jobs exists so other workers can carry out other people's dirty work. The book ends with author, David Graeber, suggesting that the solution to getting out of the unhealthy daily grind is for society to adopt a Universal Basic Income system. So that citizens can be free to do whatever they want and whatever they please that may be more impactful and useful to society than working for a corporation. This also means corporations will also have to work harder to appeal to workers, who will no longer need them. It is a beautiful book that analyzes and reflects upon America's and the West's unhealthy obsession with work, and its inexplainable resentment towards authentically living.

Does your job seem fulfilling? Or, to put it more clearly, do you feel your job has a net positive value to society as opposed to just a way to make money? If your answer is no, or if you think a larger percentage of the world’s jobs fall under the low- value umbrella, then you might like this book What this book proposes is that far too many jobs are of this variety. The individual working the job could quit tomorrow and nothing significantly negative would happen to the company he/she works for, or society at large. Far too many people are engaged in pointless employment, or so this book suggests, which raises the important question: Why is this happening in a capitalistic society, one that is supposed to strive toward efficiency with very few exceptions? The book attempts to answer that question, and others related to it, as it rambles on for nearly 300 pages. As I read this book, I started to think about jobs I have held and others have held that fit the definition of this type of job. I can think one job of my own, from the past, that came close, but it still wouldn’t qualify. However, I can think of positions others have held that do, indeed, fit the definition. And it does make me wonder why the folks in charge allowed such a situation to occur. This book does raise some interesting questions and it does get you thinking about the usefulness of employment. It makes you wonder why the workweek hasn’t been shortened and remains at 40 hours, at least here in the United States. It makes you wonder about the push for job creation by politicians of most every stripe and whether or not this push has, in some way, encouraged the proliferation of so many useless job positions. And it makes you wonder why someone with a do- nothing job wouldn’t enjoy it at least for the easy money, since we are so often told that most anyone will slack if given the opportunity. I like any book that brings up thought- provoking questions and this book accomplishes exactly that. But it is not without its flaws, chief among them the fact that the book presents an idea without any formal research. It’s an idea that, while intriguing, has no official research to back it up. Another issue I have is the books repetition. It continues to repeat similar thoughts over and over. The book could have been reduced about one hundred pages and easily gotten its message across. And then, there are the estimations that book makes about b.s. jobs and their occurrence. I find it hard to believe that roughly one- third of all jobs qualify as useless. I can agree that most any job has its moments of uselessness and that most of us could finish our necessary tasks in fewer hours at work each day. But based on my own observation, I cannot see how so many jobs fall under the b.s designation. Our free- market economy thrives on competition and the efficiency that is supposed to result. Capitalism is still the best system around for wealth creation and opportunity, but it is not without its flaws, and the same could be said for any other economic system. There are certainly useless jobs all around the world, and this book is a good way to at least get you thinking about these jobs, why they exist, and what it means for society. I have issues with this book, but it is still an interesting enough read to recommend.

If you've ever found yourself depressed because you have a fancy degree or two and aspirations of improving the world, but instead you find yourself making an ungodly amount of money to spend 2 hours a week formatting a status report to the exacting requirements of somebody who you know won't read it, sending out updates and reveiw documents to people you know don't have time to consider them, creating forecasts that will be ignored because they show that the customer doesn't buy your marketing hype and won't buy your produce, or "escalating issues" to people who have different concerns and thus no incentive to care unless threatened by their own management, then this book is for you. If you've ever wondered if you might be happier taking taking a job -- "Office Space" style -- doing something else where at least you feel productive, even half or less of your income, this is definitely for you. It's a book about why we continue to create jobs that produce nothing except stress and heart attacks for the people who hold them, while providing nothing for society, and ironically making their supposedly profit-seeking employers less efficient and less profitable. After a lifetime in the tech business I can wholeheartedly say that easily half the work I've done fit's mostly into two of the categories he's identified: "box ticking" and "duct taping". The former being work done purely to satisfy some process that has no real benefit (like the exquisitely exactingly formatted but unread status reports), and the later being patching things together that were never really meant to work in the way we're using them because nobody really plans ahead or defines what is needed. (All while listening to management who always extol the virtue of not doing unnecessary work, or the need for long-term planning.) I've managed to avoid being a "taskmaster" whose job is to administer beatings until morale improves (mostly because I've quit every job where this was asked for), a "goon" (whose job is to coerce or otherwise convince somebody to do something they know is opposed to their actual interest) or a flunkie, who also exists mostly to demonstrate status (like the army of receptionists doing nothing because the phone never actually rings anymore, but you can't have an unstaffed front desk because that's unbecoming an important business, so they're sitting there surfing the internet). "Office Space" pointed out the absurdity of work in the modern era. This book delves into the "why is it like that in a world where businesses are supposedly efficient?" The answer, of course is that businesses are hardly efficient, and for the most part aren't even that effective. The author doesn't have great prescriptions for the problem, but work life seems a bit less bleak just for recognizing the problem and where it comes from.

If you’ve ever sat at your desk thinking, “Is this really necessary?”—this book is for you. This book dives deep into the soul-crushing world of pointless work that somehow still exists. It’s funny, insightful, and a little too real. Perfect for anyone who's ever pretended to look busy or wondered if they’re part of the "booktitle" problem. 📚💼

This had a lot of good info, especially for people navigating the modern work and management space. It was a grind to read, though.

Rekommenderas. Till skillnad från olika managementböcker beskriver den det grundläggande faktum att flera av de akademiska yrken vi tror är betydelsefulla, i själva verket inte betyder någonting alls.

Encadernação americana original, livro recém lançado nos EUA e UK. Parabéns à Amazon pela disponibilidade do produto em tão pouco tempo e, considerando o câmbio atual, paguei menos que o equivalente ao preço de capa. Já o assunto, dispensa comentários.

This book should be a must read for everyone

Great book, really opened my eyes to what's happening between management bs.

One of the most insightful and liberating books I've ever read. Graeber unrolls a convincing and substantial critique of the dire state of employment, and our modern conceptions of work. I only wish I'd read it sooner. Ignore the reviews saying the book is just a rehash of his 2013 essay or that it doesn't really go anywhere. They must not have gotten very far, as the book spends about 2 chapters on classifying BS jobs and the rest on a deep dive into the effects of pointless employment, the political and cultural reasons that it might exist, and the way that "jobs for the sake of jobs" damages us. It then takes us on a whistle-stop tour of the history of managerialism, the roots of "the protestant work ethic" and how it informs some of the ideas that proliferate this type of employment. It ends on what might be done about the situation. It interrogates directly some of the unspoken assumptions about work and human nature itself we've been socialised to accept at face value. There are also other reviews complaining the book doesn't back everything up with numbers, a sadly common complaint in a world where political and rhetorical literacy is dead. Despite the fact the book does actually use quite a few graphs and figures to inform its argument, its main strength is of course the rigourous qualitative analysis Graeber engages in, as should be expected in a book about human social structures and organizations. How do you come up with a number to show how many people don't actually need to be employed? (Beyond asking them of course, as the book does.) The book was also just a joy to read. Graeber's work is never dry, he really channels his animated way of speaking and thinking into the text. Read this book if you've ever felt like something is wrong with your job, or the modern workplace. In fact, read it even if you don't. You'll learn a lot either way.