I get that in order to answer the question you need data and that often comes from surveys, but I wonder how honest the answers are.
It certainly seems like many of us have worked with people that seem to bring very little value and have roles that if eliminated would have zero long-term impact to the company or society besides saving money...to me, that is a BS job. There are others such as lobbyists that make a big deal of a difference to the company being represented, but have a very negative impact on society (could also be viewed as BS). Personally, I think all of social media also falls into that category despite the fact that you have brilliant people working at those companies making good money for their employer. At the end of the day, they're actively hurting society and just trying to get people to click on ads. If that isn't BS, what is?
So the hard part about this subject (that comes up here time and time again) is that the phenomenon is fairly vague and conceptual and people use different metrics and definitions as to what qualifies.
The analysis in Graber's book uses surveys, so there too we can wonder how honest the answers are. The paper points out:
> Graeber (2018: xxii) states that his theory has ‘been overwhelmingly confirmed by statistical research’. This statistical research consists of a YouGov poll of UK workers (YouGov, 2015) and a similar one by human resource firm Schouten & Nelissen of Dutch workers (Graeber, 2018: 6). Graeber (2018: 10) argues that, as it is not possible to calculate social value, we must take the workers’ ‘word for it’ because ‘it’s safe to assume the worker knows best’ as to how useful their job actually is. ... The YouGov survey found that 37% of UK workers say their job does not make a meaningful contribution to the world, while the Schouten & Nelissen survey finds that 40% of Dutch workers do not experience their job as meaningful.
So if we follow Graeber's analysis, then we must trust the survey more than we wonder how honest they were.
The paper says Graeber states "US office workers spent 46% of their time dealing with emails, administrative tasks, interruptions for non-essential tasks and in wasteful meetings" and asserts that that's a BS job, and says 'second-order BS jobs' ar part of the BS job category.
The paper then points out "these calculations violate the methodological principle that workers are best placed to judge the social value of their work. Reporting that one deals with emails, administrative tasks, interruptions for non-essential tasks and wasteful meetings is not the same as saying these tasks are pointless, unnecessary or pernicious."
And the paper says of the YouGov survey: "the YouGov survey item is loaded in that it sets a very high bar for non-BS jobs. Clearly, saying your job does not make a meaningful contribution to the world is not the same as saying one’s job is completely pointless, unnecessary or pernicious, as it could quite conceivably be felt to be useful to one’s nation, community, neighbourhood, customers or family."
Graeber also makes predictions about how there should be different levels of BS work in different fields, and predicts that the number of BS jobs is increases, and predicts "student loans force graduates into BS jobs in order to pay back their debts."
"Despite the weak empirical support marshalled by Graeber (2018) in its favour, his BS jobs theory has been taken seriously by academics, journalists and policymakers. It therefore deserves rigorous empirical testing and below we outline how we propose to do so."
RIP Gerber, I will miss his work greatly.
This study feels flawed by asking people directly if their job was useless but I think it's human nature to justify ones job, let alone one's existence. Very few people will self challenge themselves, especially if their livelihood depends on it.
Then wasn't Graeber analysis also flawed as it's based on asking people directly if their job has a 'meaningful contribution to the world', which is a high bar given that a job may 'quite conceivably be felt to be useful to one’s nation, community, neighbourhood, customers or family.'? (Quotes from the paper at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015... .)
> Very few people will self challenge themselves, especially if their livelihood depends on it.
Yes. Though the paper points out it can go the other way: "However, these results are sufficient to cast serious doubts on Graeber’s claim that we can take employees’ descriptions of their jobs being useless at face value. Taking inspiration from Marx’s writings on alienation, we suggest, rather, that the meaning of work is socially constructed in the workplace, and poor management and toxic workplace environments can blind employees doing valuable jobs from their true contribution."
It certainly seems like many of us have worked with people that seem to bring very little value and have roles that if eliminated would have zero long-term impact to the company or society besides saving money...to me, that is a BS job. There are others such as lobbyists that make a big deal of a difference to the company being represented, but have a very negative impact on society (could also be viewed as BS). Personally, I think all of social media also falls into that category despite the fact that you have brilliant people working at those companies making good money for their employer. At the end of the day, they're actively hurting society and just trying to get people to click on ads. If that isn't BS, what is?
So the hard part about this subject (that comes up here time and time again) is that the phenomenon is fairly vague and conceptual and people use different metrics and definitions as to what qualifies.