Trabajos de mierda: Una teoría

A bullshit job is one that ultimately doesn't need to be done. Graeber traces these mostly to corporate bureaucracy (smoothing over dumb inter-department arguments or checking boxes for unnecessary items) and the "entourage" effect of being a powerful exec. From there, he runs through interviews with several holders of BS jobs and explores their feelings of powerlessness, ranging from boredom to psychosomatic illnesses. Along the way he ties in several important realizations from psychology and sociology to help explain the impacts - the fact that children appear to start becoming differentiated when they realize they can manipulate the environment and how it impacts people to have this taken away; that men take the exciting jobs one can tell stories about, and stick women with the drudgerous jobs that you can tell stories during; the "scriptless" feeling of being in a situation not covered by pop cultural training. Graeber's argument is that the capitalists have essentially realized that the amount of labor needed to run our society has decreased drastically (this is part of what "efficiency" means after all), that they are terrified of a large group of people working less than full time (one assumes because those people might find ways to claw back power from the capitalists), and that therefore everyone in any position of societal power has agreed to play the game of keeping people busy at the cost of both efficiency and our collective cultural/psychological well-being. His main pieces of evidence for this are Obama dismissing single payer healthcare because 'then you've got 2-3 million insurance administrators out of a job, and what do you do with them,' and the fact that administrative staff at public universities (subject to USG regulations) went up by ~66% from 1975-2005, while private universities (less subject to USG regs) have gone up by ~135% over the same time period. I would add that Obama's argument against single payer is exactly the argument used by H&R Block et al against simplifying the US tax code and/or having the IRS present you with either a check or a bill every April with no action on your part. All of this made me think of Elon Musk and DOGE. The hack job that Musk and Thiel's minions inflicted the USG is in direct opposition to these ideas. DOGE itself only affected USG jobs, but the techbro set is intent on replacing as many workers as they can with AI in the private sector as well. What happens then? One can accuse capitalists of a lot of things, but being stupid isn't one of them. They appear to have good reasons (from their viewpoint) to have set up society in this way. When 50% of the entire workforce is sent home for the last time, what happens? Ideas like UBI get some traction, but still face stiff resistance from the "work is morality" set. We'll see how long that lasts, I guess. I also can't imagine UBI will be an amount of money that will allow people to thrive - imagine what society looks like with 75% of all citizens placed on a permanent minimum wage. I bet that's about what we can expect.

Many people feel that their jobs could be accomplished in much less than 8 hours every day, but social and economic stigma forces us to spend needless time at work, which most would rather spend doing other things.

On top of that, some jobs that exist in current society can be considered outright malicious and exploitative, and as such society would benefit from these not being done.

The author presents various examples for both arguments supplemented by self reports from persons in different professions which corroborate that this is a shared feeling, and explore the different impacts such work arrangements have on people.

The explicit goal of the book is to highlight that our current economic system is very far from the rational ideal it sells itself as, and to point out the negative impacts this has on an individual and social level, to foster debate about the problem as a first step to addressing it.

While he does suggest Universal Basic Income could help solve some of these issues, he clearly states his goal is not to promote this or any other policy as a unique solution.

The core message and themes of 'Bullshit Jobs' are fascinating and thought provoking. Graeber criticises the flaws of modern capitalism, work culture, and consumerism in a very captivating way, incorporating many entertaining readers' testimonials throughout. The bulk of this however, mostly happens in the seventh and final chapter, following 245 pages of dragged out explanations for simple concepts, written in unnecessarily complex language. The testimonials were by far the most enjoyable part of the first six chapters, because they didn't require me to read paragraphs 3 times over to understand them. (I am not a native English speaker, but i do have C2 proficiency.) In my opinion, the page count of the first 6 chapters could easily be cut in half without losing any real substance, ironically somewhat mirroring one of the main points of criticism Graeber makes throughout his book:

"We could easily become societies of leisure and institute a twenty-hour workweek. Maybe even a fifteen-hour week. Instead, we find ourselves, as a society, condemned to spending most of our time at work, performing tasks that we feel make no difference in the world whatsoever."

Pues para decirlo más y con palabras más ajustadas está este libro, para dinamitar desde la comprensión y el ofrecimiento de alternativas uno de los grandes fantasmas que nos afecta de diferentes formas a todes: el trabajo, sus características y sus efectos en nuestra vida. Me ha parecido uno de esos libros que te abren la percepción, que ponen palabras a sospechas y te hacen conectar circunstancias de tu día a día, darles un sentido global. Obras que nos amplían el horizonte y ayudan a comprender algo del fondo de nuestra angustia. Despierta las ganas de hablar con quienes nos rodean para preguntar si a ellos también les pasa esto que nos corroe. También sorprende cómo desde una forma expresiva más que accesibles es capaz de plantear sus ideas y dejárnoslas ahí candentes, incitantes. Seguiré leyendo a Graeber, eso seguro.

I was afraid that this was going to be a padded out version of his original essay, but I needn't have worried. Give Graeber 300 pages, and he'll give you ideas worth 600 of them. Coupled with his keen sense for observational comedy, and you get a book that's easy to read, keeps your attention, and highly entertaining.

David Graeber fragt sich, warum in einer kapitalistischen Gesellschaft so viele Jobs entstehen können, die offenbar keinen Sinn ergeben, wirtschaftliche unnötig sind und die Menschen, die dort arbeiten müssen, unglücklich machen. Eine Antwort hat er eigentlich nicht. Das Buch ist dennoch eine sehr gute Auseinandersetzung mit der kapitalistischen Arbeitsgesellschaft. Einige Kapitel lang wird die sehr interessante und wichtige Frage erörtert, warum gesellschaftlich sinnvolle Tätigkeiten im Gegensatz zu unnützen oder schädlichen Tätigkeiten so schlecht bezahlt werden. Als Lösungsvorschlag präsentiert Graeber das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen. Naja, das war etwas einfallslos, aber gut. Warum nicht. Es lohnt sich auf jeden Fall, seine Denkanstöße weiterzudenken. Vielleicht fällt „uns“ ja noch was besseres ein.

No sé cómo había llegado hasta aquí sin conocer esta teoría.

Como libro, en ocasiones es un tanto repetitivo, y se le puede criticar que toda su teoría y estudio no tiene mucho de científico porque es en base a un artículo y gente que le escribe... Y sabes qué, me da igual. La sensación de que este señor ha puesto por escrito algo que todos sabíamos de forma tácita.

La distinción este trabajo precario y trabajo de mierda también es importante

A look at the increased amount of bullshit in the world, where it comes from, and how it impacts our lives. If you've ever had a bullshit job, or raged at all the bullshit getting in the way of your real job, this book is for you. You'll find good company in the real-world examples David shows off, and gain understanding in how you ended up in this predicament in the first place.

This is an interesting read. It was interesting to me as someone aspiring to not have a job and close to making that happen. The look at "why have jobs?" and "why treat them as so sacred?" really hit home.

I have long said that this reverence for having a job is rooted in Puritanism. Recently I am wondering if it is more deeply internalized capitalist frames. Graeber's viewpoint is that it is some of both, which I found interesting.

This book was a good companion piece to Chokepoint Capitalism

Political and economic philosophy is a dangerous subject to write. Your words will have a natural target audience. Fail to properly shade your text to your audience and your book will end up in (large) piles in a discount book warehouse. Or, in the age of digital books, with a 7-digit rank in the overall store...

Fortunately for the readers of this book, Graeber's commentary is equally caustic towards the movement conservative, the country club liberal, and even the well-meaning but slightly sanctimonious social democrat. The central thread of this work, which builds on an earlier essay that he published, is that regardless of whether you speak of the public sector, the academy, or private industry, the desire to build fiefdoms and heirarchies in the workplace give rise to the proliferation of meaningless jobs that are as damaging to the mental health of their incumbents as they are wasteful.

I was pleasantly surprised to see a large portion of one chapter dealing with the phenomenon of people working in BS jobs in order to fund their passion. Graeber accurately, and with recourse to excerpts from several interviews, documents the difficulties with this lifestyle and the drain on creative energy it can cause.

Ce livre fait partie de ceux qui changent votre vision du monde ou qui corrigent ce que vous croyez savoir.
Le précédent livre m’ayant fait cet effet est « Tout sur l’économie (ou presque) ».

Avant de lire cet essai : * Je savais que des « jobs à la con » existaient, mais je pensais que c’était un peu anecdotique * Je croyais les « bullshit jobs » beaucoup plus répandus dans la fonction publique et les grosses administrations. * Je ne connaissais pas suffisamment les racines historiques, religieuses de la « valeur » ou des « valeurs » que l’on accorde au travail * Je croyais à la fable de l’efficience du capitalisme

Et bien cet essai : * S’appuie sur des témoignages pour illustrer son propos. Mais même une foule de témoignages n’est pas une preuve. Alors justement…
* Trouve des preuves de ce qu’il avance : oui les « bullshit jobs » existent et ne se cantonnent pas au « public » (au contraire !) * Casse le mythe dans le privé il y en a peu * Casse le mythe d’un capitalisme efficient * Plonge aux racines de la place, de la valeur, des valeurs que l’on associe au travail Depuis quand associe-t-on le travail à la pénibilité ? Qu’est-ce qui se cache derrière le fait de « vendre son temps ? » * Catégorise de façon pertinente les genres de « bullshit jobs » * fait le pont avec les décisions politiques * Quelles conséquences sur les individus coincés * et bien plus !

Alors évidemment on ne peut pas mesurer précisément le nombre de bullshit jobs car comment savoir qu’un poste apporte quelque chose à l’humanité ?
Il ouvre d’énormes pistes de réflexion : * Pourquoi travaillons-nous ? * Pourquoi garder les gens occupés à des tâches inutiles voir néfastes ?

Un livre indispensable alors que la voie « travailler pour consommer » nous aliène et nous conduit dans le mur.

Quelques citations

Votre emploi apporte-t-il quoi que ce soit d’important au monde ? », plus d’un tiers des personnes interrogées (37 %) ont dit être convaincues que ce n’était pas le cas (50 % ont répondu par l’affirmative et 13 % se sont déclarées indécises).

Un job à la con est une forme d’emploi rémunéré qui est si totalement inutile, superflue ou néfaste que même le salarié ne parvient pas à justifier son existence, bien qu’il se sente obligé, pour honorer les termes de son contrat, de faire croire qu’il n’en est rien.

En 2016, les employés de bureau américains n’auraient consacré aux activités qui constituent le cœur de leur travail que 39 % de leur temps, contre 46 % en 2015, et ce en raison d’un accroissement proportionnel du temps passé à traiter leurs e-mails (de 12 % en 2015 à 16 % en 2016), à assister à des réunions « inutiles » (de 8 % à 10 %) et à gérer la paperasse (de 9 % à 11 %).

Où et quand en est-on venu à considérer que le travail inutile était préférable à l’absence de travail ?

Le « fondement du statut social », comme le dit Harry Braverman, n’était « plus la capacité de fabriquer des choses, mais celle de les acheter

« Chaque matin, en nous levant, nous fabriquons collectivement un monde ; pourtant, lequel d’entre nous, s’il ne tenait qu’à lui, choisirait de fabriquer le monde que nous avons ? »

Autres avis

• Alias
• Ecoutez l'émission de France culture

I was not familiar with David Graeber or his work prior to buying this book, but it's an interesting premise so I wanted to give him a chance to make his case. He shares some very interesting research, some anecdotal evidence, and even some compelling history to bolster his case that we've spent the last 50 years on a trajectory to implement all of the perversities of capitalism that theory tells us should be impossible.

I don't think anyone can deny the existence of pointless jobs (especially those saddled with them), but I'm not completely convinced that they are inevitable when following the path that western society has chosen. Also, as a fellow anarchist, I'm a bit surprised by some of David's proposals and his ultimate conclusion. I'm not sure how an anarchist can justify the positions that David takes in this book. I would be interested to read a follow-up dissertation on that by itself.

In the end, the book is interesting and sheds light on a problem that as the author points out, not a lot of people are aware of, or are willing to admit exists. Worth reading.