“Bullshit jobs” is a terrible, curiosity-killing concept
Claims that many modern roles are “bullshit jobs” — pointless positions sustained by bureaucracy, over-hiring and status games — draw both strong agreement and sharp pushback. Commenters trade examples from middle management, tech layoffs and medical billing, debate how to distinguish genuinely useless work from unpleasant but necessary roles, and question whether the term itself has become a thought‑terminating cliché that discourages curiosity about how complex organizations function. Underneath is a broader clash between economic and anthropological ways of understanding work, and over whether systemic critiques of capitalism illuminate real waste or simply oversimplify.
Thought‑terminating clichés & curiosity
- Several commenters link “bullshit jobs,” “signaling,” and “enshittification” to thought‑terminating clichés that shut down inquiry.
- Concern: labeling something as signaling or bullshit lets people avoid understanding complex motives, structures, or tradeoffs.
- Others argue these concepts still have analytical value if used carefully, not as blanket dismissals.
- Debate over whether people have any obligation to be curious; some see curiosity as essential to good work and life, others see it as optional and secondary to pay.
What counts as a “bullshit job”?
- Confusion and disagreement on definitions; many feel people project their own frustration or ignorance onto other roles.
- Distinction raised between:
- “Shit” jobs: unpleasant but clearly useful (e.g., food service, cleaning).
- “Bullshit” jobs: roles perceived by incumbents as pointless, or that solve problems created by the system itself.
- Self‑reports are seen by some as authoritative (“they know their job is useless”), by others as often mistaken.
Concrete examples & edge cases
- Food service: some insist it’s non‑bullshit because value to customers is obvious; others feel replaceable by customer self‑service or tech and thus useless.
- Actuaries: defended as clearly necessary, though others note many system‑generated roles (e.g., tax lawyers, complex medical billing) would vanish under different institutional arrangements and so are “bullshit” in a systemic sense.
- Medical billing and tax optimization are cited as archetypal jobs created by bad system design, not intrinsic human needs.
Twitter/X, FAANG, and overstaffing
- Musk’s 80% layoff at Twitter is used as evidence both for and against widespread bullshit jobs:
- One side: service still runs, so many roles were unnecessary.
- Other side: technical uptime is not the same as business health; ad sales, moderation, UX, and reliability have degraded.
- Broader point: many tech orgs can “keep the lights on” with far fewer engineers if they stop building new features.
- FAANG hiring/layoffs, “use your budget or lose it,” and headcount as a status symbol fuel claims of empire‑building and make‑work roles.
Unions, strikes, and worker value
- Transit and other public workers’ ability to shut down cities is cited as proof their jobs aren’t bullshit.
- Counterpoint: that power comes from unionized employment structure, not intrinsic job traits.
- Disagreement over whether unions effectively protect workers; some share anecdotes of harmful or pointless strikes and weak apprenticeship/benefit structures, others argue unions still improve long‑run compensation and security.
Reception of the book vs. the critique article
- Many commenters think the critique article badly misreads or strawmans the book, ignoring its nuance and empirical work.
- Others find the book itself economically naïve or incurious about standard explanations for firm behavior.
- Several recommend reading the original essay/book directly; skepticism expressed toward secondary takes that discourage engaging with the primary text.