Why are there so many bullshit jobs no one actually needs?

It's precisely that we've been able to automate everything that we end up with so many make work jobs.  The fraction of people that are employed in agriculture is about 3%.  The fraction of people in manufacturing is also extremely low, about 15%.  If you don't make people work, then you end up with lots of people with a lot of free time, and people with free time tend to do things like protest and riot. If you can get rid of the jobs and offer something else, then sure we might be able to do something.  The trouble is that if you can't and you just get rid of the job without offering something in compensation, then this isn't going to work, and then you'll have to argue about whose job we kill first.  One thing that I think is a little amusing is that most people in the financial industry think that they are doing useful things, whereas they are more of the opinion that professors of anthropology is a bs job, and given a choice they'd set things up so that anthropology professors all get fired.

This article makes the classic mistake of only looking at one side of the pricing equation. Prices (which includes salaries) in a free market are determined by supply and demand. The article is absolutely right that the demand for garbage collectors and tube drivers is very high, but the supply of people willing and able to do those jobs is also very high, which means the market salary is quite low (the actual salaries tube drivers get is very high, but that's because it isn't a free market - it is distorted by unions with statutory protections). Professional services may not be as essential, but they are in modest demand and have a very limited supply of people that can do the job, so they get paid more. "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." As an actuary, I would like to explain just how humanity would suffer if all actuaries were to vanish. Anyone trying to run an insurance company without actuaries would be unable to correctly price their policies, meaning they would tend to lose money. Even worse, they would be unable to determine the correct reserves to hold, which would mean they would frequently go bankrupt and be unable to pay out on claims. Therefore, insurance companies would not be able to exist and no-one would be able to buy insurance. If you crashed your car or your house burned down you would have to pay for it out of your own pocket, which most people can't afford to do. Retirement would also be very difficult. A defined benefit (where your pension is a specified amount, such as a percentage of your final salary) requires an actuary in order to work out how much money needs to be set aside to pay that pension. Without one, you would be reliant on your employer still being around for the rest of your life and able to pay you your pension directly each month. If you have a defined contribution pension (where you just have a fund that you and employer contribute to and is invested until you retire) then you will either use that fund to buy an annuity from an insurance company (which will need actuaries for the reasons given above) or you will withdraw a bit of it each month, in which case you'll need an actuary to tell you how much you can afford to withdraw without risking running out. So, however you go about planning for your retirement, you will need an actuary to be involved somewhere. (Even if you just rely on a state pension, the state still needs actuaries to ensure those pensions, as well as various other policies, are affordable.)

Without a "bullshit" job, how do you expect Joe Average to buy anything?  How is he supposed to afford a life of leisure if he's not doing something to earn his keep?  Maybe the world would keep on turning without as many clerks or middle managers or dog groomers, but then what would all those former clerks and middle managers and dog groomers do to pay for their food?

The article was a great read, yet I feel that there indeed are still holes to be filled in to make the picture whole. Specifically, the argument could be coined around: inefficiencies. 1. There are inefficiencies due to resource allocation. Suppose we have a McDonald machine that replaces all the French fry makers and boost efficiency of the operation (as a starter, you do not have to pay benefits to machine...). I would expect the chain to adopt it. I would NOT however, be so sure that the corner mom-and-pop burger joint would make the same choice. That machine could simply be too costly as a one-time item, nor do they have recourse with the bank to secure a big enough loan. That is inefficiency in capital allocation in the SYSTEM, yet to each party, the localized solution is optimal (bank, burger joint). 2. There are inefficiencies due to moral/political obligations. This I agree with the article. Bay area residents need to look no further than the BART strike, which, with the help of union, the BART drivers successfully negotiated 6 figure pay for the job they do. As long as people understood their livelihood might be taken away, they will band together to resist short term change. 3. Inefficiency due to human psychology/behavioral science. We are back at the burger joint and Mr. just found a chunk of change, enough for him to actually afford the fry machine. There is a good chance he still won't buy it, even if in the long run he would be better off buying it. This might be his psychological anchoring to his job, and an economic argument is not going to change that. Of the above, except for #2 which is mentioned in the linked article, everything else I except to persist in the medium run and hence bullshit jobs are here to stay.

The first thing I question when seeing this topic is, what is the qualification of defining a bullshit job?  Are you defining this as any individual who feels that the current work they are performing is bullshit? Anyone who is passionate about their field, even a telemarketer, would be able to give you a reason as to why that job exists. If there is no need for the job, then the job will naturally eventually die out. More common explanations for this type of job, or task for that matter, are a company's inefficiencies; the illusion of uselessness from managers/workers not understanding to goal of a task; or simply asking someone to perform a truly useless task to keep them busy. But I digress. I think the real question being asked here is, why are there so many individuals that are unsatisfied with their work? And secondly, why do we continue to work all these hours when we have automated many mundane/manual tasks away? Some aspects of the second question can be best exemplified in http://xkcd.com/1319/ and the NYTimes editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/our-unpaid-extra-shadow-work.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Simply put, for the purpose of this question, automation has created a slew of jobs that are a) not apparent to non-experts, and b) being performed by consumers themselves for "free". This is really just a side-effect of technology that we have have not account for. Just because we don't attach a dollar amount to day to day activities doesn't mean it's no longer being done. This phenomenon is the reason why casinos provide poker chips rather than ask gamblers to place bets using cash. This makes people to distance themselves from the actual dollar amount themselves, when in reality it is actually the same thing. Time is money after all. Another thing that comes to mind is what society has portrayed as the pursuit of happiness. Consumarization has risen our perception of our basic level of need. Why buy a broom and sweep when I can get a vacuum? Why get a vacuum I have to push around when I can get a Roomba that will vacuum for me? Ah the Roomba doesn't do a good job at getting to the corners so I still need a vacuum and a broom to really do the job properly, and so on and so forth. Getting all these things for all aspects of life is not cheap. Consumerization creates needs, driving our need for money, in turn driving us to pursue jobs and careers that are not necessarily our passion. What an unfortunate distortion of the pursuit of happiness. The final point I'd like to bring up is the skewed perception of higher education as something that is prestigious and worthwhile for everyone.  Many people pursue this path without truly understanding the purpose of these forms of higher education. Nowadays, there are many young college grads who go to grad school because they can't find jobs and are sitting around "wasting" time, or a myriad of other reasons that middle and low income families/individuals simply can't afford to support. We are being pushed to high income fields, and for good reason, because the cost of investment in higher education is so high. In the US, the barrier of entry is the cost of astronomical tuition rates. In poorer countries/families/circumstances, this barrier represents the opportunity cost of income vs education. Parents and kids alike are trying to lower risk and increase their return on investment in education. Parents are also even less likely to recommend their child to take a risky position as the parent typically does not reap the benefit of the immediate reward like a child would, while having to take on the majority of the downsides if their child fails. The situation remains the same with a single individual of course, but having a support system throws another factor to the equation. So how do we address these issues? I think it comes down to awareness, communication (to spread awareness), and self-discipline. Remember that you have the freedom to make changes/progress if you are unhappy with your situation. Be aware of what you want in life, pin it up on a wall, and look at it every day. You don't necessarily need to have everything figured out, but having a constant reminder in your life about what makes you happy in life will lead you to make choices that take you closer to that goal.  Money is not the be all and end all, nor is it the root of all evil in life; it is simply a tool that is commonly misused. Money is just a mechanism to make it easier for you to attain what you want - don't horde it, don't abuse it, and do your best to avoid debt. Similarly, debt is not a bad thing in of itself; borrowing money is a powerful tool and vastly reduces barrier of entry. This can be a wonderful tool if you do not abuse it, as it has the power to shackle you and take away your freedom if you are not careful. It is a very easy trap to fall into and I do not recommend it for anyone who is not aware of their own behavior and have a system of self control. "The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival." - Aristotle

Define "bullshit job."   I'm a maintenance planner/scheduler which considered to a "BS job" by many in the field of industrial machine maintenance and repair. That is, until a project goes millions over budget, there are no parts to be found and the contractors that are needed to perform a task aren't available because no one scheduled your maintenance projects with them in mind. Then, oddly, the BS veneer seems to disappear from the job itself.   Most people simply don't understand what it is that other people do. There are business and accounting positions that I would be unable to comprehend unless they were explained to me in detail. There are functions within certain government agencies which from their outward appearance seem to be ludicrous and duplicative until you realize what they are. It's easy to call BS on something that you don't understand if for no other reason than you don't understand it.   I have also worked with automation. While it certainly speeds up many tasks, it has severe limitations and it cannot yet operate by itself. Even if or when it does, there will still need to be people employed if for no other reason than how will the goods and services the machines create be purchased if there are not?   I do agree that people should have greater amounts of time off as the European model demonstrates that this more effective in maintain familial harmony and a better quality of life. I also realize though that everything is a tradeoff. If I only have to work 30-35 hours a week, who is going to be at the store when I purchase something? Whose going to answer the phone at a business when I call for assistance? And who is going to be at the hospital all night when I drive with a sick child, a high fever or chest pains?   There are no "bullshit jobs" (unless, of course, you count make work job s created by businesses seeking political favors...but that's another story). There are simply that we either don't understand or which seem vastly less important than our own.

The question seems based on a number of false premises. What would it mean to say that "most manual labor has been automated"? According to "The Working Class Majority" (by Michael Schweig) people who do manual or less-skilled labor under the control of bosses make up about 60 percent of the economically active population. This is the core of the working class. Bus drivers, construction workers, hospital orderlies, janitors, cashiers, truck drivers, factory workers. About one fourth of the total workforce works  in "industry" (manufacturing, mining, public utilities, transportation, construction). A majority of the working class work in services, such as retail, heatlh care, education, cleaning, garbage collection, etc. Graeber doesn't really explain what it means for a job to be "productive". Jobs in services are productive in the sense that they produce benefit for others...you get a haircut, the orderly cleans the room in the hospital, the bus driver gets you where you want to go, the warehouse worker sorts the goods coming in so they get  to the store where you can buy them. He also never explains why jobs are created within capitalism. Because capitalists aim to make a profit, they constantly work to reduce the amount of labor they employ. They do this not only thru the "automation" that Graeber mentions but also through work re-organizations & speed up. Right now the meat processing industry wants to eliminate the very minimal federal standard on speed of processing lines. These speeds already generate  accidents & problems of carpal tunnel syndrome. But the faster they can get meat cutters to work, the fewer they have to hire. So this means that if employers hire people to do a certain job, they believe it will be helpful to them in making a profit. Many of the sorts of jobs Graeber seems to have in mind are what would be called "guard labor" -- work at controlling others...supervisors, security guards, industrial engineers who design people's jobs...or jobs that are connected  to the system of sale of assets, such as stock brokers, real estate agents, etc. These categories of jobs exist due to the peculiar character of a capitalist economy, and would not be necessary if the economy were organized in a different way. For example the ranks of supervisors & middle  managers has grown greatly during the past 25 years, from 12 percent to 15 percent  of the economically  active  population. If you pursue a strategy of paying people very little, you'll probably need to keep close watch on them to get them to work diligently. The point to the corporate managerial bloat is that it is "needed" by the owners, the 1 percent, to control the workforce & manage their businesses in a way that will generate a profit. The managerial bureaucracy is not really essential because actual production of goods & services could be collectively managed by the workers necessary to production of those goods  & services. The hours that fully employed people have been working  in USA over the past 40 years has greatly increased. Companies often prefer to work people at  longer hours rather than hire another person, due to expenses associated with benefits or the hiring process. And yet there is also a major problem of unemployment (especially since the 2008 crash)...the percentage of adults in the labor force has fallen to very low levels. This problem could be addressed by shortening the workweek without loss of income, so that the work needed to produce goods & services we want is spread out among those available to work. Capitalists would fight this proposal intensely because it would reduce their profits. Given the decline in strikes & unions in the past 30 years, the working class doesn't currently have the leverage to achieve this, but a revived labor movement might focus on this. Given that productivity has increased 80 percent since about 1970, it seems reasonable to seek a reduction to 30 hours a week at no loss in income. Exactly how far the workweek could be shortened depends on various factors, such as how much we want produced & the level of labor productivity. So Graeber is right that there are certain kinds of jobs that aren't really necessary to production of the goods & services desired by the masses, but these jobs exist because they are needed by the present capitalist institutions.

Two basic reasons.  The first is that we cannot eliminate jobs at the same rate that we create them, either through improvements in technology, or lack of need.  The second is that people have varying abilities.  So here is an example that fits both criteria.  Despite the advancements in cleaning products and tools, we still need people to do the work.  And because cleaning jobs do not require substantial abilities or education, there are many people who do them just for the money, and because they do not have the skills to rise above those jobs. An example of a "bullshit" job that is extinct, was the verification of key punch cards, done by a second person who re-keyed the same cards to discover if an error was made by the first person who keypunched the card.

While I'm sure there are some jobs "no one actually needs" you may be confusing a worker who doesn't think his job is meaningful with an employer thinking their employees' jobs are not necessary.  Few employers hire people to do jobs they think are unnecessary. Furthermore, certain work - like tax accounting - could be eliminated with simple tax laws and quality tax software but for lobbying by ... tax accountants.  Once certain jobs exist, workers often fight to keep those jobs (and food on their tables).  In this case, these jobs are "needed".. by the workers who perform them. Perhaps your question should be: in today's world, why are there so many bullshit jobs that most people are unhappy to perform?  However, that isn't all that interesting a question.  Some work just isn't that exciting.