Bullshit Jobs: A Theory: Difference between revisions

This book is such a missed opportunity. The [[bullshit job]]s phenomenon is real (I've had one for 20 years). There ''are'' [[bullshit jobs]], they are endemic, but in his polemic, {{author|David Graeber}} mischaracterises them, for large parts of his book confuses them with other phenomena which, while odious enough, have a different character (namely good jobs in unscrupulous businesses<ref>Unscrupulous businesses were around long before Dickens, as any old-school Leftie should know. They go with the capitalist running dog territory.</ref>, and [[survivor]]s<ref>[[Survivor]]s are harder to rationalise, except as the small group "defectors" that get away with free-riding in any large scale game of [[prisoner’s dilemma]]. </ref>: the piss-takers and grifters who hide in plain sight, without doing any work at all, in every large corporate organisation.

[[Internal audit]]: now ''that'' is a bullshit job: these people must turn stones, analyse data, write [[PowerPoint]] presentations, jockey [[spreadsheet]]s, and sanction the compilation of [[MIS]] against which they must measure formal, but ''never'' substantive [[KPI]]s and [[deliverable]]s. [[In the weeds]] which are their natural habitat, these  are perfectly sensible, prudent, and plausible means of managing systemic risk. From a birds' eye view they disappear from view altogether, but render really as a gray, sticky sheen over the whole organisation. In performing their role, internal auditors consume not only their own resources, external resources, but those of (usually) productive people whose functions they are employed to audit. That is bullshit squared, especially if they're auditing other people who themselves are carrying out largely bullshitty roles: [[ISDA negotiator|ISDA negotiators]] or [[Mediocre lawyer|netting opinion compliance personnel]].