Cheryl_NL: Says someone who has never gone through a serious audit. Many of these things are critical corporate memory. And often the problems of today are rooted in these records.

I need a labeler just for people who cite bullshit jobs unironically.

I don’t understand why people believe rapacious corporations which only care about making money at the expense of everything else would also blow money on a shitload of meaningless layers of jobs?

Genuinely if Bullshit Jobs is true then every corporation is managing a piece of a welfare state that would make the New Deal look like a nickel kicked to a panhandler.

The thing is, it is true in a weak form, and very false in strong form. There is inevitably going to be inefficiency due to departmental divisions and budget issues, and there is inevitably going to be work that is categorized as mediocre.

Why is there this stupid job? Because no one wants to pay to do it better. Why is this unbearable bullshit allowed to endure? Because it hasn't caused anyone important financial problems yet and it makes the machine go.

there are lots of jobs that have little to do with making the machine go, as they basically track and record what the machine is doing for future reference. this is deemed socially necessary, and may perhaps be, but it is divorced from the functional operation of the firm.

Says someone who has never gone through a serious audit. Many of these things are critical corporate memory. And often the problems of today are rooted in these records.

what makes you think I haven't? not only have I, but I was in fact the point person for dealing with tax officials.

Then I don’t see how you don’t see record keeping as a core company process.

pretty simply. paying taxes is socially necessary but wholly irrelevant to firm functions. firms do that work *for* the government (as they should), but it's not what they're for.

Audits and records also review safety conditions(including food safety), they look at leakage in the P&L. They are a lot more than tax.

yes, and again, safety is vital—but it's not a core function of a firm. in practice, firms end up paying lawyers and consultants to carry out purely formal activities to demonstrate compliance. it would in fact be more efficient to pay gov't agencies to do that!

I think we aren’t going to agree. Safety is a critical part of many brands. I think I get what you are saying, but I find trying to separate core from non-core in this way is artificial & bad for company culture.

So you're not saying they're bullshit jobs, just that somebody else (organizationly speaking) ought to be doing them?

(I once tried to address leakage for a small furniture manufacturer. spent a month building an inventory database and tracking system, only to discover that it was cheaper to let the leakage go than to try and control it. got paid though.)

Post