Why Do Bullshit Jobs Exist?

An alternative explanation

Bullshit Jobs, for those unfamiliar, is the title of a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber. It’s well worth a read just for the fascinating research and the engaging writing style. The premise of the book is that many people work in jobs that contribute nothing to society, and would not be missed if they suddenly vanished overnight.

The data backs this up. In a 2015 British poll that asked “does your job make a meaningful contribution to the world?”, 37 percent of people said no, and another 13 percent weren’t sure. That’s fully half the population who can’t confidently say their job is even worth doing. And other polls have found similar or worse results.

The book was inspired by the overwhelming response to a 2013 article Graeber wrote titled On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant. The point I’d like to address is found here.

Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, ‘professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers’ tripled, growing ‘from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.’ In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be.)

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning of not even so much of the ‘service’ sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations.

These are what I propose to call ‘bullshit jobs’.

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the sort of very problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things; through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organizing or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets.

The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political.

In the book, Graeber expands on this idea with a very entertaining description of the many flavors of bullshit jobs, based on anecdotes from readers of his article. He follows that up with theories speculating on the cause of this situation. And wraps it all up with the conclusion that basically capitalists are all big meanies and invent bullshit jobs just to torture people and prevent the arrival of the Marxist utopia where no one has to do much real work and we all sit around and sing kumbaya and discuss philosophy. That’s too harsh a criticism of a very well researched and written book, but I have to confess I was sorely disappointed the first time I read it by the author’s failure to even entertain what seems like the obvious alternative explanation.

Graeber acknowledges in the book that it’s not surprising bullshit jobs exist inside government, although he doesn’t focus strongly enough on why that is. Like he does in the article, he tries to brush it off with the excuse that the same problem exists in the private sector. As he acknowledges, this isn’t supposed to happen in capitalism. He realizes that it makes no logical economic sense for a profit-seeking firm to hire workers to do nothing productive.

But then he follows that acknowledgement with the claim that “The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political.” I’m sorry, what? How is that clear? How do you go from stating an obvious economic fact, to denying that the problem is economic, and call it “clear”.

“Still, somehow, it happens,” is not anywhere close to a sufficient explanation to rule out an economic factor.

The economic explanation

First, some definitions.

Capitalism is defined as “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

A free market is “an economic system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and are not controlled or regulated by a government: a market operating by free competition.”

Now that we made sure we’re talking about the same thing, we can analyze this issue logically.

Capitalism and free markets work through competition for customers. It’s an economic law that a customer won’t pay more for the same good or service when they could pay less. Someone can try to make obscure and esoteric objections and force me to emphasize the word “same” and analyze what the good or service being purchased actually is, but everyone else understands this intuitively. So if two companies are offering the same product for sale, all things being equal, the company offering lower prices will attract the customers. Pretty simple stuff.

Of course, the goal for the company is to generate profits. It’s literally in the definition of the word “capitalism”. So any system in which companies have a goal other than generating profits is, by definition, not capitalism.

A company can increase its profits two ways: raising prices, or lowering costs. We don’t have to get too philosophical to realize that if a company is paying someone to do nothing, the company could increase profits by firing that person and lowering their costs of production.

So the question is, why don’t they? Why do they hire people who increase their costs and lower their profits, thereby making them less competitive? And more importantly, if they do make that mistake, why don’t their competitors undercut their prices and take all the customers and bankrupt them?

I don’t think we can dismiss the economic factor as off-handedly as Graeber does. After all, making a profit is the fundamental, definitional purpose of a business or company in a capitalist economy. To say “companies in this capitalist economy are doing something completely antithetical to the very principles and definition of capitalism, so obviously they’re not doing it for economic reasons” is something of a non sequitur.

The conclusion, to me, seems obvious. We don’t have a capitalist economy. As far as I can tell, that’s true by definition. If companies aren’t even trying to achieve the goal companies must achieve to survive in a capitalist economy, and somehow they’re still surviving, that’s proof of the non-capitalist nature of the economy.

Which part of the capitalist system are we missing?

Well, let’s start with the obvious: there’s a lot of government in our economy. The government isn’t privately owned, which makes it not capitalist by definition. So any part of the economy that’s government is not capitalist.

Why is government not capitalist? Because government is not motivated to provide goods and services at a profit. Why not? Because government does not sell goods and services into a free market. Government gives away goods and services to its “customers” for free, because they’re paid for by people other than the consumers of the service. That payment comes in one of two ways: taxes, and debt. It’s not a voluntary transaction.

Which part of the capitalist system might private companies be missing?

They could be lacking competition. That is, operating a monopoly or cartel. If there’s no competing business to provide goods at lower prices, the company could hire people for useless jobs and compensate by raising prices. This places them outside the definition of capitalism, since “free competition” is part of the definition of a free market. Monopolies and cartels often develop and survive through protection by the government, which emphasizes their un-capitalistic nature.

They could be in a temporary situation where the people making the management decisions are sufficiently insulated from the market forces at play that their poor decisions can persist for a while. Many companies begin to lose their competitive edge at some point, after getting big enough to have economic inertia and for the management to be less accountable for business performance. If a company has grown big enough, they can start making poor financial decisions and absorb the lost profits, sometimes for years, before losing their market share to a smaller, more competitive rival. This isn’t really an absence of capitalism, just the natural creative destruction necessary for capitalism to function. The problem comes when a company that’s obviously uncompetitive is prevented from failing through un-capitalistic means. Maybe they’re big enough and wealthy enough to pressure the government into granting them monopoly status. This doesn’t have to be open, it’s often through creating such an impenetrable legal morass around the industry that no competitor can emerge. Or it can be in the form of a “too big to fail” direct government bailout.

The company could also be lacking that essential link between customer satisfaction and business income. In other words, maybe they aren’t selling to their customers. That can happen for various reasons.

Some companies are “private companies” but sell to the government. The government is not a customer in the capitalist sense, because the government spends money taken coercively from its subjects, not money earned voluntarily in the free market. So any company like Raytheon or Boeing that survives off government contracts can’t be accurately called a capitalist organization.

In an industry like healthcare, where the insurance companies are the middlemen in basically all transactions between patients and doctors, there are also lots of ways for bullshit jobs to proliferate. Patients don’t care how much a procedure costs, just that it helps them. Doctors don’t care how much a procedure costs, just that the insurance company will pay for it. And insurance companies don’t care whether a procedure helps the patient, they just want to collect as many premiums as possible while paying out as little for care as possible. The fact that the patient isn’t paying the doctor for their care breaks the necessary link between customer and producer that’s essential for a free market to function. That combines with the regulatory moat and cartel-like structure of the healthcare industry to prevent the competitive function of capitalism from occurring.

Companies could also be surviving off of money from someone other than their customers: bankers and investors. There’s obviously a role in a capitalist system for investors to support a new venture until it’s able to attract customers and establish a stable and profitable business model. But many companies today exist for much longer than economically reasonable without turning a profit. In the US, almost 2,000 of the 5,000 publicly traded companies with data available were classified as “zombie companies”, meaning they don’t even make enough profit to pay the interest on their debt. So they’re going deeper in the hole every year. How can this continue?

Well, the alternative to paying off your debt, is to borrow even more money to make payments on the debt you already owe. If this sounds similar to how the US government survives, then you’re beginning to get the picture.

How can banks keep loaning money to unprofitable businesses? And why would they do it? It doesn’t make sense… until you understand how banking works.

That’s really the core focus of most of my writing, and I’ve written multiple articles on money and banking explaining how the system works as I understand it. This would be a good one focused on banking specifically.

To very briefly recap, banks don’t make loans by taking in money from depositors and loaning that money to borrowers. Instead, banks create new money that never existed before out of thin air and loan that new money to borrowers. Banks make a profit by charging borrowers interest on this newly created money, which costs them nothing to create. A pretty cushy gig, if you can get it.

So from the perspective of the banks, the more loans and debt outstanding, the better. Every dollar of debt is a dollar they can collect interest on. It cost them nothing to create, so the more, the merrier. In fact, the banks would prefer that the loan principle never be repaid, because once it’s repaid, they can no longer collect interest on that loan until they make another loan to replace it. As long as the borrower keeps paying interest, the banks are happy. And if they need to lend the borrower some more money so he can afford to pay the interest, that’s fine too. Anything but letting the loan default.

Given those incentives, how do you expect a chart of the outstanding loans and credit of US commercial banks to look?

If you guessed up only, you’d be correct.

So what does this banking system have to do with bullshit jobs? Well, I’d argue that the fractionally reserved fiat banking system, in and of itself, is an anti-capitalist system. Money is the communication layer of capitalism, as I’ve previously written.

When one group of people can create money out of thin air, they have the ability to reallocate wealth in the economy. As long as the money is still functional, of course. Too much money creation and wealth reallocation, and people stop trusting the money. That’s when inflation becomes hyperinflation, the money no longer functions, and the whole system implodes.

Wealth reallocation by a small select group is the essence of a centrally planned socialist/Marxist economy. And we all know how efficient those economies are. In fact, Graeber himself mentioned the inefficiency of socialist states like the Soviet Union in his original article, and was not at all surprised by the existence of bullshit jobs in such an economic system. When wealth can be reallocated by central planners without regard to people’s preferences in a free market, inefficiency is never punished, so zombie companies full of bullshit jobs never go bankrupt.

The same thing happens under our “capitalist” system. Zombie companies full of bullshit jobs can get almost unlimited funding from too-big-to-fail banks, who don’t care whether they repay the loans, as long as they stay in business and keep making the interest payments. Sometimes the funding is in the form of loans directly, sometimes it’s in the form of massive stock market bubbles inflated by the endless money creation, sometimes through junk bond issuance funded by the same bubble economics, and sometimes it’s venture capital funds flush with liquidity for the same reason. Regardless, the cause, and the outcome, are the same.

The corrupt bankers own the corrupt politicians, so when the inevitable so-called black swan event occurs and the rotten edifice starts to quiver, another bailout is promptly rolled out. The government borrows trillions from their owners over at the Federal Reserve, who create the money out of thin air. The government sends it on over to the bankers who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar once again, and they paper over the massive holes in their balance sheet caused by blowing asset bubbles and funding inefficient zombie companies. Or sometimes, the government skips the middlemen entirely and bails out Boeing or whoever it happens to be directly.

And once again, bullshit jobs that couldn’t survive free market competition are rewarded at the expense of savers and taxpayers. As always, this flood of new liquidity flows out through the economy, causing inflation and boosting income for other inefficient companies that also deserved to fail. Creative destruction, a fundamental feature of a capitalist system, is avoided once again.

In my opinion, the banking system is at the root of the problem causing the proliferation of bullshit jobs. The system itself is, by design, fundamentally anti-capitalist in nature and function. It’s really a giant privately owned economic central planning system, in which a small fraction of people determine how resources are allocated, with privatized profits and socialized losses. The Soviet technocrats would be jealous.

Unfortunately, the bankers have successfully connected their industry so tightly to the term “capitalist” that showing people they’re anything but is almost impossible. To paraphrase the well-known quote, the greatest trick the bankers ever pulled was convincing the world that they’re the real capitalists.

Until the banking and monetary system fundamentally changes, inefficiency will persist and bullshit jobs will continue to proliferate. In my opinion, the problem is very much an economic problem. And it’s not a “late-stage capitalism” problem, it’s a “capitalism left the building a century ago” problem. We don’t need to get rid of capitalism, we’ve already done that. We need to bring sound money, and with it the possibility of a capitalist economy, back again.