Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a240014eeb7ccf88

Jump to content

Talk:Bullshit Jobs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Avatar317 in topic 2021 Study

Untitled

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I find it unsatisfying that the entire "Reception" section is based on ONE review from an Establishment newspaper. This certainly gives undue weight to that reviewer's opinions. Qu1j0t3 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to build it out. I probably won't get to it for a bit. czar 16:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I removed from "Reception" the sentence "A review in Philosophy Now found that Bullshit Jobs combines the worst elements of the industrial and the pre-industrial periods.[1]" because it isn't Bullshit Jobs that combines the worst elements of the industrial and the pre-industrial periods, and I can't find any similar opinion in the cited article, so I am not sure what was intended.CTourneur (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

French sources

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dumping a bunch here while they're current, in case someone wants to review in the future.

czar 22:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Further reading

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Moving these sources to the talk page since apparently other editors find it displeasing.

Here are some sources that might be interesting to read but appear to cover ground already better covered by sources currently in the article:

czar 00:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

czar 01:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

German sources

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

czar 11:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Academic sounding attack

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"A 2021 study empirically tested Graeber's claims, finding a low and declining proportion of employees who consider their jobs useless." The problem with a loaded articulation like this is the amount of time and effort it takes to refute it. There are a number of problems with this "study". However it may better to keep this line in the reception section since Graeber's work typically attracts inoperative detractions.

I expanded on what the study found and didn't find, which hopefully made the argument more nuanced that just a one-sentence attack. --LatakiaHill (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abergleitner, EA6666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mannybenzo (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Topics in Ethics Calling Bullshit

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marymountain, Thisrosegarden, Dylanfodor, Daniellebishop21 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zachscillia, DylnC, MUreedyt.

— Assignment last updated by DylnC (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

UK "Books of the Year"

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working on sourcing a claim in the Graeber biography coming from Penguin Books UK that Bullshit Jobs was "FT BUSINESS BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018, THE TIMES BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018, NEW STATESMAN BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018 and CITY AM BOOK OF THE YEAR 2018" and I'm saving my fact-checking here:

  • Financial Times did not name the book among its critics' picks in 2018 nevertheless as the "book of the year" but Andrew Hill did name the title among his "Best books of 2017: Business" must-reads.
  • The Times does not appear to name the book among 2018's best. It has many "books of the year 2018" articles (e.g., biography/memoir) by genre or category but I don't see where it names Graeber.
  • New Statesman did not name the book among its editorial highlights for 2018 but did outsource it to many individuals, one of whom (John McDonnell) wrote, "Equally explosive, my anarchist friend, David Graeber, yet again has thrown a hand grenade into the political economy debate with his Bullshit Jobs (Allen Lane), a call to strike out for freedom from meaningless work." This isn't a "New Stateman book of the year" but a personal pick.
  • City AM doesn't have any 2018 books of the year article live. I poked around in the Internet Archive for a bit but didn't find it there either.

For now, I'm rating these claims, to the book's chagrin, as "bullshit". Please share additional sources here if you find them. czar 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the book appears in this "books of the year" The Times list, but I can't find anything for the others. LatakiaHill (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music F24

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 16 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YesGerald (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kpcw24 (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

2021 Study

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Talking here about the 2021 study "Alienation Is Not ‘Bullshit’: An Empirical Critique of Graeber’s Theory of BS Jobs" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170211015067

This study is being presented as a supposedly "empirical" disproval of Graeber's claim that 50% of all jobs are "bullshit." It does not actually do this.

Let's break it down by focusing on the definition the study presents as Graeber laying out his argument:

"a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case".

The "pointless, unnecessary,...pernicious" are assessments of a job's social utility, assigned by others, not by the worker. "The employee cannot justify its existence." This is the part I think people misread. Being "unable to justify" doesn't actually mean that a worker views their job negatively. A worker can view their job positively, believe it is socially useful, argue for it's justification, and fail--because the job has a low social utility from an objective standpoint. "The employee feels obliged to pretend that is not the case." The data in the 2021 study actually underscores Graeber's point here. He's saying that an employee might feel good or bad about their job, but regardless of their positive or negative feelings, they feel compelled to defend it. By this line of logic, one could expect that people in "bullshit jobs" would report higher job satisfaction. Simply put, the data showing that people in "bullshit jobs" defend their work as socially useful and/or feel good about their jobs either confirms or doesn't actually challenge what Graeber is arguing here--which is either that 1. the "bullshit job" workers either feel more compelled than non-"bullshit job" workers to defend their "useless" jobs or 2. that their positive feelings contradict the objective utility of the job.

Graeber's category of "bullshit jobs" (specific types of managers, consultants, lawyers, etc.) hinges on whether or not these jobs are socially useful. To "disprove" this claim, the authors would have to show that these aforementioned jobs are actually far more socially useful than Graeber claims, which this study does not even attempt to do. Instead, it presents data on the feelings workers have about their jobs. The social utility of these jobs have nothing to do with the subjective feelings of the workers who are in their jobs. Someone can "feel" their job is very useful, when, from an objective standpoint, that job has a low level of social utility. Graeber's claim of "50% of jobs are bullshit" is based on this ("objective") standpoint the social utility of the jobs in question, not the ("subjective") standpoint of how those workers subjectively feel about their work.

However, the study's argument hinges on a conflation of this "objective" and "subjective" standpoint--saying they are the same--and then it presents data on the subjective feelings of workers in order to "empirically" disprove Graeber's claims. But this is actually a total misreading of Graeber's claim. At best, the study shows that Graeber overstates the subjective attitudes of workers towards their own work. Here on wikipedia, this study is being presented as a refutation to Graeber's book and a reason to "reject" the category of bullshit jobs. This is just simply a complete overstatement of what the study accomplishes, even if the authors of the study try to present it that way.

There's other problems with this study and misunderstandings here. I'll just keep it to this: If you as a wikipedia editor are making a claim, it's not enough to have a source. Adding a citation to your statement doesn't make it true. Whatever you claim a source says, that source has to actually say it. You can't say "oranges are blue" and then be satisfied, linking to a source to back up your claim, when that source actually says "oranges are orange" or talks only about apples and doesn't mention oranges. You have to actually read and understand your sources. And if your source really does say "oranges are blue," backing up your claim, well! That's a problem too. ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR, so your analysis of the study is useless here. If you don't think their study is valid, take that up with the journal who published their study or the study authors themselves. If the study is modified or retracted, than Wikipedia can change our statements to reflect the modified (or retracted) study. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's why I've restricted my opinions to the talk page and not included them in the article. The idea that this study merits an inclusion in the lead section of this article is itself an opinion, and one that you seem to hold. Just because a study exists does not indicate consensus. Why is this study actually notable and what merits its inclusion? Further, Read the last paragraph of my statement here. You are making claims as an editor which are not found in the source materials you reference. (WP:V) Before adding a citation to a claim, you need to verify that the source material makes this claim. If the source makes this claim then prove it. You make the claim that the article about marx's theory of alienation contains information that it does not. That is now an assertion you are making as an editor. And this is not the only assertion your summary makes which contradicts the source material! In my opinion a problem in two parts: one, a flawed summary on your part that lacks investigation, and two, it relies upon a study which itself has flaws. Are you just not interested in learning about or understanding the topics you are commenting on, and if so, why are you so insistent on making assertions about them? If that is not the case, if I am wrong, then my question to you as an editor is what is actually motivating your insistence?---talk) 06:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The above editor cites two studies. Had this editor read the material they cite, they'd know that the second study provides additional data and findings which are contrary to assertions made by the first. Namely, the assertion of the first study that "data" "empirically" refutes Graeber's analysis. The second study directly references the first study and regularly counterposes the two. The reason this is significant is it indicates clear academic disagreement on the utility of Graeber's "bullshit jobs" theory. Because there is academic disagreement, the first study cannot be understood as an authoritative refutation of Graeber's concept, and I don't see why it belongs in the lead.

Incidentally, the second study the editor cites in fact supports key aspects of my "useless" analysis above.

Here are some key quotes from the 2nd study: (from the first paragraph...): "This study extends previous analyses by drawing on a rich, under-utilized dataset and provides new evidence for the United States specifically. Contrary to previous studies, it thus finds robust support for Graeber’s theory on bullshit jobs."

"Contrary to Soffia et al. (2022), this article finds robust support for Graeber’s theory on BS jobs. Thus, it finds that working in one of the occupations highlighted by Graeber significantly increases the probability that workers perceive their jobs as socially useless (compared with all others). In fact, Graeber’s occupations are most strongly associated with being socially useless when other factors are controlled for."

"More detailed analyses even reveal that, of all 21 occupations, Graeber’s occupations are the ones that are most strongly associated with socially useless jobs when other factors are controlled for. This article is therefore the first to find quantitative evidence supporting Graeber’s argument. In addition, this article also confirms existing evidence on various other factors that can explain why people consider their jobs socially useless, including alienation, social interaction and public service motivation."

"This article therefore agrees with Soffia et al. (2022) that Graeber’s theory alone cannot explain why people perceive their jobs as socially useless. Instead of rejecting the theory altogether, however, the findings presented here suggest that it merely needs a slight modification. Thus, Graeber claims that people are usually correct in assessing the usefulness of their own jobs. This seems somewhat overstated, as results show that people’s perception is also affected by various factors unrelated to actual usefulness."

"By giving up the assumption that people are usually right in their assessment, however, all other aspects of Graeber’s theory can be upheld. Thus, some jobs may in fact be useless to society, even if this is only one reason among others why people perceive them as such."

From my analysis: "At best, the (first) study shows that Graeber overstates the subjective attitudes of workers towards their own work. Here on wikipedia, this study is being presented as a refutation to Graeber's book and a reason to "reject" the category of bullshit jobs. This is just simply a complete overstatement of what the study accomplishes, even if the authors of the study try to present it that way." ---talk) 08:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  1. ↑ Cite error: The named reference Phil Now was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bullshit_Jobs&oldid=1334043399"