on the misconception that bullshit jobs are confined to the public sector

Page 16-18: on the misconception that bullshit jobs are confined to the public sector

So far,we have established three broad categories of jobs: useful jobs (which may or may not be shit jobs), bullshit jobs, and a small, but ugly penumbra of jobs such as gangsters, slumlords, top corporate lawyers, or hedgefund CEOs, made up of people who are just selfish bastards and don't really pretend anything else. In each case, I think it's fair to trust that these who have these jobs knows best which category they belong to. What I'd like to do next, before turning to the typology, is to clear up a few misconceptions. If you toss out the notion of bullshit jobs to someone who hasn't heard the term before, that person may assume that you're really talking about shit jobs. But if you clarify, he is likely to fell back on one of two common stereotypes: he may assume that you're talking about governmental bureaucrats. Or, if he's a fan of Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, he may assume you're talking about hairdressers.

Let me deal with the bureaucrats first, since it's the easiest to address. I doubt anyone would deny that there are plenty of useless bureaucrats in the world. What's significant to me, though, is that nowaday, useless bureaucrats seem just rife in the private sector as in the public sector. You are as likely to encounter an exasperating little man in a suit reading out incomprehensible rules and regulations in a bank or mobile phone outlet than in the passport office or zoning board. Even more, public and private bureaucracies have become so increasingly entangled that it is often very difficult to tell them apart. That's one reason I started this chapter the way I did, with the story of a man working for a private firm contracting with the German Military. Not only did it highlight how wrong it is to assume that bullshit jobs exist largely in government bureaucracies, but also it illustrats how "market reform" almost invariably create more bureaucracy, not less. As pointed out in an earlier book The Utopia of Rules, if you complain about getting some bureaucratic run-around from your bank, bank officials are likely to tell you it's all the fault of government regulations, but if you research where those regulations actually come from, you'll likely discover that most of them were written by the bank.

Nevertheless, the assumption that the government is necessarily top-heavy with featherbedding and unnecessary levels of administrative hierarchy, while the private sector is mean, is by now so firmly lodged in people's heads that it seems no account of evidence to dislodge it.

No doubt some of this misconception is due to memories of countries such as the Soviet Union, which had a policy of full employment and was therefore obliged to make up jobs for everyone whether a need existed or not. This is how the USSR ended up with shops were customers had to go through three clerks to buy a loaf of bread, or road crews where, at any moment, two-third of the workers were drinking, playing cards or dozing off. This is always represented as exactly what would never happen under capitalism. The last thing a private firm, competing with other private firms, would do is to hire people it doesn't actually need. If anything, the usual complaint about capitalism is that it's too efficient, with private workplaces endlessly hounding employees with constant speed-ups, quotas and surveillance.

Obviously, I am not going to deny that the latter is often the case. In fact, the pressure on corporations to downsize and increase efficiency has redoubled since the mergers and acquisitions frenzy of the 1980s. But this has been directed almost excluselively at the people at the bottom of the pyramid, the ones actually making, maintaining, fixing or transporting things. Anyone wearing a uniform in the exercise of his daily labors, for instance, is likely to be hard-pressed. FedEx and UPS delivery workers hav backbreaking schedules designed with "scientific" efficiency. In the upper echelons of the same companies, things are not the same. We can, if we like, trace this back to the key weakness in the managerial cult of efficiency—its Achilles' heel, if you will. When managers begin trying to come up with scientific studies of the most time- and energy-efficient ways to deploy human labor, they never applied those same techniques to themselves—or if they did, the effect appears to have been the opposite of what hey intended. As a result, the same period that saw the most ruthless application of speed-ups and down-sizing in the blue-collar sector also brought a rapid multiplication of meaningless managerial and administrative posts in almost all large firms. It's as if businesses were endlessly trimming the fat on the shop floor and using the resulting savings to acquire even more unnecessary workers in the offices upstairs. (As we'll see, in some companies this was literally the case). The end result was that, just as Socialist regimes had created millions of dummy proletarian jobs, capitalist regimes somehow ended up presiding over the creation of millions of dummy white-collar jobs instead.

We'll examine how this happened in detail later in the book. For now, let me just emphasize that all the dynamics we will be describing happen equally in the public and private sectors, and that this is hardly surprising, considering that today, the two sectors are almost impossible to tell apart.