ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st May 2020, 10:04 PM   #41
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Furthermore, Graeber estimates that 40% of jobs are 'BS'. I call BS on this figure. I bet that a large proportion of those 'BS' jobs are actually doing something useful - perhaps not individually, but in the overall functioning of businesses and the economy. Graeber apparently thinks we could eliminate 'BS' jobs and use the efficiency gained to fund a basic income. I don't believe it. 100% efficiency is impossible, and if his 40% is 'optimistic'...
AGAIN, that's not his estimate, that's how many people who SELF-DECLARED in polls that their job isn't contributing anything to society, or even that society would be better off without it. And again, that's just those who were sure. There's another huge chunk who took the option that they're not sure if their job actually contributes anything.

I mean, fer fork's sake, I could understand it the first time as an honest mistake, but at this point it's just you deliberately chasing your own strawman.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:25 PM   #42
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,071
Depending on the sector, 40% BS jobs might be low-balling it.

Plenty of companies "need" certain jobs simply for Window Dressing.
Most Corporate Boards of companies are stuff with people who basically do nothing beyond lending their name to the enterprise.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:37 AM   #43
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
As I was mentioning before, and that is the scary thought for me: I think it IS lowballing it, because of how people work in polls.

One of the first things you learn in anthropology, and in fact its whole reason to send someone to observe some community for a longer while instead of just sending a pollster, is that basically people will BS you even in anonymous polls. They'll answer whatever option makes them sound like better, more socially-acceptable people, more often than the alternatives. Maybe not as a matter of deliberately lying, but everyone likes to think they're better people than they really are. Either way, it can skew polls massively.

Also remember that this is the society doing EXACTLY the setup for cognitive dissonance experiments. This is exactly how they studied the induced compliance flavour of cognitive dissonance: you make someone do an obviously pointless and boring task, like turning a knob by 1 notch ever quarter of an hour, but pay them for it even a minimal amount. Like even 1$. And they have to convince someone else that no, the task was worth it and totally engaging. (In the corporate world, that would be their boss and coworkers.) And then it turns out that after a while most will have convinced THEMSELVES too. 'Cause, see above: self image.

So, assuming that we still live in a culture where success and work and so on matter, you'd see a two-fold effect:
A) a lot of people would pick the option that their job is useful, even if it weren't, just because it's the more socially acceptable option, and
B) some will actually have convinced themselves that they are doing useful stuff.

Of course, I could be wrong in just that assumption: that we still live in that kind of a culture. But the alternative is even scarier. Because then it would mean that being a time-waster actually has become the more socially acceptable thing in our culture than working hard.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd May 2020 at 12:39 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 01:08 AM   #44
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,071
And, of course there is the Peter Principle in hierarchies which states that people tend to get promoted to the level of their incompetence, meaning that more people are required to do a job then necessary because those promoted to do it can't.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 01:48 AM   #45
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
That is not the kind of cost we are talking about. The capitalist's goal is not to reduce costs for everybody else, but for himself.


That's cost efficient. Not efficient in the way I would use the word. As I say, this is simpy a labelling thing.

I'm going away now before I upset any more economists.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 22nd May 2020 at 01:50 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 02:16 AM   #46
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
Actually, rather than argue about which kind of efficiency is what, I'd say that the whole premise is flat out false, and quite trivially so. Almost nobody is after ANY kind of efficiency per se. What they want to maximize is profit. When the two align, good, but when they don't align, efficiency can eff right off.

The trivial example is marketing and PR. The cost per bottle of Coke would be quite a bit lower without all the many millions going into marketing, but you'd sell less of them and make much less of a profit. The way to make more of a profit actually IS to raise costs, by including marketing and PR.

Another trivial example -- well, technically the SAME, but just a narrow subsection of it -- is work on your corporate image. That includes not just straight up marketing, but also sponsoring charity events, making a big fuss about being LGBT friendly, or hiring minorities, or just being a big provider of local jobs. There is nothing efficiency-raising about giving 1 million to charity, and then probably 1 million more on publicity so everyone knows you did, and in fact it raises costs. But if it raises sales more, that was worth it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 02:24 AM   #47
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
The other thing that irks me about the use of the ideal free market as a defense here is that basically it revolves not just around perfectly informed and perfectly rational agents -- which, frankly, is already trivially false -- but around guessing what's in their head, and that their goals happen to be EXACTLY what's needed for a particular BS apologetics exercise. E.g., that all money spent would be judged strictly through the selfless lens of how much it contributes to the final product.

But REAL people do dumb stuff all the time, and quite routinely put personal status above business goals. E.g., there have been plenty of companies that were driven into the ground while the CEO was getting a corporate jet and yacht for himself. Yes, one can put a price on that too, but one can't pretend that oh noes, that decision was taken purely by how much it benefits the company and the product.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 02:25 AM   #48
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, rather than argue about which kind of efficiency is what, I'd say that the whole premise is flat out false, and quite trivially so. Almost nobody is after ANY kind of efficiency per se. What they want to maximize is profit. When the two align, good, but when they don't align, efficiency can eff right off.

That's what I said!
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 02:40 AM   #49
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,683
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
AGAIN, that's not his estimate, that's how many people who SELF-DECLARED in polls... I mean, fer fork's sake, I could understand it the first time as an honest mistake, but at this point it's just you deliberately chasing your own strawman.
The straw man (if there is one) is not of my making, it's Graeber's. How he arrived at his estimate is irrelevant, he is the one pushing it.

You chastise me for not accepting such a high percentage, but then...

Originally Posted by HansMustermann
I think it IS lowballing it.
So you think even more jobs are BS than Graeber does! You have actual evidence, but you discard it in favor of some unproven psychological theory.

Well I can do that too. In businesses I have worked in some co-workers thought they had BS jobs. But they didn't have the information to know how useful they were, so they made their evaluations out of ignorance. What is interesting is that this often aligned with a general propensity to 'buck the system' rather than do the job asked of them to the best of their abilities. If you are not the boss then how can you say that your job isn't worth doing? Maybe it is, but it's not your call to make.

I have also done jobs that logically seemed to be necessary, but turned out to be a waste of time. Perhaps nobody could have predicted that, or perhaps management just didn't have the foresight. Again however, it wasn't my call to make. In a capitalist system (which if you will remember, is the most efficient economic system known to man) the people with the capital decide what is necessary and what isn't, and what they do with their money is their call, not ours.

No matter how many jobs you think are BS, a capitalist system still produces the least BS on average. Because it is a universally accepted fact that every other system has more BS.

Quote:
assuming that we still live in a culture where success and work and so on matter, you'd see a two-fold effect:
A) a lot of people would pick the option that their job is useful, even if it weren't, just because it's the more socially acceptable option, and
B) some will actually have convinced themselves that they are doing useful stuff.
Whatever gets you through the day. Ultimately, the only thing an employee has to convince themselves of is that the business will pay them for their work. Why else would they need to be there?

But hey, let's say you are right and most jobs are BS but people convince themselves that they are necessary. The same applies to products and services. Very little of what we make and buy is actually 'necessary', so most of our economy is BS. Entertainment? BS. Nice looking clothes? BS. Food that tastes good? BS. Haircuts? BS. Paint in any color other than black? BS. Any worker in any industry that produces anything that isn't 'necessary' has a BS job.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza
Plenty of companies "need" certain jobs simply for Window Dressing.
Most Corporate Boards of companies are stuff with people who basically do nothing beyond lending their name to the enterprise.
How do you know that 'window dressing' and 'lending their name' are necessarily BS? Some of the most successful businesses wouldn't be if they didn't do that.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 02:49 AM   #50
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The straw man (if there is one) is not of my making, it's Graeber's. How he arrived at his estimate is irrelevant, he is the one pushing it.

You chastise me for not accepting such a high percentage, but then...
No, I chastise you for pushing a BS strawman. Whether you believe it or not is your thing. LYING about where that number comes from is another thing.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 03:24 AM   #51
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
That said, let's look at the rest of your exercise:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The straw man (if there is one) is not of my making, it's Graeber's. How he arrived at his estimate is irrelevant, he is the one pushing it.
REALLY? It doesn't matter where a number comes from, it matters that he's the one saying it? THAT is your argument? A LITERAL ad-hominem circumstantial?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So you think even more jobs are BS than Graeber does! You have actual evidence, but you discard it in favor of some unproven psychological theory.
So basically it may be anthropology says, and they may have a butt-load of examples of it happening in practice, but if it contradicts what you wish to believe it's unproven? Remind me... how is that different from Pixie Of Key's position on relativity?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Well I can do that too.
I already knew you can do dumb BS, because that's been your whole contribution in the thread so far. It was never in question that you can, really. So no need to prove it.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
In businesses I have worked in some co-workers thought they had BS jobs. But they didn't have the information to know how useful they were, so they made their evaluations out of ignorance. What is interesting is that this often aligned with a general propensity to 'buck the system' rather than do the job asked of them to the best of their abilities. If you are not the boss then how can you say that your job isn't worth doing? Maybe it is, but it's not your call to make.
I assume that you WERE their boss, then, if only the boss can make their call? Or are you just trying to say only YOU are qualified to make such judgments?

Besides, if you admit that it comes with "a general propensity to 'buck the system'", then enough bucking will simply turn it into a BS job. Whether the job really leaves enough room for 38 hours a week of browsing cat memes, or someone makes room by 'bucking the system', the end result is just the same: it's been turned into a BS job. Regardless of what the original intent by the boss was.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I have also done jobs that logically seemed to be necessary, but turned out to be a waste of time. Perhaps nobody could have predicted that, or perhaps management just didn't have the foresight.
So essentially you ARE saying that even a chunk of those who said they were doing something useful, should have actually inflated the number of BS jobs, right?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Again however, it wasn't my call to make. In a capitalist system (which if you will remember, is the most efficient economic system known to man) the people with the capital decide what is necessary and what isn't, and what they do with their money is their call, not ours.
Which basically once again boils down to your belief that ideal theory trumps reality. I.e., pretty much on par with believing that cars can't emit carbon monoxide and soot, because an ideal engine would have complete combustion. But a model is just that: a simplified model of reality. Not something that trumps reality. In fact there's a name for holding beliefs in spite of contradicting reality: delusion.

In this case the belief is that ideal market assumption that all actors are perfectly informed and perfectly rational. As in, both (A) the guy with the money knowing exactly what jobs some middle level manager 6 levels below him creates, and being OK with each of those, and (B) that middle level manager knowing that the only reason he needs yet another employee is that the other half a dozen are just browsing for cat memes.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No matter how many jobs you think are BS, a capitalist system still produces the least BS on average. Because it is a universally accepted fact that every other system has more BS.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it's perfect either. I fail to see why it's such a trigger for you that someone would even mention that inefficiencies even exist at all.

Edit: but really, I don't recall anyone proposing to go communist or anarchy or whatever instead. Well, not in this thread anyway. So it's not very clear to me why you feel a need to defend capitalism by comparison.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Whatever gets you through the day. Ultimately, the only thing an employee has to convince themselves of is that the business will pay them for their work. Why else would they need to be there?
What someone needs to believe to go to work, and what they need to believe to feel happy about themselves are two very different things. Pretending that only the former exists... that's such an oversimplified view of psychology, it's almost cute.

More to the point, the idea that doing something useless is actually making people unhappy, isn't even some modern anthropology idea. Dostoevsky for example discovered it first hand in the 1850's, long before we even had psychology or anthropology. He actually writes that even convicts prefer actually doing something useful, and would probably hang themselves or revolt if you made them do something blatantly useless like moving a mound of earth back and forth between two places. In fact, he wrote that it's the most soul-crushing thing you can do to someone.

So yes, it was that obvious all along that people have more psychological needs than get paid.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But hey, let's say you are right and most jobs are BS but people convince themselves that they are necessary. The same applies to products and services. Very little of what we make and buy is actually 'necessary', so most of our economy is BS. Entertainment? BS. Nice looking clothes? BS. Food that tastes good? BS. Haircuts? BS. Paint in any color other than black? BS. Any worker in any industry that produces anything that isn't 'necessary' has a BS job.
False analogy. The more direct analogy for most time-wasting jobs would be something that doesn't do what it says on the box. THAT is the analogy to some manager who spends all day reading cat memes instead of doing what's in his job description. And which we already know we're not ok with as a society. If your washing machine decided to take a three hour lunch break in the middle of the rinse cycle, nobody would argue that it's ok, just you're not in a position to judge it. In fact it's the whole POINT behind having laws dealing with fraud or customer rights.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd May 2020 at 03:35 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 04:32 AM   #52
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,683
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The other thing that irks me about the use of the ideal free market as a defense here is that basically it revolves not just around perfectly informed and perfectly rational agents -- which, frankly, is already trivially false
Oh dear.

When is anything perfect in the real world? And yet systems still manage to function despite their imperfections. An 'ideal' free market with perfectly informed and perfectly rational actors would be perfectly stable and produce the most wealth possible. Real markets are not perfect, so they don't achieve perfection. But that doesn't mean they can't get close.

Economists use models with 'perfect' agents because the alternative (modelling the behavior of millions of real people) is too difficult. But the model still works with imperfect agents, so long as they are reasonably rational and well-informed.

Quote:
REAL people do dumb stuff all the time, and quite routinely put personal status above business goals. E.g., there have been plenty of companies that were driven into the ground while the CEO was getting a corporate jet and yacht for himself. Yes, one can put a price on that too, but one can't pretend that oh noes, that decision was taken purely by how much it benefits the company and the product.
The primary purpose of a company is to serve its master, the owners(s). It certainly isn't to 'benefit' a product (unless the owners wish it) or for the company itself (which is just a means to an end).

Yes, people do 'dumb' stuff all the time, but who is to say what is dumb and what is smart? I am thinking of a particular computer company (producer of the 'World's best-selling desktop computer') whose executives were roundly criticized for 'driving it into the ground'. In truth however, its fate had been sealed long before that. If I was them I too would have sucked out as much as I could before it collapsed - a smarter move than trying to stave off the inevitable. Many fans of the product were upset, but it didn't take them long to move to other brands.

Few computer companies from that era survived, no matter how much they tried to cut out 'BS' and improve their product. But we now have computers a thousand times more powerful which were literally science fiction 25 years ago. Despite all the failures and 'BS', Capitalism has given us stuff that no 'intelligently' planned economy could.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 04:45 AM   #53
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,683
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
False analogy. The more direct analogy for most time-wasting jobs would be something that doesn't do what it says on the box. THAT is the analogy to some manager who spends all day reading cat memes instead of doing what's in his job description.
So now we are talking about outright fraud?

I thought the 'BS' in BS jobs meant that doing what was in the job description was a waste of time. Now I see it is actually about workers who are not doing the job, and should be fired.

The only thing I don't see is why such people should be rewarded with an unearned basic income.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 05:15 AM   #54
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So now we are talking about outright fraud?

I thought the 'BS' in BS jobs meant that doing what was in the job description was a waste of time. Now I see it is actually about workers who are not doing the job, and should be fired.
Well, it looks like we could have saved ourselves quite a bit of arguing if we had cleared that misunderstanding earlier.

Exactly whether it's the employee that's to blame for their own BS job, or for hiring some flunkie job under him, depends on the exact circumstances. But yes, it's not about the job description or title. It's about the job that one particular person does. (Or doesn't really do.)

Nobody, not even Graeber, was proposing something blanket like "middle manager jobs are all BS". It's more as in, the job that this one particular guy does is BS.

And of course even a flunkie job won't have something like "must agree with the superior a minimum of 5 times a day" as it's actual job description. Because then the guy above the one who hired him, or some controller would go, "wait, if that's all he does, why are we employing that guy then?" It will be disguised as something more palatable.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The only thing I don't see is why such people should be rewarded with an unearned basic income.
Well, as I mentioned before, I disagree with Graeber about what the root phenomenon is, and thus about that universal income solution too. I mean, it makes no sense to support the solution if the problem isn't the one justifying it.

He thinks it's just a cultural phenomenon. I think there is some cultural component to it, don't get me wrong, but ultimately I think it's mostly just a partial failure to organize the company.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 06:13 AM   #55
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,698
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I have a good enough understanding of capitalism. Getting the most out of the least does not produce the most wealth. Getting the most money does.
Wealth isnít a function of having more money, itís a function of what goods and services you can buy with the money you have. If you have less money, but the money you do have can buy more and better goods/services then in real terms you have more wealth.

Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Below is an example. It simply isn't efficient to keep making light bulbs, but it makes more profit. As I say, you and I don't mean the same thing by 'efficient'.

"The cartel lowered operational costs and worked to standardize the life expectancy of light bulbs at 1,000 hours[6] (down from 2,500 hours),[6] and raised prices without fear of competition. The cartel tested their bulbs and fined manufacturers for bulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours. A 1929 table listed the amount of Swiss francs paid that depended on the exceeding hours of lifetime.[8] "
In an idealized market this isnít a problem. The competition between lightbulb makers would insure that they would find the sweet spot between cost and lifespan to provide the greatest value. The problem is that the real economy doesnít behave this way all the time. This means that when left to their own devices, business prefer not to compete on price and/or quality and work out other ways to protect their markets.

Figuring out why real markets donít behave like the idealized model and figuring out how to make them function as close to that idealized model makes up a bit part of modern economics.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 06:38 AM   #56
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,698
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As I was mentioning before, and that is the scary thought for me: I think it IS lowballing it, because of how people work in polls.
I wouldnít be surprised if this is the case. The problem is that you can't just hand wave away the difficulty involved in fixing the problem. The problem itself doesnít arise from capitalism itís inherent to running any large complex organization. Moving away from our current system would not make the problem go away and would probably make it worse.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 08:35 AM   #57
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,095
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Well I can do that too. In businesses I have worked in some co-workers thought they had BS jobs. But they didn't have the information to know how useful they were, so they made their evaluations out of ignorance. What is interesting is that this often aligned with a general propensity to 'buck the system' rather than do the job asked of them to the best of their abilities.
If workers are not explained what use their work serves and they start half-arsing it, then that in it self is a very serious inefficiency. Even people erroneously thinking their job is BS is a problem.

Quote:
If you are not the boss then how can you say that your job isn't worth doing?
You are assuming that the boss knows more about what the work actually entails than the people doing it. You'd be surprised how often that is not the case.

Quote:
Maybe it is, but it's not your call to make.
It would be nice though if employers can explain what use a task is, and if they bothered to listen if the employee thinks it not very useful.

Quote:
In a capitalist system (which if you will remember, is the most efficient economic system known to man)
"Most efficient" is not the same thing as "very efficient".

Quote:
the people with the capital decide what is necessary and what isn't, and what they do with their money is their call, not ours.
The people with capital are often so far removed from day to day operations, that they have no real insight in how things actually work -- as can be seen in those "Undercover Boss" shows.

Quote:
Because it is a universally accepted fact that every other system has more BS.
Very few things are "universally accepted". Certainly not this.

Quote:
Ultimately, the only thing an employee has to convince themselves of is that the business will pay them for their work.
No, if you want good employees it helps if they feel they are actually useful.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 03:27 PM   #58
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,536
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I wouldnít be surprised if this is the case. The problem is that you can't just hand wave away the difficulty involved in fixing the problem. The problem itself doesnít arise from capitalism itís inherent to running any large complex organization. Moving away from our current system would not make the problem go away and would probably make it worse.
Not sure why everyone assumes that if I mention someone's theory, I must be pursuing some revolutionary goal

Doubly so when, as I've been saying a couple of times now, I don't even fully agree with the theory in the first place. In fact, as I may have hinted before, I actually largely agree with your assessment that it's just a problem with organizing something so big that nobody knows what's really happening two levels below or above them, or two departments sideways.

Really, the only reason I mention it here is in case anyone is interested. In which case, you can just get the book or search for him on youtube and get a better idea than from my unqualified summary. And if not, not.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.