Counter-argument: bullshit jobs are beneficial to the wider economy.
Society demands consumption, which is funded via wages. The higher consumption, the more the economy grows. Ergo, having more people employed with higher wages creates more economic activity, which in turn fuels more growth, which fuels more jobs, etc. While eliminating bullshit jobs sounds great on its own merits, eliminating the wages for said jobs can actually clog the local engine by lowering wages, raising unemployment, slowing hiring, and curtailing growth. If 15% of jobs are “bullshit” to be eliminated, that’s a 15% reduction in SaaS and seat-based revenues, which means those companies providing services have to cut their headcount, which startles others…you get the idea.
I suggest that instead of cutting “bullshit jobs”, we instead reduce working hours across the board (and penalize overtime) such that more folks have an opportunity to engage in meaningful and valuable labor in exchange for higher wages. Rather than burning out a smaller portion of folks with longer hours, we share the load across multiple folks over a shorter time frame. The extra downtime creates more opportunity for economic activity, which in turn will grow the economy.
You could argue that a bullshit job is a form of rent seeking. The bullshit job worker is increasing his or her share of the wealth without actually creating any wealth through labor. Rent seeking overall is not a good thing for the economy.
I am not arguing in favor of the bullshit job itself, merely that we should retain the labor and dedicate it towards non-bullshit ends instead of the slash-and-burn approach favored by the loudest anti-bullshit-jobs proponents. Workers in every vertical report being overworked relative to compensation, so why not relieve the stress by shifting folks in bullshit jobs back into meaningful roles but at reduced work weeks for everyone involved?
I mean, I obviously know the answers why we don’t (shareholder value, power dynamics, desiring the humiliation of others), but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
> While eliminating bullshit jobs sounds great on its own merits, eliminating the wages for said jobs can actually clog the local engine by lowering wages, raising unemployment, slowing hiring, and curtailing growth.
If you get rid of BS jobs then you're not paying people to do them. Someone then gets the money you're not paying them, e.g. the company can now charge lower prices to customers who then have more money to spend. They then want to buy something else with the money and the people who need jobs then get jobs doing that.
In most cases this will actually increase consumption, because people buy more when things cost less and therefore provide more value for money. If the cost of a year of college goes down by $10,000 by eliminating some bloated administrative bureaucracy then more people can afford it, positions that couldn't previously find qualified applicants get filled and unemployment goes down, those positions pay better and people have more money to spend, etc.
> I suggest that instead of cutting “bullshit jobs”, we instead reduce working hours across the board (and penalize overtime)
Isn't this the exact same thing only distributing the hours differently?
You could be proposing one of two things. One is to have everyone work fewer hours doing the same thing they do now, but that one obviously doesn't work. Jobs like carpenter or trauma surgeon aren't BS jobs and if people spent fewer hours doing them then we'd have fewer of those things done, which would be bad.
The other is that instead of getting rid of BS jobs, we get rid of BS work. So we have fewer middle managers and have the people who used to do that instead do something productive, allowing the people currently doing the productive thing to work fewer hours.
The result of that would then be that everyone works fewer hours. But then they would have less money to spend. If you work for 32 hours instead of 40 at the same hourly rate then you take home less money. Getting rid of 20% of hours rather than 20% of employees would reduce total income by the same amount.
If the same thing happens and the company e.g. uses the money saved to lower prices then it's a similar scenario to getting rid of the jobs, except that now instead of production/consumption increasing because we got rid of inefficiency, people work fewer hours to get the same stuff because now they get paid for fewer hours but things also cost less. But that tends to be trouble because the prices change non-uniformly, e.g. the cost of financial services comes down because you eliminate some useless bureaucracy but you haven't done zoning reform so housing is still expensive. When jobs still pay the same amount that's fine, because a bunch of small businesses pay lower costs for payment processing or employee health insurance, lower prices by that much and then have to hire the people who lost their jobs to produce the extra stuff people buy with the surplus money. But if jobs suddenly pay 20% less, your mortgage payment hasn't changed.
Whereas if you take the original premise that people making less money would reduce consumption, e.g. that the savings would go into Evil Corp's money bin and never be spent, then you're in even more trouble in your case. Because you're deterring people from going back to the original number of hours in order to be able to afford the original level of consumption.
Shame isn’t dead. Specific kinds of shame are increasingly on the way out, particularly when it comes to individuality and self-expression, but shame itself isn’t dying or dead so much as accountability flatly does not exist anymore.
When the author bemoans a lack of shame in how the NBA teams tank games to improve later draft odds instead of playing out every game with ferocity and pride, what they’re actually bemoaning is the lack of consequences for such negative behavior - and misattributing that to a lack of shame by fans towards the team instead of a lack of consequences from governing bodies. It’s a naive fantasy of how the world works rather than a stinging critique of real problematic behavior.
It also ignores the grim reality that many people simply have no concept of shame in any sense that could correct their behavior. Zuckerberg absolutely has no shame, nor does Musk or Thiel or Bezos; it is impossible to shame them into better, healthier behavior, just as it’s impossible to shame Sony into manufacturing physical media again, or shaming the driver that just cut you off in traffic without a turn signal and used their vehicle as a missile to get their way by honking your horn or flipping them off. Shame alone means fuck all absent consequences.
And the thing about shame is that it too is a weapon that has been wielded to horrific ends in the past. Relying on shame alone is how you get McCarthy and the Red Scare, how you repress LGBTQ+ identities, how you segregate people based on skin color or ethnicity or national origin. Shame is toxic, and the few areas we rely on shame as a weapon are also areas of some of the greatest societal harms at present: homelessness, malnutrition, poverty, convicted felons, all are shamed for existence to the point they’re encouraged to disappear from society by any means other than improvement, like a one-way gate rather than a crisis to be addressed. In light of how we currently weaponize shame, I don’t think relying on expanding its use to address grievances is the right call.
Not saying the article is right, but the point is supposed to be that social norms used to (or should) be sufficient. People should feel and be made to feel shame for flagrant disrespect of core principles that their participation in a system would seem to entail (like playing to win).
Speaking for myself, shame has certainly sometimes been enabling, sometimes disabling. Wanting to live up to an image I have of myself and what I should be (and feeling ashamed when I don’t) is a pretty core part of how “I” work. I agree shame can certainly turn toxic, but there are times when it is fair to say, “you should feel ashamed of yourself” (including in some circumstances, “for driving that kid to suicide by making him feel ashamed of who he is”).
> the point is supposed to be that social norms used to (or should) be sufficient. People should feel and be made to feel shame for flagrant disrespect of core principles that their participation in a system would seem to entail (like playing to win).
This requires shared “norms” and “core principles”, which we no longer possess. I’m not sure how to regain them either. It’s not like we’re going to agree on a new set of shared principles; each major political group prefers that social norms should reflect only their own priorities.
I hate to be that dinosaur, but this is exactly what I’ve been warning about since XaaS began taking off in the mid-oughts: any provider you use can and will use your data for their own benefit regardless of any contracts or safeguards in place, especially if the benefits outweigh the consequences.
Honestly, I’m surprised it took this long for some company to really go all the way, though. OpenAI really making it transparently clear that they can and will do whatever they want with the data you provide them, contracts or settings be damned. Completely untrustworthy as an entity, full stop.
Of course, I’m also too jaded to think this will change anything. Folks will move to Anthropic, or Gemini, or Grok, or some other hosted model on a pubCSP managing the harness and logs for them, and then do another shocked-Pikachu face when it happens again.
If you aren’t running workloads on infrastructure you own, then your privacy, security, and general outcomes are at the sole whims of the hosting provider - who can and will fuck you over the exact second it’s more beneficial for them to do so than the loss of trust incurred.
Context matters, because absent it folks will look at these increases and shrug it off as inflation (or let companies shrug it off with that excuse).
To truly contextualize it, we need to understand the total value (library sizes, removed/lost media, household/account sharing costs) relative to its price, and relative to background inflation. We need to understand relative to costs (labor, infrastructure, royalties), to profits, and how industry consolidation has or has not affected these data points.
From my own understanding of the wider context, there’s a significant attribution of costs to naked greed and profit extraction rather than overall value. With job displacement due to AI (despite union contracts), the tearing down of series or films due to CEO preference (looking at you, Zaslav), the overlap of libraries (Hulu and Disney are increasingly the same thing; Hulu/Disney/Peacock are the same thing as Hulu alone was just seven years ago), the punitive measures against account sharing, and with the forcing of advertisements onto previously ad-free platforms or pricing tiers, the overall cost relative to societal value has decreased while value to executives and shareholders has increased, and that’s the real takeaway.
Man I wanted to dunk on this, but it’s honestly not terrible. Their predictions - while still firmly rooting for the extreme results - feel more grounded. I also appreciate the little simulator where I could plugin my own predictions (echoing many here, that AI won’t amplify productivity/lift standards so much as replace workers by shitty bosses), and that it seems to caution that, yep, most of these gains will trickle up given current incentives.
Where I remain resoundingly annoyed is how useless this is. It’s pure ass-covering by Anthropic ahead of an IPO, victim-blaming the populace for the outcomes of decisions made by Anthropic leadership and the investor class. Forgive the grisly analogy, but it’s akin to a mugger telling you “only you can stop this” mid-violence: Anthropic could have chosen to allocate more of its capital to reforms that benefit the populace, but they’ve chosen to focus on personal wealth instead via this IPO and for-profit rented access schemes.
It’s nauseating. Their actions still paint a picture of greed and exploitation rather than building a better tomorrow for everyone with AI, and the fact their PR puff pieces keep getting wallpapered up here is gross.
EDIT: I guess another way to look at this is Anthropic making it unequivocally clear that they will not stop of their own accord, and thus it falls to others to stop them. Which if that’s their position, then at least they’re honest about the challenge.
I’ll get on board with mass surveillance just as soon as every single elected and unelected leader, business executive, politician, celebrity, oligarch, Capitalist, all board members, all C-Suites, and every single VC has a live, uninterrupted, 24/7 publicly-accessible feed of their lives as they live by example and demonstrate the benefits of such a regime.
Which is to say I will never, ever be on board with mass surveillance, because those in or of power are conveniently left out of its dragnet.
It’s charging facilities being down far too frequently, whereas gas stations are rarely bone dry.
It’s sites lying about charging port availability, leading to wasted range on red herrings (thanks for lying about NACS chargers, Sheetz!).
It’s the anxiety of not knowing whether a charging area will be safe to hang out in for half an hour, unlike a gas station where you can pump and run pretty quickly if necessary.
The anxiety doesn’t come from a “limited” range (especially when gas vehicles get comparable or worse ranges); it’s the experience surrounding charging itself that needs improvement. One series of service stations offering reliably available charging ports with both plug standards and offering clean bathrooms, hot food, and space to wait in, is what’s needed to soothe “range anxiety”.
I hate this comes from Reason (along with an opinion piece at the bottom about regulation is always bad), but the story itself is disgusting and a complete government overreach.
On the one hand, we tell parents they’re accountable for their kids, which is fair and reasonable. Then we build a society where parents cannot dedicate themselves to being effective parents because they both must work, unless they have enough wealth and privilege to afford (and find) child care services or can have one parent stay at home full-time. Then if said lucky-ass parent decides in their wisdom that their kid is mature enough to roam a secured neighborhood with active security patrols on their own, they get prosecuted criminally for daring to let their child develop confidence and independence.
It’s nauseating, and I’m tired of this “stranger danger” bullshit along with the societal hostility towards adults and children alike. We can - and must - do better than this shit.
Most of the names on that list are kinda expected and obvious for any of us who spent any amount of time seriously engaging online outside of social media spaces. I mean, Cloudflare defended literal White Supremacists a la The Daily Stormer, and DHH is a person of immense notoriety for their bigoted views.
What’s disappointing is two-fold: HN greens and miscreants leaping to defend overtly fascist viewpoints as valid (faithfully ignoring the Paradox of Tolerance), and seeing 1Password on that list. Most of that garbage I can avoid to some degree, but 1Password is still the industry leader for enterprise password management by a wide margin, particularly in terms of UX. It’s making me side-eye Proton Vault for a migration for my own credentials, even if it means losing such conveniences as SSH/CLI access.
I’m also going to echo the sentiment of the cooler heads (and the OP) here, in that these people and entities aren’t David fighting Goliath. These are wealthy and powerful people either openly espousing violent ideologies or supporters of said proposals in monetary and/or infrastructure terms. They aren’t the deplatformed, they’re the deplatformers; they aren’t the debanked, they’re the debankers.
I don’t know which of you is part of the lucky 10,000 today, but more people need to internalize that life is inherently political due to its complexity. This rhetoric isn’t empty or hollow, it has meaningful impact and direct harm when left unchallenged. Similarly, the workplace isn’t some mythical apolitical environment, but a melting pot of policy and positions that form better or worse outcomes depending on what levers are pulled. Folks who exist on the “fringe” have no choice but to exist as open political entities until and unless the “fringe” is normalized, at which point we become background signal like everyone else (hence the backlash to “woke” and “DEI” by those whose power is derived from oppression and unalienable attributes like race or sex).
There is a very real problem of wealthy and powerful people leaning heavily on old fascist tropes to promote their own agendas at the expense of everyone else, their supporters included. We need more folks to recognize that their actions and their words are the same thing, and they intend to harm anyone and everyone they can to ensure they never, ever have to grow as individuals.
>Most of the names on that list are kinda expected and obvious for any of us who spent any amount of time seriously engaging online outside of social media spaces.
Those names are "kinda expected and obvious" for only the terminally online.
>Cloudflare defended literal White Supremacists a la The Daily Stormer
Never happened.
>and DHH is a person of immense notoriety for their bigoted views.
Only for the terminally online leftist.
>What’s disappointing is two-fold: HN greens and miscreants leaping to defend overtly fascist viewpoints as valid (faithfully ignoring the Paradox of Tolerance)
Heterodox opinions and anything right of Stalin != "overtly fascist viewpoints"
>They aren’t the deplatformed, they’re the deplatformers; they aren’t the debanked, they’re the debankers.
Always projection and admission. "When we do it, it's (D)ifferent!"
>I don’t know which of you is part of the lucky 10,000 today, but more people need to internalize that life is inherently political due to its complexity. This rhetoric isn’t empty or hollow, it has meaningful impact and direct harm when left unchallenged.
That's what many said about DEI/far-leftism. Anyone not fully aligned were called every -ist and name you could think of.
>Folks who exist on the “fringe” have no choice but to exist as open political entities until and unless the “fringe” is normalized
Everyone is a political entity.
>hence the backlash to “woke” and “DEI” by those whose power is derived from oppression and unalienable attributes like race or sex
It's backlash against boldfaced racism. DEI/wokeism is a racist, sexist, hateful ideology. That's why there's backlash.
>There is a very real problem of wealthy and powerful people leaning heavily on old fascist tropes to promote their own agendas at the expense of everyone else, their supporters included.
There was a very real problem of wealthy and powerful people leaning heavily on old communist tropes to promote their own agendas at the expense of everyone else, their supporters included.
Seconding that observation. The IT folks in charge of the compute direction have been quietly raising those concerns for over a decade (“and what happens to those alleged lower costs when their attention diverts to a new industry or pumping margins for shareholders?”), and the major enterprises or customers had all but migrated wholesale into public CSPs - and been eyeing the exit when they finally opened those eye-watering bills IT had kept forwarding to stakeholders. The industry wasn’t going to collapse so much as right-size, and that would turn into an inevitable cycle of churn (higher prices to drive margins, leading to more customers leaving in part or in whole, which would drive up costs higher to continue delivering positive results, ad infinitum).
The current AI build and boom has done wonders to their bottom lines in the immediate, but even Wall Street has its limits, and it sounds like there’s decreasing appetite for such CAPEX builds without associated proven revenue. That might kill some companies outright, but more likely it’ll force the major CSPs into the churn cycle that much faster.
Society demands consumption, which is funded via wages. The higher consumption, the more the economy grows. Ergo, having more people employed with higher wages creates more economic activity, which in turn fuels more growth, which fuels more jobs, etc. While eliminating bullshit jobs sounds great on its own merits, eliminating the wages for said jobs can actually clog the local engine by lowering wages, raising unemployment, slowing hiring, and curtailing growth. If 15% of jobs are “bullshit” to be eliminated, that’s a 15% reduction in SaaS and seat-based revenues, which means those companies providing services have to cut their headcount, which startles others…you get the idea.
I suggest that instead of cutting “bullshit jobs”, we instead reduce working hours across the board (and penalize overtime) such that more folks have an opportunity to engage in meaningful and valuable labor in exchange for higher wages. Rather than burning out a smaller portion of folks with longer hours, we share the load across multiple folks over a shorter time frame. The extra downtime creates more opportunity for economic activity, which in turn will grow the economy.
reply