News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by WJW on Thursday June 11, 2020 @02:00PM (#23491559)
There's a ton of nice-to-have professions that are not strictly necessary, like musicians and decorative fountain builders. That is a good thing! It's clearly possible to live in a giant grey barrack and eat nothing but soylent but it's not what 99% of the population would prefer. If anything, it would be good for society to make the percentage of not-essential-but-nice-to-have as high as possible.
Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by burtness on Thursday June 11, 2020 @04:03PM (#23492803)
I dont think the parent comment's bullshit jobs are the same as your definition of nice-to-have jobs, at least assuming parent is talking about David Graeber's use of the term.

Bullshit jobs are ones that could disappear and the impact would unnoticeable or minimal for an organisation's output. Nice-to-have (for society?) professions still have value, otherwise they wouldn't be nice - if all the musicians disappeared people would definitely notice.

I'd also contest the idea that cultural labour is unnecessary. Lots of people in lockdown have depended on all kinds of music, TV, film, etc to maintain their mental health. This seems to go beyond preference, even if not everyone needs the same or as much cultural produce to survive healthily.

Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by ironmagma on Thursday June 11, 2020 @04:10PM (#23492867)
It’s roughly the same concept. Those people were hired for a reason, even if it wasn’t a fully rational one. Just as musicians are the quality of life improvers of society at large, so too are code janitors to an IT team.
Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by toshk on Thursday June 11, 2020 @05:58PM (#23493715)
The idea of bullshit jobs started a few years ago mostly based upon the idea that the people doing themselves felt like they were doing bullshit jobs, and therefore not feeling fullfilled.
Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by Doctor_Fegg on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:59AM (#23496184)
Douglas Adams got there in the 80s with his Golgafrincham B Ark storyline.
Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by alasdair_ on Friday June 12, 2020 @02:02AM (#23496478)
>Douglas Adams got there in the 80s with his Golgafrincham B Ark storyline.

If COVID-19 has taught us nothing else, it's that (as Adams warned us) "telephone sanitizers" are absolutely essential.

Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by fnord77 on Thursday June 11, 2020 @05:59PM (#23493734)
if anything, I'd wager the bullshit jobs make an organization less efficient.
Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by mlyle on Thursday June 11, 2020 @02:27PM (#23491810)
There's various kinds of "unnecessary work" jobs. Some do really contribute directly to the common welfare: artisans and producers of culture; providers of small conveniences, etc.

There's also a whole lot of administrative, artificial, make-busy-work jobs, where we build complicated systems of bureaucracy to prevent losses that cost orders of magnitude more than the losses they prevent, and that in turn impose layers of bureaucracy on others.

Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by roenxi on Thursday June 11, 2020 @04:49PM (#23493152)
To be fair, nobody knows which parts of a complex bureaucracy are useless and which are important. There is a pretty decent chance that the truly useless parts of an organisation are linked in to complying with regulations.

Most of the parts of the bureaucracy that I think are useless are the parts that are non-negotiable from a legal perspective.

Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by mlyle on Thursday June 11, 2020 @10:31PM (#23495396)
> Most of the parts of the bureaucracy that I think are useless are the parts that are non-negotiable from a legal perspective.

When we look at e.g. higher education, for a place that's particularly guilty of this:

Administrative costs have grown to be approximately equal to instructional costs at universities, from about a quarter of expenditures in 1980.

In essence, our desire to prevent waste and to ensure that money is spent the way we'd like has created an ever-ballooning set of administrative work. It might be better to tolerate a somewhat greater share of instructional and research expenditures being wasted or spent in non-ideal ways.

Any time there's a small bit of waste or money spent in ways we don't approve of, the impulse is to create rules and administrative procedures to prevent it from happening again. But this effectively creates a perpetual overhead for what may have been a one-time, very minor problem.

Re:MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations by Paddywack on Thursday June 11, 2020 @06:16PM (#23493847)
“There is nothing as necessary as the unnecessary” - from the movie Life is Beautiful.