This happens _constantly_. It is a side effect of how the promotion ladder in the management profession typically works at large companies: your likelihood of being promoted to the next grade depends entirely on a small number of metrics one of which is how many people you manage.
I actually have been documenting a very strong example of this for a book I have been thinking about writing about what destroyed a high flyer after the dotcom. After the collapse of the dotcom, one group, which had the CEO's ear as "the project that will save us" had effectively unlimited headcount even while the rest of the company was in cuts-and-freeze mode for 2+ years, and because of the headcount = promotion issue, they hired armies of people that they were barely even interviewing. The project ended up 2-4 years late depending on whether you count the first release as a viable product (it wasn't).
I have seen this behavior in every single large company I have worked for. I'm not going to give more details because it would ID me, but this is very common and I was in a position to witness it with actual data, not just a leaf node engineer telling myself stories about why XXX got a promotion to VP or whatever.
Actually working for large companies has left me with a very bleak outlook on human organizations.
I’ll give you an example. My wife worked as an intensive case manager, where the job was ostensibly to help severely ill people manage their lives. Was that her actual job though? No, her actual job was filling out reams of paper work instead of actually helping anyone. That paperwork was sent to the state and the company got paid, with the vast majority of the money going to executives.
What would happen if her job were eliminated? Would the people be worse off? No, the whole point was to not help them and keep the state aid checks coming in. My wife wasn’t using her skills and was depressed and stressed all the time so she’d be better off if that job had never existed. Then there were the 3 layers of middle management coordinating all of the form filling. Their job was wholly redundant, and they didn’t do any meaningful work at all. Did they even need to exist? It’s not clear, but their existence didn’t work toward actually helping any real people. They just helped collect government checks. They were paid well though.
The people who would be harmed the most by that “work” not getting done are the executives.
And when the service being provided are also paid for by the government the taxpayers take it on both ends!
Edit: Is my comment unpopular because some people think I'm endorsing the status quo or because some people find this state of affairs inconvenient to their world view?
However, they are clearly providing value to SOMEONE. The person paying your wife gets more value (money) than they pay your wife to do the job. They aren’t trying to keep her busy, they are trying to make money.
You could call this rent seeking, which is a completely fair criticism. It just isn’t the same as ‘make work’ that is simply trying to keep someone busy. They are trying to extract value in a way that is not good for society as a whole.
I guess from a physics pov it all depends how you define the boundary of the system, and I draw it at a society level.
It might seem like a minor distinction, but I think it matters when trying to understand the motivations involved.
This is exactly what the Federal Reserve does with its mandate for "full employment". When there aren't "enough" jobs, it loans out of a bunch of new money at low interest rates, for bankers to spend on outlandish bets - like say polluting the environment with electric scooters and hoping they'll turn into a recurring revenue stream.
"Full time employment" in 1950 was 40 hours per household. The definition was never adjusted when women entered the workforce en masse, so it's now 80+. With technological advancement, "full time work" should mean an individual works around 15 hours per week (with that "exempt" loophole closed). Economically, workers should have accumulated surplus and then demanded lower working hours regardless, but the previously described economic feedback loop saw that didn't happen, and instead the gains got siphoned upwards as housing and other economic rent.
That's the macro. At the micro level there are certainly motivations to create useless jobs. For one, the more people you manage/employ the more powerful you are, even if they're spinning idle. Also, adversarial entities can create jobs beneficial to their own self-interest while the overall situation remains nonproductive or even antiproductive (eg healthcare billing).
And then sometimes I really question is that new version website really needed?
> Why would anyone hire someone just to make sure they stayed busy?
1) flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters, makers of websites whose sites neglect ease of use and speed for looks;
2) goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists, community managers;
3) duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing bloated code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive;
4) box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers, quality service managers;
5) taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals
I am not going to argue that some work is more essential than other work, but I disagree that some jobs are created just to keep people busy. Why would anyone hire someone just to make sure they stayed busy? That is simply not happening. The people who control the money aren't worried about keeping people busy, they are worried about making more money.
Now, is there a large part of our economy that only exists because people who have capital will pursue anything in order to grow their capital? Yes, absolutely, but those jobs still exist because someone else will give them money to obtain what the job produces. Companies aren't sitting around thinking, "oh man, too many people in the world aren't busy... let's create some more useless jobs"