I know how some companies work. Also I notice that some propositions of David Graeber[1] are true. Is it actually true that companies do create useless jobs? Why don't they simply hire more actual engineers for that money they spend on useless office workers? Engineering is hard and requires a large expirience, while simply sitting in office does not. Is that why companies create useless jobs? Also I notice that education falls off because of that. Or is that they simply ignore education to hire more useless office workers?

How do I find actual job in such world? I do not want to be useless and be paid for being useless office worker. I want company to be actually looking into my expirience and asking questions, for example about my Bs/Ms thesis, because they are not. Nobody is interested and looking into science results or education anymore. Or is that only my view?

Links: [1] David Graeber. Bullshit jobs: a theory. 2018.

  • Please if you are here to simply downvote, then at least tell me what is wrong with my question. Because I am really would like to hear something to get closer to answer this.
    – sanaris
    Mar 16 '19 at 15:56
  • 1
    You are asking several questions, and while you're citing a source, you aren't giving any explanation of that source. Mar 16 '19 at 16:13
  • I've chosen to answer your first question, "Is it actually true that companies do create useless jobs?" Mar 16 '19 at 16:14
  • This site does not cover how companies do business like this. Mar 16 '19 at 20:31
  • Engineers are great, but someone needs to make the engineering profitable. Those "useless" office workers sell products, negotiate the enterprise deals, hash out legal disputes, and obsess over cost controls. While engineers are an important part of the equation, they are still only part of the equation. In my experience, "just hiring more engineers" is a terrible idea!
    – acpilot
    Mar 16 '19 at 22:31

Graeber's argument is that jobs in fields such as financial services or telemarketing are"useless". However they all have the same purpose as jobs have had since the dawn of capitalism: profit.

There are plenty of jobs that I think of as "useless" such as the production of chemical weapons or everything Vanilla Ice ever did, but people still pay money because their customers are willing to buy those services.

  • But company have the freedom to hire more productive workers. Why do they hire unproductive force instead? It is casual workers and engineers who provide profit, not the advertisement, HR or managers. It is always true that somebody should control the operations, but while having available resources, everybody is choosing to spend it wrong. Why?
    – sanaris
    Mar 16 '19 at 16:30
  • You make it sound as if you expect one employee fulfilling multiple rolls to always be more profitable. Even "useless" employees have a function in the profitability of a business. Why else would they be hired?
    – JustSaying
    Mar 16 '19 at 18:22
  • 5
    As an engineer, I can tell you that without my manager, my team's productivity would plummet. Without HR staff, we wouldn't know how to legally hire/terminate employees. Without our accounting staff, none of us would know how to run payroll. I can't think of a single useless employee in my firm. Mar 16 '19 at 18:32
  • I worked at an engineering company who employed a lawyer full-time. He ended up saving the company lots of money whenever ensuring our contracts were watertight. He even made us a tidy pile on occasion when it was shown the client was at fault and they'd have to pay us again to fix it for them.
    – HorusKol
    Mar 17 '19 at 13:38

No properly run company would create a job simply for the sake of creating a job.

Each job they create has a function. In smaller companies, one employee might be able to fulfill many funtions. As a company grows and the demands of each function increases, additional people would need to be hired to keep things running smoothly and to increase the profitability of said company.

The reverse is also true, If a company is shrinking, now doubt people will be laid off because no serious company would keep people around if they have no work for them, or multiple people are handling functions that can be performed by a single person, because, once again, the aim is to operate at maximum profitability.

So to answer your question :

In my opinion, no job created is ever useless. A job being called useless is merely a matter of opinion.

  • If every job is about work, why then companies fall down in a matter of seconds. Yesterday it had some stock price, tomorrow it is just wasted bricks of paper and empty offices. Why all those people were keeping to sit in their offices and did not start to search for new jobs before?
    – sanaris
    Mar 16 '19 at 18:41
  • Not everything in life is predictable and often bad management plays a role. Also, any company has a minimum number of employees it needs to run smoothly. In cases like one you mentioned, there are usually multiple variables and circumstances that lead to the overnight demise of a company.
    – JustSaying
    Mar 16 '19 at 18:47
  • 1
    @sanaris very rarely do companies fall down in mere seconds (maybe companies like Barings where one man's outrageous trading wiped out their wealth) - it just appears that way because they continue to maintain the appearance of "all is good". After the fact, many bankruptcies and closures are foreshadowed by some red flags only obvious in hindsight.
    – HorusKol
    Mar 17 '19 at 13:42

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .