The bullshit-jobs thesis may be bullshit
No. The problem is more that Graeber didn&#x27;t refine the concept enough.<p>Bullshit jobs either 1) might as well not exist at all, and no one would notice if they didn&#x27;t. 2) are hateful and harmful, and create a dehumanised environment while paying as little as possible. 3) are socially, politically, and&#x2F;or environmentally toxic.<p>These are all different kinds of bullshit. They <i>are</i> bullshit jobs for reasons that should be obvious. The bullshit is about far more than alienation. It happens when the jobs lower net social stability, longevity, and prosperity, and promote short-term inequality over long-term opportunity.<p>Since that&#x27;s the opposite of The Economist&#x27;s ethical system - the one which believes in &quot;markets&quot;, even thought markets have been proven time and again to be self-harming and unstable unless closely regulated to limit social harm, inequality, exploitation, and the development of monopolies - it&#x27;s not going to be positive about this idea.<p>Unfortunately Graeber&#x27;s book went for the headline instead of analysing them more clinically.<p>Fortunately this created a memorable meme which helped people question what they were doing.<p>If The Economist has started printing rebuttals, that suggests the meme was effective.