The author himself notices half way through the text that he might have gone out on a limb. If his description of "bullshit jobs" was at least followed by some statistics on marginal valued added (to a product, service) by that particular job (and how this margin has become lower and lower) then we could start a serious discussion about it. But now his extraordinary claims just stand there as a shallow rant, more like a romantic anecdote to Victorian economics than a fundamental analysis of capitalism.
His point is that there is no way to provide statistics on the number of bullshit jobs.
For example, I worked at a company where we made networking software for some military radios. We had a "Hardware Engineer" that fixed or returned radios that had stopped working. From all economist metrics this was not a bullshit job. He was using his engineering degree to do engineering work.
But in reality he added nothing to the productivity of the company. He actually reduced the productivity of the company by taking 3 days to do 5 minutes of work. I stopped using him and did it myself when he was at lunch. It is impossible to get metrics on bullshit level because it includes lots of nuances. For example, i'm sure this guy and his manager would say that only he was capable of doing the hardware work because he took a 1 hour course on electrostatic discharge.
It would take a lot of evidence gathering for me to prove that this was a bullshit job and once I did prove it his manager would have immediately assigned him some new responsibilities making my previous data worthless. This is a big problem with macro-economics. Economic Job data is limited to Salary,Title,Hour worked. It doesn't tell you much more than that.
So, essentially he has to add some bullshit statistics to his description of bullshit jokes...
I find those kind of statistics pointless. Most of the time they are based on incomplete data and as much guesswork as any rant.
An intelligent opinion on the other hand, based on observation and with a coherent point of view, is worth more than all those statistics (to paraphrase Alan Kay, who said "A point of view is worth 80 IQ points").
Statistics help in testing and validating an author's claims. Eloquent deductive reasoning can easily lead to wrong conclusions, which is why we need to test them with empirical results. This author in particular appears to put a prohibitively large value on physical goods over any kind of service. He dismisses the fundamental transition from an industrial economy to a service economy, simply labeling most of the new jobs as pointless. while his arguments might be convincing for a few jobs such as telemarketing, he appears to forget about the highly increased complexity of a modern economy, which requires people working in corporate law, financial services and the administrative sector. in my opinion those regulations weren't just invented because
The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger [...]
but rather because: 1) modern technologies require a more extensive management (with an entire workforce dedicated to maintaining them). 2) because globalization creates a much more complex framework for corporations (different local laws). 3) there are much more financial options available today to both individuals and corporations. a small company from Utah can today raise money from investors in Abu Dhabi and an individual from Europe can invest in Australian mining companies - just to name a few examples. this range of services is unprecedented and requires an accordant workforce.
>Statistics help in testing and validating an author's claims.
There's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. I find that stats and figures mostly help in giving an impression of "validity", where in fact there could be all kinds of flaws in them, how they were collected and what they cover.
