Businesses are in it for the money, employees tend to be one of the larger expenses, so maintaining some bullshit positions that would cost them money doesn’t make fiscal sense, so what’s up?
Businesses are in it for the money, employees tend to be one of the larger expenses, so maintaining some bullshit positions that would cost them money doesn’t make fiscal sense, so what’s up?
I’d have to disagree with this. Why would all companies just unilaterally agree to waste money so people can make a living. If that were the drive, they’d also pay thriving wages, etc.
I don’t think it is intentional. I think it is more like a phenomenon. I think entire companies can potentially be bullshit. It’s not like the people working there aren’t making the company money so nobody is deciding to hire people for no reason. It’s just that these people and businesses are mostly working bullshit jobs. So much of the economy is based on doing nearly pointless work so it enables further pointless work.
Really it depends on your exact definition of pointless. If our only goal is to survive then we can probably succeed at that with 5-10% of the work that is being done now. Everyone else isn’t doing something that is directly contributing to humanities survival. That seems a little extreme as I personally believe that things like entertainment, art and making life more comfortable are all meaningful to society. There could be some definition of pointless that a majority agrees on that implies that 25-50% of jobs are not doing much of anything.
Oracle was almost entirely bullshit when my friend worked there in the mid-90s.
You can coast off a high-margin business into pure BS for a while before it catches up. Particularly with an egomaniac CEO who is checked out at the moment.
The motivations of the company are often very different to the motivations of senior staff within the company.
Mid-level manager is obsessed with building his empire within the company. The bigger their division, the happier they are.
Mid-level manager creates bullshit jobs and justifies them up the chain. “Our team is vital to the company and my staff is swamped. I need to increase my headcount”.
That’s fine. That’s my point though. The intentions are entirely different. I don’t think any company is actively worried about ensuring people are employed. The end result of a bunch of other motivations may be the same, but my statement is about the why.
Because the alternative is a bunch of hungry people with pitchforks and a large amount of free time.
That’s not the alternative. An alternative would be hiring people because it offers some benefit to the company.