Jobs that either don’t contribute in any meaningful way or jobs where one would be better off if they were paid to be on call.

  • Narrrz
    link
    fedilink
    601 year ago

    not exactly what you’re asking, but banks and insurance companies are the majority of what I call “the beaurocracy of money”. they don’t produce anything of value, and are basically just a sinkhole for labour.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      341 year ago

      I hate capitalism as much as the next lemming but banks and insurance companies, at their base level, definitely provides a service. Banks help you spread the cost of things over time at the expense of interest, and insurance companies do something similar with risk.

      Its only when they do warped shit like lend money at zero interest or force consumers to pay for insurance (thereby negating the need to be competitive) that they start to leech off the system.

      • Narrrz
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I would distinguish between providing a service & creating value. the service that banks and insurance provide is useful, but only in the context of a money-centric society. they don’t create anything that has a purpose deprived of context, it’s only the moving around of numbers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          121 year ago

          But we do live in a currency-based society. That’s like saying food only has value in the context of a chemical-energy based society. It’s a pointless semantic argument here.

          • Narrrz
            link
            fedilink
            -41 year ago

            perhaps it is, but I’m not convinced. if food, eating, whatever were an unnecessary and wasteful system then the growing of food and processing, production, etc would likewise be a waste of resources, human labour included. a lot of our work does go towards food production, supply, processing, etc - if you could switch to an alternate system that dispensed with food but didn’t otherwise alter our lives, that would surely be massively preferable. it’s hard to imagine because eating is such a fundamental need, but that’s just a limitation of this comparison.

            if we could dispense with money but otherwise have society look much the same (or better, which I think it undoubtedly would be), that would be an improvement, to me, just by virtue of freeing up the labour of all the people who work solely in the overhead of the system. to imagine how else we might function as a society, I think it’s useful to identify ways in which the present system is inefficient.

    • AggressivelyPassive
      link
      fedilink
      251 year ago

      Administration in general. There are so many jobs in (public and private) administration whose entire job is, to fill out forms or write reports, that nobody will ever read.

      The same is true for countless middlemanager positions. It’s not a full-time job to manage 10 employees who are not directly working with you. No idea how this is called in other countries, but in Germany we call it Matrixorganisation, and it’s often as absurd as it sounds.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        351 year ago

        I’m in administration and part of my job is filling out forms and reports that no-one will ever need unless there’s a problem in which case they become very important indeed.

        In today’s business environment we tend to forget that redundancy = resilience.

        • AggressivelyPassive
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          I’m in the digitalisation part of administration. And I’m certainly handling a ton of processes that are not redundant, but plain useless.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        Do you believe in unfettered free markets? Those jobs are very often to implement compliance to restrictions in the markets.

        • AggressivelyPassive
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          No, they are not.

          They are often enough purely internal documents or remnants of old days, where certain documents were actually important, maybe.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Depends on the industry. If literally everyone just always documented everything, my job would be much easier.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            The company I work for now has very much this attitude for the last 50 years.

            As a result they have 3 locations, no sops, and no accountability.

            Over the last 6 months is been my job to put us back in compliance with local and federal reporting requirements and develop SOPs. The feedback from the bottom up is that it’s wonderful to have consistency, different bosses giving the same answers to questions, auditors being able to complete audits in expected and appropriate times, and in compliance with reporting regulations.

            Can companies go overboard and employ people like me who do busy unnecessary work? Absolutely. But it is definitely appropriate to have a couple of administrators.

            • AggressivelyPassive
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Rules and procedures are always a trade-off. However, I would argue that the vast majority of organizations have way too many of them and produces way too much busy work.

              Just look at your own example - I’m 90% sure, that the different locations did have procedures and did document stuff, just not in a consistent way. So their documentation was scattered and their reports practically useless.

    • phillaholic
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Huh? I can go almost anywhere in the world and wave my phone at a register and take whatever I want home. Without a bank Id have to carry a lot of everywhere.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -151 year ago

        No. No you wouldn’t. We don’t need banks to implement the concept of currency in a society and you’re myopic for not understanding that but instead pretending to be some sort of authority on the matter.

        • phillaholic
          link
          fedilink
          171 year ago

          🙄 uh huh. I prefer a currency backed by something with some longevity and not petted by grifters who keep getting arrested for fraud over and over again, or hacked and cleaned out with little to no recourse.

          Regardless, banks aren’t “worthless” at all.