I do not see how you are disagreeing with his definition. What do you think his definition is?

You seem to be using the definition: “A job that people think is worthless”.

The actual definition he uses is: “A job where the person doing it thinks it is worthless”.

I have friends at companies that used to do BS jobs. Then, AI came in and took over the BS, and now they're doing real, meaningful work. One friend was told her team (3) would be eliminated once AI took over. Now that the AI automated the teams' job, they do proper finance work, and they've expanded the team to 5 people. Turns out the limiting rate was a bottleneck in the paperwork that the AI eliminated, meaning they can do proper forecasting analysis more effectively. Each additional person increases the set of product markets they can effectively forecast for. With effective forecasts they can time the market better, and they've already saved the company significant money — way more than their salaries, combined.

[dead]

Graeber actually points out that centrally-planned economies had formally higher work hours than was the reality (people slacked off more), and that it was akin to workers collectively making a choice working less for the overall lower production.

But the obvious problem is that it's still a societal taboo, so it's not UBI because it's not universal. It's probably lot more efficient to actually openly embrace shorter work hours, so that people can stop pretending and choose to do something more useful.

Also, existence of BS jobs is often driven by high status individuals, so it is comparatively less free than UBI.

I think this is true. I also think a lot of co-workers actually like each other.

> I always wonder if anyone else considers BS jobs societies implict UBI?

BS jobs are the anti-UBI. With a UBI you get to avoid starvation even if you refuse to take a job which is excessively dangerous or degrading or low-paying, which in turn exerts pressure on those jobs to improve conditions or pay. You get more runway to start a business instead of being forced to work for someone else because you need to make rent today rather than a year from now when your new venture is off the ground. It allows you to be actually productive by your own metrics rather than getting taken advantage of for lack of alternatives.

Whereas BS jobs create the illusion of productivity. You get to avoid starvation by digging holes and filling them back in, but now you're wasting all day doing something useless instead of spending that time starting your business or going to school, so you end up stuck in the BS job forever. Which helps neither society nor you compared to you still getting the money and then letting you choose what to do with your time.

This sort of argument was addressed long ago in economics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

10 engineers do not create a baby in a month.

You could argue that a bullshit job is a form of rent seeking. The bullshit job worker is increasing his or her share of the wealth without actually creating any wealth through labor. Rent seeking overall is not a good thing for the economy.

> While eliminating bullshit jobs sounds great on its own merits, eliminating the wages for said jobs can actually clog the local engine by lowering wages, raising unemployment, slowing hiring, and curtailing growth.

If you get rid of BS jobs then you're not paying people to do them. Someone then gets the money you're not paying them, e.g. the company can now charge lower prices to customers who then have more money to spend. They then want to buy something else with the money and the people who need jobs then get jobs doing that.

In most cases this will actually increase consumption, because people buy more when things cost less and therefore provide more value for money. If the cost of a year of college goes down by $10,000 by eliminating some bloated administrative bureaucracy then more people can afford it, positions that couldn't previously find qualified applicants get filled and unemployment goes down, those positions pay better and people have more money to spend, etc.

> I suggest that instead of cutting “bullshit jobs”, we instead reduce working hours across the board (and penalize overtime)

Isn't this the exact same thing only distributing the hours differently?

You could be proposing one of two things. One is to have everyone work fewer hours doing the same thing they do now, but that one obviously doesn't work. Jobs like carpenter or trauma surgeon aren't BS jobs and if people spent fewer hours doing them then we'd have fewer of those things done, which would be bad.

The other is that instead of getting rid of BS jobs, we get rid of BS work. So we have fewer middle managers and have the people who used to do that instead do something productive, allowing the people currently doing the productive thing to work fewer hours.

The result of that would then be that everyone works fewer hours. But then they would have less money to spend. If you work for 32 hours instead of 40 at the same hourly rate then you take home less money. Getting rid of 20% of hours rather than 20% of employees would reduce total income by the same amount.

If the same thing happens and the company e.g. uses the money saved to lower prices then it's a similar scenario to getting rid of the jobs, except that now instead of production/consumption increasing because we got rid of inefficiency, people work fewer hours to get the same stuff because now they get paid for fewer hours but things also cost less. But that tends to be trouble because the prices change non-uniformly, e.g. the cost of financial services comes down because you eliminate some useless bureaucracy but you haven't done zoning reform so housing is still expensive. When jobs still pay the same amount that's fine, because a bunch of small businesses pay lower costs for payment processing or employee health insurance, lower prices by that much and then have to hire the people who lost their jobs to produce the extra stuff people buy with the surplus money. But if jobs suddenly pay 20% less, your mortgage payment hasn't changed.

Whereas if you take the original premise that people making less money would reduce consumption, e.g. that the savings would go into Evil Corp's money bin and never be spent, then you're in even more trouble in your case. Because you're deterring people from going back to the original number of hours in order to be able to afford the original level of consumption.