By definition if person A pays person B for something, person A values that something. By definition a job is not meaningless or without value. David Graeber‘s “bullshit jobs” betrays an ignorance of basic economics, and an understanding of what a job is, what trade is, the fact that people have different preferences and values, etc.

The idea that people pay other people for no reason at all is completely divorced from reality.

Meaningfulness of work is not transitive.

Typically person A pays _someone else's money_ to person B, and the someone else (person C) isn't around to pay attention to the details.

I think that makes all the difference, especially when it's iterated over many layers of indirection.

A is in some sense a custodian of what person C values, but that indirection means A is also optimising to keep A in a job without distracting too much from the joy of running a fiefdom, hiding the fact they don't really know what they are doing, etc. So A is paying B for what A thinks looks good enough to C, not necessarily what C would actually value if they understood what was going on.

Let's suppose that indirection only adds a tiny amount of BS, say B is doing 10% BS work to satisfy A's misguided impulses (using C's money not A's), and 90% what C values.

Then add a full economy. Now B is paying D using money they got from A, who got it from C. B is optimising to keep B in a job, so they try to do things that look good to A, while avoiding too much effort for B. To keep ths model simple, let's say the BS adds up and C's money ends up paying for D to do 20% BS work and 80% what C values. But it's all in a good cause, as far as C knows, this is great stuff - literally, the best money can buy.

Throw in a few more layers of indirection and the BS compounds.

Of course the world isn't that simple. By your definition, D's work is all meaningfully valuable to B, B's work is all meaninfully valuable to A, and A's work is all meaningfully valuable to C.

So this does not mean people pay other people for no _local_ reason.

But it's not transitive. C's money may be paying for D to do work that is not meaningfully valuable to C, despite everyone in the chain providing value to each other.

So is it BS work or isn't it? My take is that a significant fraction of work is BS when viewed from a wider perspective: what does this work do for society, people more broadly; yet at the same time, it is much more useful when viewed looking at neighbouring relationships, close up. After all, a job helping someone else keep their job is of immense personal value to the latter person, so that's a factor in how they allocate their ability to spend other people's money.

Since "helping someone else keep a job" is highly valued by those people whose jobs are kept, it's almost inevitable that a big feedback system emerges in which a significant fraction of all work paid for is for the purpose of keeping people in jobs.

Oh shut up Paul. Get over yourself.

Also, put your money where your mouth is and ban paywalled articles on HN.

You need a plan to achieve your goals.

First goal should be saving 6-12 month emergency fund. That gives you freedom to change jobs or weather other problems.

Then start building cash flow positive assets (profit from business, interest from investment, rental income from real estate, etc). This could be anything from a SaaS to buying rental properties.

Build your assets while working until the cash flow from them can replace your job income, then quit and boom you’ve made it. Then you can devote all your time to continuing to grow those assets free from the constraints of a 9-5.

So start with a plan and a budget.

HN desperately needs a ban on NYT, Atlantic, and Guardian articles.

They are mostly political opinion pieces that provide no insight and the discussion around them is always the same: one political camp bitching about the government and corporations.

> Their supposed offense? Agreeing with one another, and with the state of California, to develop vehicles that are more fuel-efficient and have lower emissions than federal standards require.

Sounds like collusion and price fixing, which are anti-competitive behaviors covered by antitrust legislation.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too!

In a free market there would be nothing wrong with companies forming an agreement to compete, but antitrust law sees that as a cartel. Even if the cartel is selling electric vehicles.

Speak for yourself. I am no less qualified than my elected reps. You don’t know what’s best for me.

Don’t like voting on the laws that govern you? Then don’t vote.

That’s like saying “I can fly this plane better than this pilot.” If it’s true, you need to be hiring better pilots.

Who is lending you $100k-$200k to buy real estate as an 18 year old? Nobody unless you're rich already.

Statistically "everyone" who graduated in the Great Recession is still a year or two at least (and in some cases far more) from paying off student loans. Statistically we're a generation of nothing but debt with no savings to fallback on because we've never had a long enough "peace time" of growth to pay back our creditors.

It's wonderful to imagine some hypothetical reality where you had enough saved to survive an entire year looking for a job. What privilege you would have! Presumably you have no health problems because CORBA is broken again and the current administration crippled HCA guarantees because who needs affordable health care when you don't have a current employer. It feels like you might as well wish for a Pegasus to fly you to all your job interviews while you are at it.

We've all earned our cynical stripes here, but thanks for offering a lovely fantasy.

You’re not responsible for your generation, just yourself.

You didn’t answer my question about savings. Are you saving? If not you can and you should.

If you don’t have savings the first step is to come up with a budget. Send me an email if you need help it’s in my profile.

Can't budget very well, or save at all if you make exactly how much your base-level living expenses are bud. I'm still eating ramen at the end of the month. What am I supposed to be budgeting here? Count out my bowtie pasta pieces more precisely to budget them? My generation simply can't live like this, it isn't sustainable, and isn't realistic to expect professionals to live in poverty. I barely have enough business casual clothes to make it through a single week cycle and buying more is a huge expense to me. Something bigger is going to have give, maybe a recession is what is needed to show people how unrealistic this is.

Apparently you've never lived "paycheck to paycheck" before. I can remember a time in my life where I would be so happy just to have an extra $100 at the end of the month. This was living with roommates, never going out, and bringing my lunch everyday. No frivolous spending at all.

God forbid you have to fix your car, or some other unexpected expense. That $1,000 it took you 6 months to save is gone in an instant.

While I'm much better off these days, lots of Americans live the way I just described. You can't save what you don't have.

I have. If someone can’t save a few hundred bucks a month something is wrong.

Let’s use Dallas TX for example, even just waiting on tables you can make at least twice rent. Forgo a car and you’d be able to pocket $500 / mo or more if one was frugal.

It’s even more critical to save when at the bottom of the economic ladder, because it allows one freedom to pursue or invest in other opportunities (paying for school, moving, weathering unemployment, etc.)

This is an absolutely incorrect and unrealistic estimation for the majority of the people waiting tables. I started writing up a long thing calculating this out and stopped myself. I am going to assume you are commenting in good faith, so I'll just state the correct information would be extremely quick for you to research with a few google searches..

This is great advice in general, but FU money gets tricky when you have negative interest rates on deck.

We are one stock market pull back away from catastrophe even for wealthy boomers.

Interesting times.

I've never lost a job in 20 years of full-time employment. Every new job has been a step up in pay/prestige/responsibility/etc. I've always been able to job hop with ease, when necessary.

My parents never fought job loss when I was growing up, although sometimes times were tight on a single professional income.

We're a dual-income no kids couple with a mortgage and few 'real' responsibilities.

We have plenty of savings in the bank.

I will never not worry about losing a job. I don't WANT to draw down my savings, for any reason. I don't WANT to have to worry about how long it will last, where the next paycheck will come from.