Even with all the availability of equipment and labor on hand, sometimes you must wait for the excavator to do its job first before you can begin. You cannot weld a pipe together when there is still earth to clear and the pipe to be welded is sitting on the truck. You cannot parallelize all work, some is inherently serial.
Cereal companies spend lots and lots of money on advertising.
Both are probably true to some extent, and would vary a lot between different orgs.
Or worse, you removed the workers and left the 'telephone' people.
In my anecdotal experience, MOST companies don't take any time to understand what they are cutting.
They kill "Project X" so the easy answer is that everyone involved with Project X must go. Regardless if they were useful or could be useful elsewhere.
Or they cut by salary, employment length, etc.
Slack hasn't been a thing for like 40 years, in fact it's mostly the opposite I'd argue where there is such little slack that employers often steal wages from their workers to gain even more profits.
In industries with large margins, this indicates weak competitive pressure, ie., a weak incentive signal to "compete away" this ineffective labour.
I imagine that, upon this analysis, we'd find it holds up. ie., the observation that there are lots of people doing very little productive work correlates well with weak competitive pressures and hence high margins.
That also explains why, institutionally, there's no internal pressure either. If margins are good, no one rocks the boat.
This only works (reliably) in an idealized free market.
That is to say, in the classroom.
In the real world, there are a myriad of reasons in any given situation why a company might have a low profit margin, but still have loads of inefficiencies and other imperfections that haven't been, and won't be, "competed away".
(Whether a role's cost/value tradeoff is actually worth it for a company is a different question than the idealized model of a "bullshit job" doing nothing useful)
Or as engineers know: sometimes legacy code doesn’t initially appear to do anything, but then messing with it has unexpected effects.
Especially as organizations grow in size.
A small startup usually has little-to-no "junk" or "fat" to trim.
But as orgs grow, and since we have imperfect knowledge and communication systems, more an more "junk" or "connectivity" roles emerge.
Microsoft: 223,000 employees
Alphabet / Google: 198,933
Apple: 150,000
Oracle: 141,000
Meta / Facebook: 75,472
I tried to stay way from companies with retail or warehouse workers like Amazon and Walmart (though Apple likely has a lot of retail).
I don't see HOW companies get to that size without some "junk DNA" that keeps it operating.
Maybe in the next few years we'll have AI-powered knowledge bases and communication lanes that smooths things out, but - how do we 'quantify' what "Steve, the guy who has been there for 22 years and works as the company phonebook and knows who to refer you for the thing you need"
There's always Dunbar's number - the larger an organization gets beyond the capacity of people to socially know one another, the greater the "what do they even do?" types of attitudes form about other distant parts of an organization.
Interrogated to what extent? 'Bullshit jobs' was originally coined to mean jobs that do serve a useful purpose within the environment they exist in, but where zooming out reveals that the environment has no good reason to exist in the first place.
My company is earning money on my work and customers use my software to earn more money. But, that is it, I am not a doctor, I am not a teacher, I am not making the world better. It is a business, not unethical one, but also not world saving.
Per original definition, it is a bullshit job.