If AI technology takes over employment, should the so-called corporate “bullshit jobs” be the first to vanish?

Will AI Eliminate “Bullshit Jobs” Before Traditional Roles? A Closer Look

As artificial intelligence continues to evolve and reshape industries, many wonder about its impact on the workforce. A common question arises: if AI is poised to replace many jobs, shouldn’t the so-called “bureaucratic” or “least valuable” roles disappear first?

Specifically, roles like project managers, consultants, or corporate administrators—often criticized for spending much of their time on presentations, emails, and unnecessary meetings—are frequently labeled as “bullshit jobs.” These positions, which primarily involve administrative or managerial tasks that some argue add little tangible value, seem prime candidates for automation or elimination.

This leads to a paradox: if AI and automation are to replace roles driven by repetitive or low-value tasks, why are such office-based, administrative, or corporate roles expected to vanish before more traditional, tangible jobs like housekeeping or manufacturing work? Are these roles somehow more resilient, or is the logic inverted?

Furthermore, there’s an intriguing pattern concerning educational backgrounds. Degrees in the humanities, languages, arts, or computer science are often perceived as more vulnerable to automation. In contrast, degrees in economics, finance, or administrative fields seem to be less at risk. What factors contribute to these disparities? Is it a matter of the nature of the skills involved, the perceived necessity of certain jobs, or broader economic and societal structures?

Understanding which roles and educational paths are most susceptible to automation not only informs career planning but also encourages a deeper reflection on how society values different types of work. As AI continues to develop, these questions will become increasingly critical—challenging us to reconsider the future landscape of employment and the true worth of various professions.