AI Will Cut the BS Jobs

裴德荣（Per Bylund） · Mises Wire · 2026-11-02 · 原文 mises.org

Fears mount that AI will replace humans in all kinds of work. As with any technological revolution, people in general think the technology will cause job losses rather than the other way around. Many economists, who have studied the role and impact of technological revolutions, disagree. After all, the vast majority of the population in all Western countries used to be employed in agriculture and were, ultimately, replaced by tractors and other novel technology. But this did not cause mass unemployment. In fact, the population today is much greater than back then and unemployment is quite low, so it should be obvious that we have more jobs than was the case in agrarian times. And they earn higher salaries too.

人们日益恐惧 AI 将在各行各业取代人类。与任何技术革命一样，大众普遍认为技术会造成失业，而非相反。许多研究过技术革命作用与影响的经济学家并不认同。毕竟，所有西方国家过去绝大多数人口都从事农业，最终被拖拉机和其他新技术所取代。但这并没有造成大规模失业。事实上，今天的人口远超当年，而失业率相当低，所以显而易见：我们的工作岗位比农业时代更多，薪水也更高。

Technological revolutions—albeit at the time considered unique—have always had the same result: increased productivity, greater prosperity, and more and higher-paying jobs. The high standard of living we currently enjoy is due to these revolutions. What is to say the same will not be the case this time around?

技术革命——尽管在当时都被视为独一无二——结果始终相同：生产率提高、更加繁荣、岗位更多且报酬更高。我们今日享有的高生活水平，正是拜这些革命所赐。凭什么说这一次会不一样？

But, assume the doomsayers are correct, that AI will cause massive job losses. Which jobs should we expect will disappear? Not the ones that create the most value. These jobs should be the last to go. The first to go are the ones that can easily be replaced or that make only marginal contributions to a firm's bottom line.

但就算悲观论者说对了，AI 会带来大规模失业。那么，哪些岗位会消失？不是那些创造最大价值的岗位——它们应当最后才消失。最先消失的，是那些容易被替代、或对企业利润仅有边际贡献的岗位。

There are two categories of jobs that tick both those boxes, which means they are both easy to replace and create comparatively little value. One of them is the bureaucratic control function in service of management. These are jobs that focus on creating and enforcing procedures, that produce statistics, create reports, and calculate performance metrics that support management decision-making but do little else. Simply put, these are the jobs that create (and make up) forms and see to it that they are filled out and signed, that "push papers" and collect data on how different functions in the business are doing. Their only or main contribution is to support management's aim to control, supervise, and direct production processes that make up the core of the business.

有两类岗位同时满足这两个条件——既容易被替代，创造的价值又相对很小。其一是服务于管理层的官僚控制职能。这类岗位专注于制定并执行流程、产出统计数据、制作报告、计算绩效指标，以支撑管理决策，除此之外作用甚微。简言之，就是那些设计（并构成）各种表格、确保表格被填写和签字的人，那些「推文件」、收集各部门运转数据的人。它们唯一或主要的贡献，是支撑管理层去控制、监督和指挥构成企业核心的生产过程。

The other category is what David Graeber called "bullshit jobs." These are paid positions in organizations that are so pointless, unnecessary, or harmful to the value of the business that even the persons carrying them out cannot justify the job's existence. Unlike the bureaucratic control function, these jobs do not even indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line. Instead, they are created for other reasons. For example, unnecessary assistants that managers can easily do without may be hired as a perk or simply for the vanity of the manager. Similarly, there are jobs that contribute only to the status or ego of persons in management, but that the business could just as easily do without. In other words, such jobs are a form of consumption rather than—as one would expect within a for-profit business—production.

另一类是大卫·格雷伯（David Graeber）所说的「狗屁工作」（bullshit jobs）。这类带薪岗位在组织中如此毫无意义、全无必要、乃至损害企业价值，以至于连任职者本人都无法为其存在找到理由。与官僚控制职能不同，这类岗位对企业利润连间接贡献都没有，它们是为其他原因而设的。例如，管理层完全可以不要的多余助理，可能被当作一项福利、或纯粹为了经理的虚荣而雇用。同样，有些岗位只贡献于管理者的地位或自我，企业完全可以不设。换句话说，这类岗位是一种消费，而不是——人们在营利性企业里本该预期的那样——生产。

Graeber—not an economist—did not recognize this difference, but would instead call much of the bureaucratic control function "bullshit." This is perhaps more telling of his political views than anything else, since much of the bureaucracy is necessary to facilitate management. But he is not entirely wrong—some of it is indeed often "bullshit," as jobs can exist as a remnant of previous procedures, bureaucracy that overshoots what is necessary or advisable "just in case," or that result from path dependence instead of a focus on value creation. Some of these jobs are also the result of agency problems, as management is not, and often cannot be, sufficiently monitored by the principals. Consequently, management can use company funds for their own consumption rather than as contributions to the bottom line, which fits well with Graeber's concept.

格雷伯并非经济学家，他没有辨明这一差别，反而把官僚控制职能的很大一部分也称作「狗屁」。这或许更能说明他的政治立场——因为大部分官僚工作是便利管理所必需的。但他并非全错：其中确实有相当一部分常常是「狗屁」——比如岗位作为旧流程的残余而存在，官僚体系「以防万一」地超出必要或明智的范围，或是路径依赖而非价值创造导向的产物。这类岗位中也有一些源于代理问题：委托人无法、且往往不可能充分监督管理层。于是管理层可以把公司资金用于自身消费，而非投入利润创造——这倒与格雷伯的概念颇为吻合。

Why would we expect AI to displace workers in both of these categories? For the simple reason that AI will simply, quickly, and almost costlessly provide the necessary data to support management. No forms are necessary if processes and communication are computerized, the work place passively surveilled by AI interpreting a video stream to determine who does what and when, or that keeps track of both input and output as well as automatically calculates performance metrics. The bureaucratic control function will be no more, and management will have instantaneous access to the metrics needed to make effective and correct decisions.

为什么我们认为 AI 会取代这两类岗位上的员工？理由很简单：AI 会简单、快速、几乎零成本地提供支撑管理所需的数据。当流程与沟通都已计算机化、工作场所由 AI 解读视频流进行被动监控（判断谁在何时做了什么）、或系统自动追踪投入产出并自动计算绩效指标时，表格就没有必要了。官僚控制职能将不复存在，管理层将即时获得做出有效而正确决策所需的各项指标。

This also applies to the monitoring of management itself, however, which means the end of costly bullshit jobs: management's ability to use company funds for their own consumption will be greatly diminished; managers will not be able to employ people for their own vanity's sake. Here too, then, AI will help streamline the business.

然而，这同样适用于对管理层自身的监督——这意味着昂贵的「狗屁岗位」将走到尽头：管理层挪用公司资金供自身消费的能力将被大幅削弱；经理们也无法再为自己的虚荣而雇人。在这方面，AI 同样会帮助企业精简。

Certainly, a lot of people are currently employed in bureaucratic but largely non-value-adding functions like HR, as administrators, secretaries, etc. Many of them will likely lose their jobs to AI agents that can do what the employees do at a fraction of the cost—and much faster and more accurately. In fact, this change is already underway.

当然，目前有大量的人从事官僚性质、但基本不创造价值的职能——如人力资源、行政、秘书等。其中许多人很可能会被 AI 智能体取代，因为后者能以极小的成本完成这些员工的工作，而且更快、更准确。事实上，这种变化已经在发生。

The results of this change are two. First, by replacing bureaucracies and bullshit jobs with AI, we get more effective and efficient businesses, better management, and lower cost overall. This increases competition, lowers prices for consumers, and increases productivity. The result is higher economic growth and, consequently, higher standard of living. Elon Musk has predicted that AI will double the rate of growth.

这一变化带来两个结果。第一，用 AI 取代官僚体系和「狗屁岗位」，我们得到更有效、更高效的企业，更好的管理，以及整体更低的成本。这会加剧竞争、降低消费者支付的价格、提高生产率，结果是更高的经济增长，从而带来更高的生活水平。埃隆·马斯克预测，AI 将使增长率翻倍。

Second, it means the people in these soon-abolished jobs will need to find other jobs. Whereas the transition may be painful, history teaches that there is no lack of things that can be done—and that create value. It is simply a matter of imagining how these people's skills can be used to the benefit of consumers—in an economy that is growing faster. This is the role of entrepreneurs, who—thanks to AI streamlining existing businesses—will have greater access to resources and, therefore, to opportunities.

第二，这意味着那些即将被取消的岗位上的从业者需要另寻工作。转型也许痛苦，但历史教导我们，可做且能创造价值的事情从不匮乏。问题只在于去设想：在一个增长更快的经济中，这些人的技能如何能为消费者带来益处。这正是企业家的职责——得益于 AI 对现有企业的精简，他们将获得更多资源，因而也获得更多机会。

The future, in other words, looks bright.

换句话说，未来看起来一片光明。

Image Source: Adobe Stock
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

图片来源：Adobe Stock注：Mises.org 所发表的观点不一定代表米塞斯研究所的立场。

作者简介

裴德荣（Per Bylund），米塞斯研究院高级研究员，俄克拉荷马州立大学创业学副教授、Johnny D. Pope 讲席教授，曾任《奥地利学派经济学季刊》主编。研究领域为奥地利学派经济学、创业学与创新，著有《The Problem of Production》《How to Think about the Economy: A Primer》等。