Will AI Bring Fewer Jobs or Just More “Bullshit Jobs”?

The rise of AI and automation has sparked a debate: Will these technologies eliminate jobs and lead to widespread unemployment, or transform work into something new? This debate often focuses on a functional perspective of jobs, with an assumption that jobs primarily exist to meet specific needs, and when AI fulfills these needs, there will be no need for those jobs. OK, some jobs may perish due to AI. But is this very assumption correct? Do jobs really exist to fulfill needs? Anthropologist David Graeber,* who wrote the influential book Bullshit Jobs,** would not agree with that assumption. He believes that jobs are often created not out of necessity, but to uphold systems of power, and give the illusion of economic productivity.

In fact, the debate about losing jobs due to technology is not a new one. As Graeber noted in Bullshit Jobs, “In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a fifteen-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this.”

Here we are in 2024, still far from achieving the fifteen-hour work week. We’re also far from Keynes’s optimism, as instead of discussing fewer working hours (which never materialized), we’re now worrying about fewer jobs. This pessimism might indeed be justified. I’m not sure if Graeber would be more optimistic today, but his ideas remain compelling. He argued that modern economies haven’t used technological advancements to reduce human labor but have instead created a proliferation of jobs that serve no meaningful purpose—what he called 'bullshit jobs.' These roles, such as corporate lawyers or PR consultants (examples Graeber frequently cites—so don’t blame me), may not be necessary for society but persist due to systemic inefficiencies and political structures that prioritize employment for its own sake.

Please don’t consider Graeber a snob who thinks that some professions are less meaningful than his own as an anthropology professor. If you’re curious about his ideology, he is known to be an anarchist and a leading figure in Occupy Wall Street. Instead, he refers to experiences of individuals who feel their work contributes little to society. This phenomenon, he argues, constitutes a form of "psychological violence" on those workers, trapping them in a cycle of dissatisfaction and purposelessness.

So why do we have the jobs Graeber calls “bullshit”? “The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political,” Graeber writes. “The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger.” In other words, the structure of capitalism doesn’t just demand jobs to meet societal needs—it demands jobs to maintain control, purpose, and the illusion of productivity.

If Graeber is right, we don’t need to worry about mass unemployment caused by AI—because society will simply invent more “bullshit jobs” to keep people busy. Think about it: even as automation takes over factories, new industries emerge, not all of them essential according to Graeber. So, we don’t need to rely on the possibility of new “needs” that will emerge; even without a need or serving any real purpose, new jobs arise, and thousands are being employed this way. Perhaps, instead, we should be more worried about greater illusion, dissatisfaction, and purposelessness.

OK, this may sound a bit satirical, but if Graeber’s thesis holds true, humanity has an impressive capacity to create new work, meaningful or not. If jobs are lost to AI, we’ll likely compensate by inventing new ones, perhaps even more detached from real needs. If the very mechanism of employment were based on human needs, Keynes’s prediction would come true, and workers would have more time to enjoy their lives—because time to rest and enjoy life is a real need.

*David Graeber (1961–2020) was a renowned anthropologist, social theorist, and activist. He authored influential works such as Bullshit Jobs and Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Graeber was celebrated for his sharp critiques of capitalism and his exploration of how societal structures shape work, value, and freedom.

**About Bullshit Jobs
Published in 2018, Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber examines the rise of meaningless work in modern economies. Graeber argues that many jobs exist solely to maintain economic systems rather than fulfill societal needs, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and what he calls "psychological violence."

Note: This blog post was developed with the assistance of AI (ChatGPT-4o). All ideas and arguments are my own, while the text was refined using AI as a tool for drafting and editing.

What Are Turkish Universities Really Promising Young People?

Placement results for the 2024/25 academic year in Turkey have been announced, and universities nationwide are preparing to welcome a new cohort of students. Around 1 million students have secured spots in higher education institutions this year, marking a significant milestone in their lives. However, for many young people and their families, this is also a period filled with uncertainty and financial strain, especially for those who must relocate to another city. Amid these challenges, it’s worth reflecting on a key question: What are Turkish universities truly offering these students? While universities present themselves as stepping stones to success, the reality is far more nuanced. Until now, students have been striving to earn a place at a university—but it’s worth considering: Do these universities truly deserve them?

The Growing Demand for University Education in Turkey

In recent years, the demand for university education in Turkey has reached unprecedented levels. This increase is driven in part by the extension of compulsory education to twelve years in 2012. Naturally, with more high school graduates, there are more university applicants.

Turkey’s higher education landscape has changed dramatically over the past three decades. In the 1993-94 academic year, there were just 1.12 million university students in the country. By 2023-24, that number had ballooned to 7.08 million—a more than sixfold increase. This figure includes students in associate degree programs, open education, distance learning, and postgraduate studies. Even when excluding open and distance learning, the number of full-time undergraduate students reached 2.5 million in 2023-24, five times the number from thirty years ago. Private (‘foundation’) universities now account for about 20% of these students, with half a million enrolled in these institutions.

This year, over 3 million candidates took the Basic Proficiency Test (TYT), and more than 2 million took the Field Proficiency Tests (AYT). Of these, around 1.5 million were first-time applicants. About 1 million of these candidates secured a place at a university.

The Financial Strain on Families and Students

The financial burden of university education in Turkey has never been heavier. Families, scholarship providers, and the students themselves are all struggling to cover the costs. For many young people, the basic issues of housing and nutrition remain unresolved, leaving no room in their budgets for cultural activities, art, travel, entertainment, or sports.

The Quality Issue

The unfortunate reality is that even after overcoming significant financial challenges, starting a university education in Turkey does not guarantee access to quality learning. In 2024, a record number of Turkish universities participated in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. Out of the 97 universities that took part, only 75 were eligible to be ranked, while the others were classified as "reporters" without a ranking. Among those ranked, only 8 universities made it into the top 800 globally, while the remaining 67 were placed below the 801st position.

One of the key metrics used in the Times Higher Education (THE) rankings is "teaching," which evaluates the learning environment of a university. This score is determined by factors such as teaching reputation, staff-to-student ratio, the ratio of doctorate holders to bachelor’s graduates, the number of doctorates awarded relative to academic staff, and institutional income. For Turkish universities, the average teaching score was approximately 20 out of 100, indicating a significant gap in the quality of education. For comparison, German universities ranked in THE 2024 had an average score of 42.

Adding to this challenge is the severe shortage of qualified teaching staff across many departments. According to a recent article by Mustafa Kömüş in BirGün, out of more than 6,000 academic departments in Turkey, 1,453 lack even a single professor. The problem is particularly acute in critical fields such as law and engineering. For example, according to Kömüş’s findings, six law faculties in Turkey do not have a single professor on staff, and over 100 engineering departments operate without any professors. This glaring deficiency in faculty not only compromises the quality of education but also raises serious concerns about the preparedness of graduates entering the workforce.

Moreover, the quality of professors themselves is increasingly being debated. In an interview by Voice of America, Prof. Dr. Ural Akbulut from ODTÜ highlighted a troubling trend in Turkish academia: the inflation of academic titles without merit. Akbulut noted that in some Turkish universities, individuals with no international publications, who have never attended international conferences, and whose doctoral theses would not be accepted as such anywhere else in the world, are being promoted to professor, department head, dean, and even rector.

Cost is Always Paid by Youth

Although the responsibility for poor-quality education should not rest on students, they often end up paying the price. Many universities in Turkey struggle with a shortage of qualified professors and inadequate teaching standards as exemplified above, yet they receive less criticism compared to the frequent blame directed at students. Students are frequently held responsible for their difficulties within a system that offers low-quality teaching and learning opportunities. This double the burden for them. Beyond financial challenges, they face intense social pressures and unrealistic expectations in job market. Students are expected to excel despite the significant obstacles before them. The job market demands that graduates possess advanced skills and practical experience, assuming that universities adequately prepare them for these roles. As a result, students are left unfairly burdened by expectations that are not aligned with the education they receive.

Final Words

As Turkish universities compete to fill their classrooms, it's important to critically examine what they are offering young people.

Entering and studying at university in Turkey puts a big financial strain on students. Many spend a lot on preparation courses to boost their chances of getting in. For those who do get accepted, the financial pressure doesn’t stop, even though public universities offer free tuition. In big cities, where many students live, rents are especially high and dormitory spaces are limited. This means that students often face expensive housing costs, adding to the already heavy financial burden of university life.

Despite all these financial challenges and problems in the education system, students are often unfairly blamed for issues they are neither responsible for nor able to control. As the worth of a university degree continues to drop, young people are increasingly being judged harshly.

Until these issues are addressed, the question remains: are Turkish universities truly fulfilling their promises to the next generation?

Note 1: It’s important to note that not every young person in Turkey even has the chance to become a university candidate. The net enrollment rate for 14-17 year olds is 94.5% despite compulsory education. Those who miss out on this basic education—due to poverty, gender inequality, disability, or other barriers—are effectively excluded from higher education.

Note 2: The rankings produced by Times Higher Education (THE) and similar institutions are subject to criticism both methodologically and philosophically; nonetheless, they still provide useful data for a general assessment of the current situation.