Could BS jobs save the economy from an AI driven collapse of wages?

A viral online debate is re-examining the late anthropologist David Graeber's provocative 'BS Jobs' theory through the lens of accelerating AI adoption. Graeber's research suggested a staggering 40% of modern jobs could be classified as 'bullshit'—roles that add negligible value to the production or delivery of goods and services. This phenomenon persists, the theory argues, due to factors beyond pure corporate efficiency, including managerial prestige, political favor for job-creating companies, and the fundamental economic need to keep populations employed and earning.

Now, commentators are asking if these very roles could become society's economic shock absorber. The core fear is that widespread AI automation of white-collar work could trigger a deflationary spiral reminiscent of the Great Depression: mass unemployment leads to less consumer spending, which reduces demand for goods and services, leading to even less work. The proposed countermeasure is a managed transition where 'BS jobs' are intentionally repurposed. Instead of being eliminated, workers could shift into overseeing, managing, and auditing the AI systems that do the bulk of the productive work.

This scenario presents a radical trade-off: could we accept roles with reduced hours and arguably less direct importance if they maintained individual wages, overall economic stability, and even boosted aggregate productivity? The debate forces a confrontation between pure market efficiency and broader socio-economic stability, questioning whether the goal of work in an AI-saturated future is maximal output or the maintenance of a functional, wage-earning society.