[WJW]

This would only be true if the market share of a company is inversely correlated to the number of bullshit jobs in said company. There might be such a link because less money spent on bullshit job salaries means more money available for the marketing budget but it's not at all clear IMO that such a correlation exists and if so, how strong it is. Case in point: We can observe that there are many extremely profitable companies (say, Disney or Oracle) that nonetheless do not have a reputation for being all that bullshit-free.

In many cases, things like customer lock-in, natural monopolies or intellectual property catalogs serve as significant barriers to entry even for well capitalized new businesses, and these barriers can more than outweigh the costs of having half your employees being essentially useless. Finally, an argument could be made for resilience in staffing. The very leanest organisation would have bus factors of 1 for every single job and the first sick employee means problems. Even raising the redundancy to "only" two people per critical function means that you just created a ton of bullshit jobs. (since most of these people will be severely underutilised)