[TeMPOraL]

Among other things this idea ignores (and which other commenters mentioned), there's also time factor. The one thing that's often forgotten wrt. the market.

The market is a dynamic system, constantly trying to reach some kind of equilibrium (defining which is left as an exercise to the reader). As such, it evolves through time, and has some degree of inertia. It's perfectly possible - and in fact, common - for such dynamical systems to oscillate and orbit the desired state without ever reaching it.

If you took a market as it is today, and have everyone just do whatever it is they're doing, then it's likely it would've reached some stable state. But in reality, market participants constantly change what they're doing, responding to and trying to predict what everyone else is doing.

(Especially that last part is one that's damning to any kind of predicting.)

In such conditions, bullshit jobs can persist, because they appear faster than the market is optimizing them away.

[andrekandre]

  constantly trying to reach some kind of equilibrium

apologies to ask such a naive question, but im trying to understand, what is the basis that it is thought 'a market is "trying" to reach an equilibrium'...

maybe im too hung up on the semantics/wording, but im genuinely curious because in my mind "the market" isnt really "trying" to reach anything.... maybe its agents are (gain a profit, hoodswink someone, make a fair exchange, etc etc)... so in aggregate there may be some result over time, but i find it hard to imagine its trying to reach an equilibrium per se...?