His anecdote about corporate lawyer not "needing to exist" just shows how naive this writer really is. They exist because the way society is structured, and in particular law is structured,...
His anecdote about corporate lawyer not "needing to exist" just shows how naive this writer really is. They exist because the way society is structured, and in particular law is structured, necessitates them to exist. Corporations sue other corporations because of the reality of intellectual property theft, shady dealings because of loopholes in the law, and the human nature to do what it takes to survive.
He also shows disdain for jobs such as "financial services". How fucking naive can you get? These jobs exist because people actually have enough wealth that they can invest it now, something they didn't do when they were poor farmers in the 1900s looking to survive the next winter, not plan for their retirement.
He shows disdain for "academic and health administration" without understanding the necessity of complex law or the complexity of modern academic and health institutions. Schools have become massive institutions reaching into many fields, just as health care has become consolidated and systems often include hospitals, clinics, outpatient surgery, specialty centers, infusion, and more.
Then he goes on to lament how few musicians and artists we need while ignoring that technological inventions like the ability to record and distribute music and art at unprecedented global levels have taken the stage. We used to have a ton of bards and other traveling entertainment - those jobs aren't necessary on the same scale anymore because I'd rather see the best the world has to offer than the best my area has to offer. You can't compare those jobs to "specialists in corporate law" because you can't record and distribute what they are bringing to a corporation.
In the end I agree with the premise - we are working a hell of a lot more hours than we need to be and the profits are stacked at the top in a way they were not in the recent past (historically speaking they are way more distributed than say, 1000 years ago).
But his argument, that it's because "bullshit jobs" exist, is naive. These "bullshit jobs" exist because technology and automation have given us the resources to redirect where we put our time and money. In some cases, such as corporate law, the time efficient solution is to improve the law itself, freeing those workers to contribute in ways that are meaningful to society and not just the corporation they work for. But in many cases, such as financial services, attacking them does nothing but show how uneducated you are and the services they provide are extremely meaningful to elevating the wealth of the "common man".
That's an awful lot of ideology and narrative you have going there. You're just repeating the standard myths used to justify capitalism fed to us by society without any critical thought. How can...
That's an awful lot of ideology and narrative you have going there. You're just repeating the standard myths used to justify capitalism fed to us by society without any critical thought.
"Financial services are extremely meaningful to elevating the wealth of the common man?"
How can you even say that with a straight face? Also, conflating technology and progress with capitalism, appealing to human nature, calling him naive, these are all very very tired arguments to any academic leftist like Graeber. His very point is that they exist due to the structure of our system and that's a problem, so by responding "oh, those jobs exist because that's how society is structured" is completely missing the point.
I think maybe instead of jumping on someone you disagree with for having a different view, it might be better to focus on what you think are the questions that might persuade you if the person...
I think maybe instead of jumping on someone you disagree with for having a different view, it might be better to focus on what you think are the questions that might persuade you if the person you're questioning could adequately answer them.
For example (and this is a huge stab in the dark, so please forgive me if I'm off the mark), you might want to ask @Gaywallet to justify the claim that the ability to take on debt has improved the lives of working people, beyond the small comment they already made about the wealth of farmers in the 1900s.
Part of the struggle in modern society is getting people to rewarding jobs that match their skillsets and abilities efficiently, and getting them rewards that are reasonably adequate to the tasks they perform. No society will do that perfectly, and it can always be improved, but to so roundly dismiss someone's view like you've done here seems to me a little fast considering the content of the comment you're responding to.
I apologize for a lack of patience. I am less interested in refuting opinions that have been refuted over and over by people smarter than I (and ironically are predicted and refuted by Graeber in...
I apologize for a lack of patience. I am less interested in refuting opinions that have been refuted over and over by people smarter than I (and ironically are predicted and refuted by Graeber in his extended book of the same name as the essay). All of the arguments made are tired and honestly some are hundreds of years old. To repeat them is to blindly regurgitate the liberal ideology that has been built to justify capitalism.
The idea that financial institutions have somehow made working people wealthier is absurd enough it doesn't warrant engaging with. (And if its a matter of taking on debt, working people have taken on debt for centuries, since the dawn of civilization even.)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs&t=1s]
The goal is not to get people jobs that match their skillsets and abilities, it is to allow them to work in a way they find meaningful, which benefits society, and free from profit exploitation. We exist in a system which is structured instead in such a way that forces people into jobs they hate just to survive, jobs that exist to make other people money rather than the benefit of the worker or society. I roundly dismiss their views because their views are deserving of being roundly dismissed and not worth legitimizing by argument.
Since we have a discussion thread going elsewhere and I've had time to re-read my own comments to see exactly what argument I've made in the thread, I think you've misinterpreted my premise...
Since we have a discussion thread going elsewhere and I've had time to re-read my own comments to see exactly what argument I've made in the thread, I think you've misinterpreted my premise because I haven't bothered to spend the time laying out how I think. I only attacked some of the arguments made, because they were presented in a fashion that is, frankly, insulting to many people and full of holes (at least the argument presented in this article. I'm unsure whether the full argument accounts for these issues or is simply misrepresented by the use of the wrong choice of words).
I am in 100% agreement that there are a plethora of jobs that exist because the system has evolved in a way to "necessitate" their existence in order to concentrate wealth at the top.
I'm a firm believer that unregulated capitalism results in monopolies/oligopolies and the eventual splitting of the wealth into extremes.
I agree that people should not be forced into jobs they hate because that's what they need to do to survive and that jobs which benefit the worker or society are both ethically and morally superior.
I never argued that financial institutions existed to do anything. However, they are capitalistic in nature, and are therefore designed to make money for their clients. To argue that they do not make money for their clients is to argue for a failed financial institution. In some cases, this is true because the government (most recently the US govt. and the 2007/8 mortgage crisis) decided to bail them out for their own stupidity and lack of regulation, but generally speaking they will do whatever they can to maximize profits because that's the service they provide and a business will look out for itself.
Such as? Because people don't save for retirement Then maybe he should argue it, because all I heard was someone saying that planning for your financial future by investing today so that you can...
You're just repeating the standard myths
Such as?
How can you even say that with a straight face?
Because people don't save for retirement
His very point is that they exist due to the structure of our system and that's a problem
Then maybe he should argue it, because all I heard was someone saying that planning for your financial future by investing today so that you can retire comfortably is a bullshit job, which is frankly insulting.
Such as the myths such as I mentioned above: conflating technology and progress with capitalism, appealing to human nature, appealing to practicality vs naivety, that people who are poor are their...
Such as the myths such as I mentioned above: conflating technology and progress with capitalism, appealing to human nature, appealing to practicality vs naivety, that people who are poor are their because of their own faults, etc.
Graeber isn't critiquing banks, or stock brokers, or investors, or individuals. He's certainly not going to blame someone for doing what they need to do to get by. His main point here is that capitalism, our overarching economy, which claims to be maximized for efficiency, really isn't, and instead pushes people into working for a bloated system, then justifies itself with ideology such as the ideas you originally replied with.
Can you point out where I did that? While I did use the word "natural" I didn't imply it was good or bad. How did I do this? Can you explain this further? I never implied this, where did you get...
conflating technology and progress with capitalism
Can you point out where I did that?
appealing to human nature
While I did use the word "natural" I didn't imply it was good or bad. How did I do this?
appealing to practicality vs naivety
Can you explain this further?
people who are poor are their because of their own faults
I never implied this, where did you get this idea?
Graeber isn't critiquing banks, or stock brokers, or investors, or individuals.
Really? Because I heard him say those jobs were "bullshit"
His main point here is that capitalism, our overarching economy, which claims to be maximized for efficiency, really isn't, and instead pushes people into working for a bloated system, then justifies itself with ideology such as the ideas you originally replied with.
He did a terrible job explaining it then, because that's not what I got from the article at all.
I'd be extremely curious about how he thinks institutions function without, well, institutional functionaries. Does he think that doctors should run the large hospital, or that professors should...
I'd be extremely curious about how he thinks institutions function without, well, institutional functionaries. Does he think that doctors should run the large hospital, or that professors should run the university? It's so plainly a nightmare...
How much have you dealt with financial advisors in London? (I believe Graeber was based in London at the time of writing this, I have little experience of the way these things work elsewhere).
How much have you dealt with financial advisors in London? (I believe Graeber was based in London at the time of writing this, I have little experience of the way these things work elsewhere).
"Financial services" is a really broad term. While it could have some cultural significance to refer to something it does not refer to here in the states, I'm sure there's a more appropriate job...
"Financial services" is a really broad term. While it could have some cultural significance to refer to something it does not refer to here in the states, I'm sure there's a more appropriate job title that describes what he's taking issue with. But perhaps he shouldn't rely on a job title and instead should explain a job role because titles are much broader than roles, and calling them all bullshit is frankly insulting.
Sorry do you consider yourself as working in Financial Services? What do you do? Reading your posts in this thread again it seems like you've mostly just ranting about how mean it is to call...
Sorry do you consider yourself as working in Financial Services? What do you do?
Reading your posts in this thread again it seems like you've mostly just ranting about how mean it is to call peoples jobs "bullshit".
I mean especially this:
But in many cases, such as financial services, attacking them does nothing but show how uneducated you are and the services they provide are extremely meaningful to elevating the wealth of the "common man".
Had it occurred to you that perhaps a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics might have just a passing understanding of what makes up the majority of new economic activity in "financial services" since 1910?
When you come out with unrelated hand waving like:
(historically speaking [profits] are way more distributed than say, 1000 years ago)
What's even the point of this? 1018AD There's various stripes of feudalism in Europe but it's still before enclosure, you've got the Song Dynasty the equality of which I know nothing, there's hunter gatherers in a huge area of the world presumably ranging from despotic to idyllic. But none of this matters because you're responding to an essay which starts talking about Keynes prediction in 1930 and how the changing job roles since then are largely BS.
Anyway if you think the topic of the organization of society is interesting or you have a specific job you think isn't bullshit this just doesn't seem like a productive way to start a discussion.
I should add I don't agree with Graebers identification of the causes of bullshit jobs. To disagree with an academic authority and all the people who're self reporting their jobs are bullshit on the basis that you think the term bullshit is too mean and too widely applied seems a bit weird.
I used to work in Fin Tech, my job was essentially to partake in a technological arms race and was most definitely 100% bullshit.
I work in health care, not financial services. It doesn't matter, because in this article it's being all called bullshit. If you want to bother to spend the time to explain exactly which parts are...
I work in health care, not financial services.
Had it occurred to you that perhaps a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics might have just a passing understanding of what makes up the majority of new economic activity in "financial services" since 1910?
It doesn't matter, because in this article it's being all called bullshit. If you want to bother to spend the time to explain exactly which parts are bullshit, I have no issue. But this article doesn't do that. If the goal is to point out that some people think their jobs are bullshit, and it's justified and correct, it does a poor job at doing so, because while it calls out that some people self-identify their own jobs as being bullshit, it doesn't state that these are the jobs that are bullshit or should be removed - instead, it calls the entire industry bullshit. I expect more from someone who's supposed to be an expert. I expect an expert to provide more detail than is necessary for a layman, because another expert will take issue with an argument lacking in detail or an argument that fails to account for things we observe that do not fall within his thesis.
changing job roles since then are largely BS.
Technically speaking financial planners existed throughout history, but their proliferation I would consider a change in job roles, as they are no longer just serving the elite, they're serving the middle and even lower financial classes.
Anyway if you think the topic of the organization of society is interesting or you have a specific job you think isn't bullshit this just doesn't seem like a productive way to start a discussion.
And nor is calling an entire industry bullshit. It completely dismisses many jobs which are both necessary and good. This is offensive and not a productive way to start a discussion.
all the people who're self reporting their jobs are bullshit
I never dismissed or disagreed with this. If it appeared I was doing so, can you please point out where so that I might revise my wording so it is more clear (for now and in the future)?
Sure the essay was very unproductive, the discussion however has since moved on considerably and I think I'd rather move on too.
the book is based on a 2013 essay he wrote for a radical magazine called Strike! that was such a hit it crashed the publication’s website and was translated into a dozen languages within weeks. The Economist published a critique of it. Adverts quoting it appeared in the London Underground. Eventually, pollsters based a UK survey on it showing that 37 per cent of people did not believe their job made “a meaningful contribution to the world”. A Dutch poll later came up with similar results. From The FTs review of his recent book.
Sure the essay was very unproductive, the discussion however has since moved on considerably and I think I'd rather move on too.
I'm unfamiliar with the discussion that has "moved on considerably" and am only replying to the article that was linked here. If you want to talk about this discussion as it exists today, I'd...
the discussion however has since moved on considerably and I think I'd rather move on too.
I'm unfamiliar with the discussion that has "moved on considerably" and am only replying to the article that was linked here.
If you want to talk about this discussion as it exists today, I'd gladly do so, through the lens of an article or a paper which discusses where it is now.
I think you may have conflated my discussion and thoughts on this article with the thoughts and discussion in the field, and by this researcher.
I have to say, I take some exception to this categorization. Graeber seems to to qualify jobs on a sort of vertical-slice model -- this job is bullshit, that job is not bullshit -- then caps it...
I have to say, I take some exception to this categorization. Graeber seems to to qualify jobs on a sort of vertical-slice model -- this job is bullshit, that job is not bullshit -- then caps it off with "the remainder are divided between [the unemployed] and a larger stratum [with bullshit jobs] who foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value".
What a sneering and shitty little coda. Does the ordinary administrator resent the ordinary teacher? Does the ordinary manager resent the ordinary subway driver? Is that just Graeber's vague feeling? I think that's emblematic of the issue with his vertical-slice model. I would argue that the strata of western society run much more strongly along "horizontal" deviations; economic tiers guide disdain far more regularly than occupational divides.
He brings up manipulation from above: "It's even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers" based on the bullshitness of others' jobs. Sure, but interoccupational strife is not what gets trotted out -- it's "this person makes more than you, but they want a pension!" The job in question is tangential to the whole thing; the message from above is "hey poor person, here is a person less poor than you who wants more. Now kill!"
The establishment's dream is not a world where school administrators resent teachers because they "produce a real product", it's a world where school administrators and teachers both make $5/hr plus tips, and resent whoever's making $6. Doesn't matter if Jimmy Six Bucks is a nurse or an actuary. Punching down is the intent.
I think he makes some good points on the role of work in a (desperately) top-heavy society. Some jobs are undeniably bullshit, and I also agree with Graeber that a lot of the new bullshit jobs are a result of society sort of "making its own problems" to keep people working 40+ hrs/wk (or making people want 40+ hrs/wk) and enrich the top echelon of society. But I strongly disagree that those with bullshit jobs are any closer to the "ruling classes" when it comes to ethos than those without bullshit jobs. I don't fault anyone who's just getting by for doing all they can to just get by, even if their job is nonsense -- I fault those who chart the path of a society in which it's hard to get by.
I can agree with his premise, but this examples are all over the place. Honestly, I don't think it's all capitalism. Though I don't disagree a lot of disparity exists. Some of these jobs exist...
I can agree with his premise, but this examples are all over the place. Honestly, I don't think it's all capitalism. Though I don't disagree a lot of disparity exists. Some of these jobs exist because our world has become more complicated. And jobs, like security, has always existed. We're not hunter, gatherer, farmers and this is reflected in the jobs we have. Not saying they are all necessary, but he has quite a few jobs listed that are far from bullshit. I feel he's neglecting skill set. When you're trying to build airports and bridges, you're going to need support staff - project managers, admin, security. As a species for better or for worst, we're now able to handle incredibly large and complex projects. Unless we're debating if these projects should even exist, I don't see how someone can just dismiss "the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)".
His anecdote about corporate lawyer not "needing to exist" just shows how naive this writer really is. They exist because the way society is structured, and in particular law is structured, necessitates them to exist. Corporations sue other corporations because of the reality of intellectual property theft, shady dealings because of loopholes in the law, and the human nature to do what it takes to survive.
He also shows disdain for jobs such as "financial services". How fucking naive can you get? These jobs exist because people actually have enough wealth that they can invest it now, something they didn't do when they were poor farmers in the 1900s looking to survive the next winter, not plan for their retirement.
He shows disdain for "academic and health administration" without understanding the necessity of complex law or the complexity of modern academic and health institutions. Schools have become massive institutions reaching into many fields, just as health care has become consolidated and systems often include hospitals, clinics, outpatient surgery, specialty centers, infusion, and more.
Then he goes on to lament how few musicians and artists we need while ignoring that technological inventions like the ability to record and distribute music and art at unprecedented global levels have taken the stage. We used to have a ton of bards and other traveling entertainment - those jobs aren't necessary on the same scale anymore because I'd rather see the best the world has to offer than the best my area has to offer. You can't compare those jobs to "specialists in corporate law" because you can't record and distribute what they are bringing to a corporation.
In the end I agree with the premise - we are working a hell of a lot more hours than we need to be and the profits are stacked at the top in a way they were not in the recent past (historically speaking they are way more distributed than say, 1000 years ago).
But his argument, that it's because "bullshit jobs" exist, is naive. These "bullshit jobs" exist because technology and automation have given us the resources to redirect where we put our time and money. In some cases, such as corporate law, the time efficient solution is to improve the law itself, freeing those workers to contribute in ways that are meaningful to society and not just the corporation they work for. But in many cases, such as financial services, attacking them does nothing but show how uneducated you are and the services they provide are extremely meaningful to elevating the wealth of the "common man".
That's an awful lot of ideology and narrative you have going there. You're just repeating the standard myths used to justify capitalism fed to us by society without any critical thought.
How can you even say that with a straight face? Also, conflating technology and progress with capitalism, appealing to human nature, calling him naive, these are all very very tired arguments to any academic leftist like Graeber. His very point is that they exist due to the structure of our system and that's a problem, so by responding "oh, those jobs exist because that's how society is structured" is completely missing the point.
I think maybe instead of jumping on someone you disagree with for having a different view, it might be better to focus on what you think are the questions that might persuade you if the person you're questioning could adequately answer them.
For example (and this is a huge stab in the dark, so please forgive me if I'm off the mark), you might want to ask @Gaywallet to justify the claim that the ability to take on debt has improved the lives of working people, beyond the small comment they already made about the wealth of farmers in the 1900s.
Part of the struggle in modern society is getting people to rewarding jobs that match their skillsets and abilities efficiently, and getting them rewards that are reasonably adequate to the tasks they perform. No society will do that perfectly, and it can always be improved, but to so roundly dismiss someone's view like you've done here seems to me a little fast considering the content of the comment you're responding to.
I apologize for a lack of patience. I am less interested in refuting opinions that have been refuted over and over by people smarter than I (and ironically are predicted and refuted by Graeber in his extended book of the same name as the essay). All of the arguments made are tired and honestly some are hundreds of years old. To repeat them is to blindly regurgitate the liberal ideology that has been built to justify capitalism.
The idea that financial institutions have somehow made working people wealthier is absurd enough it doesn't warrant engaging with. (And if its a matter of taking on debt, working people have taken on debt for centuries, since the dawn of civilization even.)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs&t=1s]
The goal is not to get people jobs that match their skillsets and abilities, it is to allow them to work in a way they find meaningful, which benefits society, and free from profit exploitation. We exist in a system which is structured instead in such a way that forces people into jobs they hate just to survive, jobs that exist to make other people money rather than the benefit of the worker or society. I roundly dismiss their views because their views are deserving of being roundly dismissed and not worth legitimizing by argument.
Since we have a discussion thread going elsewhere and I've had time to re-read my own comments to see exactly what argument I've made in the thread, I think you've misinterpreted my premise because I haven't bothered to spend the time laying out how I think. I only attacked some of the arguments made, because they were presented in a fashion that is, frankly, insulting to many people and full of holes (at least the argument presented in this article. I'm unsure whether the full argument accounts for these issues or is simply misrepresented by the use of the wrong choice of words).
I am in 100% agreement that there are a plethora of jobs that exist because the system has evolved in a way to "necessitate" their existence in order to concentrate wealth at the top.
I'm a firm believer that unregulated capitalism results in monopolies/oligopolies and the eventual splitting of the wealth into extremes.
I agree that people should not be forced into jobs they hate because that's what they need to do to survive and that jobs which benefit the worker or society are both ethically and morally superior.
I never argued that financial institutions existed to do anything. However, they are capitalistic in nature, and are therefore designed to make money for their clients. To argue that they do not make money for their clients is to argue for a failed financial institution. In some cases, this is true because the government (most recently the US govt. and the 2007/8 mortgage crisis) decided to bail them out for their own stupidity and lack of regulation, but generally speaking they will do whatever they can to maximize profits because that's the service they provide and a business will look out for itself.
Such as?
Because people don't save for retirement
Then maybe he should argue it, because all I heard was someone saying that planning for your financial future by investing today so that you can retire comfortably is a bullshit job, which is frankly insulting.
Such as the myths such as I mentioned above: conflating technology and progress with capitalism, appealing to human nature, appealing to practicality vs naivety, that people who are poor are their because of their own faults, etc.
Graeber isn't critiquing banks, or stock brokers, or investors, or individuals. He's certainly not going to blame someone for doing what they need to do to get by. His main point here is that capitalism, our overarching economy, which claims to be maximized for efficiency, really isn't, and instead pushes people into working for a bloated system, then justifies itself with ideology such as the ideas you originally replied with.
Can you point out where I did that?
While I did use the word "natural" I didn't imply it was good or bad. How did I do this?
Can you explain this further?
I never implied this, where did you get this idea?
Really? Because I heard him say those jobs were "bullshit"
He did a terrible job explaining it then, because that's not what I got from the article at all.
I'd be extremely curious about how he thinks institutions function without, well, institutional functionaries. Does he think that doctors should run the large hospital, or that professors should run the university? It's so plainly a nightmare...
How much have you dealt with financial advisors in London? (I believe Graeber was based in London at the time of writing this, I have little experience of the way these things work elsewhere).
"Financial services" is a really broad term. While it could have some cultural significance to refer to something it does not refer to here in the states, I'm sure there's a more appropriate job title that describes what he's taking issue with. But perhaps he shouldn't rely on a job title and instead should explain a job role because titles are much broader than roles, and calling them all bullshit is frankly insulting.
Sorry do you consider yourself as working in Financial Services? What do you do?
Reading your posts in this thread again it seems like you've mostly just ranting about how mean it is to call peoples jobs "bullshit".
I mean especially this:
Had it occurred to you that perhaps a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics might have just a passing understanding of what makes up the majority of new economic activity in "financial services" since 1910?
When you come out with unrelated hand waving like:
What's even the point of this? 1018AD There's various stripes of feudalism in Europe but it's still before enclosure, you've got the Song Dynasty the equality of which I know nothing, there's hunter gatherers in a huge area of the world presumably ranging from despotic to idyllic. But none of this matters because you're responding to an essay which starts talking about Keynes prediction in 1930 and how the changing job roles since then are largely BS.
Anyway if you think the topic of the organization of society is interesting or you have a specific job you think isn't bullshit this just doesn't seem like a productive way to start a discussion.
I should add I don't agree with Graebers identification of the causes of bullshit jobs. To disagree with an academic authority and all the people who're self reporting their jobs are bullshit on the basis that you think the term bullshit is too mean and too widely applied seems a bit weird.
I used to work in Fin Tech, my job was essentially to partake in a technological arms race and was most definitely 100% bullshit.
I work in health care, not financial services.
It doesn't matter, because in this article it's being all called bullshit. If you want to bother to spend the time to explain exactly which parts are bullshit, I have no issue. But this article doesn't do that. If the goal is to point out that some people think their jobs are bullshit, and it's justified and correct, it does a poor job at doing so, because while it calls out that some people self-identify their own jobs as being bullshit, it doesn't state that these are the jobs that are bullshit or should be removed - instead, it calls the entire industry bullshit. I expect more from someone who's supposed to be an expert. I expect an expert to provide more detail than is necessary for a layman, because another expert will take issue with an argument lacking in detail or an argument that fails to account for things we observe that do not fall within his thesis.
Technically speaking financial planners existed throughout history, but their proliferation I would consider a change in job roles, as they are no longer just serving the elite, they're serving the middle and even lower financial classes.
And nor is calling an entire industry bullshit. It completely dismisses many jobs which are both necessary and good. This is offensive and not a productive way to start a discussion.
I never dismissed or disagreed with this. If it appeared I was doing so, can you please point out where so that I might revise my wording so it is more clear (for now and in the future)?
Sure the essay was very unproductive, the discussion however has since moved on considerably and I think I'd rather move on too.
I'm unfamiliar with the discussion that has "moved on considerably" and am only replying to the article that was linked here.
If you want to talk about this discussion as it exists today, I'd gladly do so, through the lens of an article or a paper which discusses where it is now.
I think you may have conflated my discussion and thoughts on this article with the thoughts and discussion in the field, and by this researcher.
I have to say, I take some exception to this categorization. Graeber seems to to qualify jobs on a sort of vertical-slice model -- this job is bullshit, that job is not bullshit -- then caps it off with "the remainder are divided between [the unemployed] and a larger stratum [with bullshit jobs] who foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value".
What a sneering and shitty little coda. Does the ordinary administrator resent the ordinary teacher? Does the ordinary manager resent the ordinary subway driver? Is that just Graeber's vague feeling? I think that's emblematic of the issue with his vertical-slice model. I would argue that the strata of western society run much more strongly along "horizontal" deviations; economic tiers guide disdain far more regularly than occupational divides.
He brings up manipulation from above: "It's even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers" based on the bullshitness of others' jobs. Sure, but interoccupational strife is not what gets trotted out -- it's "this person makes more than you, but they want a pension!" The job in question is tangential to the whole thing; the message from above is "hey poor person, here is a person less poor than you who wants more. Now kill!"
The establishment's dream is not a world where school administrators resent teachers because they "produce a real product", it's a world where school administrators and teachers both make $5/hr plus tips, and resent whoever's making $6. Doesn't matter if Jimmy Six Bucks is a nurse or an actuary. Punching down is the intent.
I think he makes some good points on the role of work in a (desperately) top-heavy society. Some jobs are undeniably bullshit, and I also agree with Graeber that a lot of the new bullshit jobs are a result of society sort of "making its own problems" to keep people working 40+ hrs/wk (or making people want 40+ hrs/wk) and enrich the top echelon of society. But I strongly disagree that those with bullshit jobs are any closer to the "ruling classes" when it comes to ethos than those without bullshit jobs. I don't fault anyone who's just getting by for doing all they can to just get by, even if their job is nonsense -- I fault those who chart the path of a society in which it's hard to get by.
This is also the subject of NPR's Hidden Brain podcast this week.
I can agree with his premise, but this examples are all over the place. Honestly, I don't think it's all capitalism. Though I don't disagree a lot of disparity exists. Some of these jobs exist because our world has become more complicated. And jobs, like security, has always existed. We're not hunter, gatherer, farmers and this is reflected in the jobs we have. Not saying they are all necessary, but he has quite a few jobs listed that are far from bullshit. I feel he's neglecting skill set. When you're trying to build airports and bridges, you're going to need support staff - project managers, admin, security. As a species for better or for worst, we're now able to handle incredibly large and complex projects. Unless we're debating if these projects should even exist, I don't see how someone can just dismiss "the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)".