Mia Drewdrop
David Graeber InstituteWork could be fulfilling.
Willow :bhjflag_bisexual::anarchy_punk_demiboy:@DGI ... so I guess we're just skipping the fact that you need income to survive under capitalism now
Josh
Neil Kandalgaonkar@DGI As great as this analysis is, the last few seconds of this clip no longer ring true, at least in my industry, software technology. Graeber says CEOs are the last to admit that many jobs are useless.
The CEOs of tech companies are loudly proclaiming that many, if not most, of the people they employ are not necessary. And in my experience they’ve always believed that.
@DGI Many a startup tech founder thinks it all went wrong when scaling forced them to create a bureaucracy. With AI they are trying to re-insert their personal will at all levels
In Silicon Valley many are eagerly anticipating the one-person billion dollar company. I’m not saying that is better, likely, or possible, but tech tends to lead business culture and this might herald the day when having lots of useless employees makes the CEO look like a dinosaur. Graeber’s analysis needs an update
su_liam@su_liam @DGI for McKinsey consultants, 100%. Other stuff is kinda complicated.
My current job helps doctors document what happened in a patient visit, with complex bureaucratic codes.
In Graeber’s bestiary of jobs this is box-ticking. Someone created a standard and now doctors have to explicate what they did in a machine-readable format.
In the fee-for-service model, this nudges doctors to do more. But is this really the best solution for the whole system? Should this job exist? 🤷♂️