But since you've begun a knee-jerk reaction against this, I think there are some flaws with your criticisms (assuming you have read the book):
> People think they know what a job is, without having done it. > But if you're so ignorant, you should consider that you can't imagine jobs you don't do, let alone do them.
What Graeber has done in the book is to actually do numerous interviews with the people who have actually claimed to have done these jobs, and then categorize them into some noticable patterns to arrive at a conclusion. If you can't experience every job in the universe, the closest you can get is to talk with the people who have done them - and this is what he's precisely did. There are claims that the sample size wasn't enough or it was biased - which I think is totally apt. But it's incredibly dismissive of you to describe this attempt as "ignorant": how are we supposed to do any anthropological / sociological work in a large scale when you claim "no scholar can even try to analyze various types of work without actually doing everything in-person beforehand?"
> But a job is not bullshit, just because you have a flight of fancy that involves massive restructuring of an organization or society. "Writing this CRUD application should be unnecessary because everybody should've used the same database in the beginning". So...make a time machine, or get everyone using one of them to switch. Should be roughly comparable difficulty.
I think the "duck-tapers" Graeber describes in his book are a bit different from what you understand currently. He's mostly talking about the people who are doing tedious cleanup work because of reasons that can obviously and trivially be fixed but the higher-ups in the organization are not doing it for various reasons (mostly politics).
No, no different - this sounds like every bit the same phenomenon I thought I was addressing.
It's a fake distinction because every job can be framed in a way that puts it on either side of the divide.
And lack of understanding of other peoples' jobs is clearly at the core of the issue.
The "higher ups being stupid because of politics" can never be really definitely false, but it never, ever, is an explanation that shows understanding or justifies calling something trivial.