1/
Instead of uncritically accepting the narrative of the "service economy," Graeber clarifies
The real story is the spectacular growth, on the one hand, of clerical, administrative, and supervisory work, and, on the other, of what might broadly be termed “care work”: medical, educational, maintenance, social care, and so forth. While productivity in the manufacturing sector has skyrocketed, productivity in this caring sector has actually decreased across the developed world (largely due to the weight of bureaucratization imposed by the burgeoning numbers of administrators).When I think of the 1%/ 19%/ 80% tranches outlined in this piece, the managers are that 19% I was poking fun at and wondering how to model their future. The care workers fall into the 80%. Even though many of them have a chance to earn decent money (at least to my perspective, as a career teacher), they still fall in with the class tensions of the rest of the 80% tranche. The next quote explains why.
2/
Whereas the core value of the caring classes is, precisely, care, the core value of the professional-managerials might best be described as proceduralism. The rules and regulations, flow charts, quality reviews, audits and PowerPoints that form the main substance of their working life inevitably color their view of politics or even morality . These are people who tend to genuinely believe in the rules. They may well be the only significant stratum of the population who do so. If it is possible to generalize about class sensibilities, one might say that members of this class see society less as a web of human relationships, of love, hate, or enthusiasm, than, precisely, as a set of rules and institutional procedures, just as they see democracy, and rule of law, as effectively the same thing.To be blunt: care workers are on the side of humans and how humans operate. The managers are on the side of systems and what Zvi calls "immoral mazes." The 1%, delightfully enough (for them), get to float above it all, but sadly (for them) often get sucked back in. One place this happens is when they seek political power. Another is when they want to get likes on the internet.
While the Clintons are above all a transnational consulting and lobbying brand, the brand is around promoting the proceduralism of the 19%. And, yes, Trump is also a transnational brand, one that was first about a campy glorification of wealth, and then morphed into being about absurd white male privilege, including the privilege -- some (not me) would say "god given right" -- to be vulgar and openly cruel [1].
Humans hate being "managed," but managers love management, and the 1% benefit from 1) the levels of insulation and 2) the ensuing division.
==
[1] Obama/McCain was the first election (to my knowledge) featuring two candidates who up and left where they were raised and picked where they would make their life as adults. It was an interesting result of car culture. That Obama/Romney was a repeat of this shows how much mobility had become the norm. Trump/Clinton was our first (and hopefully last) election between two transnational brands.
