I was confused by this article, to be honest. I can't speak to Graeber in particular but I've read many articles about the idea of bullshit jobs and in general,

I was confused by this article, to be honest. I can't speak to Graeber in particular but I've read many articles about the idea of bullshit jobs and in general, the theses I read had little (although not nothing) to do with how people felt about their jobs -- it was more about the actual utility of them, in the sense of there being a bureaucratic administrative elite who are largely unnecessary and serve mostly to increase their largesse at the expense of those below them ("the MBAization of America" to reluctantly quote Musk). If anything, I think the idea is that people in these positions overvalue their positions. I don't want to advocate for this idea necessarily, just that I think the "bullshit jobs thesis" might mean something different to different people. The Economist article closes with an admission that "part of Mr Graeber’s thesis turns out to be correct," discussing the adage that "people leave bad managers, not bad jobs." Many variants of the bullshit jobs thesis I think propose an increase in bad managers, who are part of a larger unnecessary management structure. I guess overall I felt as if the Economist piece was missing a few things.