Agreed, they probably have value for somebody. But my point is that for the larger economic production, relevant for the working class, nurses, teachers and so on their jobs are not adding anything.
This isn't empirically correct.
The government (and the private sector) provide *many* services like nursing, teaching, etc., which have *production costs*, namely *wage labor*, and so are therefore economic *commodities*, just like any *transportation*, utilities, etc.
I also agree, they consists of a very small portion of the overall economy, but I think they are significant in setting the political agenda.
I don't think that professional nurses and teachers are really *setting the political tone* for the government from their professional positions -- really it's the *other way around*, since their positions are *funded* by government expenditures.
Therefore, if you want an agenda for the ordinary people I think it is important to signal that this is not a movement for the woke, urban, middle class with these kinds of jobs. This is a movement that wants nothing to do with identity politics.
'Identity politics' isn't automatically a *bad word*, though there's plenty to criticize about it. Identity politics, like *any* politics, is actually *relative* depending on the context, so that it's *historically progressive* compared to strict *nationalism*, due to its politics of cultural *diversity*, though it's historically *regressive* compared to explicitly expressed *working class* interests for better wages and benefits.
Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
I agree that a movement isnt a class. I am talking about certain roles in the production, that sets the political agenda through an ideology that benefits their class interests.
Again I think you're overstating the influence of *trade union* politics -- trade unions have their own *separatist* material interests in their 'middleman' role of mediating between the working class interests of *workers*, and the ruling-class interests of *corporate management*.