I second Doug's point about the jobless future/end of work hyperbole. The trends toward decreased job security, low pay and chronic un & underemployment are disturbing enough. One danger of the "jobless future/end of work" line is that it can be readily dismissed as a doomsday scenario (which it is). It's worth mentioning, though, that both Aronowitz and DiFazios's and Rifkin's titles are meant to be plays on words, not literal predictions. In a way, what both of the titles refer to is an argument for moving away from traditionally defined "jobs" (40 hours a week, paycheck, etc. etc.) as the solution to the problem of income distribution and social participation. The analysis really is not that there won't be any jobs but that jobs can no longer be relied on to provide the "hinge" that connects people to the economy. I think there is merit in that analysis. I don't think that either Rifkin's or Aronowitz and DiFazio's prescriptions for moving beyond jobs are adequate to the task. Frankly, Andre Gorz did a much better job on the same theme seven years ago in his Critique of Economic Reason (IMHO). I might as well take this opportunity to plug my web pages related to the shorter work time issue: 1. design for policy study: http://mindlink.net/knowware/timework.htm 2. related web resources: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm 3. Bruce O'Hara essay "The Case for Shorter Work Time": http://mindlink.net/knowware/share.htm ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The question was: "what's the story?" Tom Walker knoWWare Communications http://mindlink.net/knowware/
