Rifkin - some final words

[Ed Weick]

My comments on Jeremy Rifkin triggered quite a barrage of responses, and I thought that the best way of addressing these was via a single omnibus posting. I do apologize for the posting’s rambling character and for the very real possibility that I have misunderstood some of the points people were making. I now have to admit (grudgingly) that I’ve misunderstood Jeremy Rifkin. He is, as Tom Walker puts it, a "showman and an evangelist", a little like the mystics who wandered about medieval Europe proclaiming that the end of time was at hand. I should have recognized this because I have seen him perform on TV, where he said the most outrageous things with complete composure and absolute certainty. Tom challenges me on another point: "If Ed supposes that the continuing need for "doctors, lawyers" etc. will absorb all those sloughed off by manufacturing, he hasn't engaged the argument at the level of seriousness already clear twenty years ago in Bureau of Labor Statistics projections -- large percentage increases applied to small numbers are quantitatively insignificant compared to small percentage increases applied to large numbers." My point isn’t that sloughed-off labourers will become doctors and lawyers, though some may or their children may. Rather, my reference was to human ingenuity and inventiveness. If displaced, aware and motivated people will find a role for themselves even if they have to invent one; they won’t simply shrivel up and remain idle. I agree with Mike Gurstein’s point that "...we may only be seeing the end of "jobs" as we have known them and not the end of "work" and in fact, the transformation in the nature of "jobs" may be such as to increase the number of those "employed" while decreasing their security, stability, continuity, and so on." However, I do recognize that the displaced may have trouble staying aware and motivated. The larger point I’m making, it would seem, is that it is not computers or any other technology that creates social and economic change. It’s people working as individuals and through their institutions — institutions that people should be able to change if they are not fulfilling their needs. And I do recognize that bringing about institutional change is a very real problem in much of the world, and is often not possible without bloodshed and violence. I also take to heart Victor Milne’s point that many people have neither the intelligence nor the health to compete with the more robust of the species. For these people, one can only hope that support systems will be in place. We know that, historically, they rarely have been. Here I would also like to comment on Melanie Melanich’s review of Kevin Bale’s "Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy". I would not agree that "For the first time in human history there is an absolute glut of potential slaves." Slavery, with periodic gluts of slaves, is as old as time. Yet it is tragic that the situation Melanie describes exists now, after all that people have gone through to establish a better world throughout this century. To me, it represents a breakdown of moral order and a return to barbarism, in the much the same vein as ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo and NATO’s response in bombing the hell out of Serbia. It does not indicate that we can look forward to the next century with a great deal of hope, and may indeed suggest that there will be plenty of work in military fields if not in peaceful ones. Arthur Cordell suggests that production is not the economic problem, distribution is. I’m not really sure I agree. Currently, 80% of global GNP is produced by 20% of the world’s population living in the richest countries; while 80% of the population produces the remaining 20%. The advantage of the rich continues to grow. When it comes to distribution, one wonders about the extent to which the poor world be able to use what the rich world has to offer. The needs are very different. Poor countries would better be able to fulfill their needs themselves, and yet the capital to build up their productive base often comes from the rich world and is invested to fulfill the needs of the rich world, not the poor. Nike does not build plants in India to provide Indians with high quality footware. Even in rich countries, production caters mainly to those who have income. The needs of the poor, such as decent housing, are typically overlooked. Moreover, we have not even begun to tackle the problem of what we produce. Quite a lot of what the rich world produces is neither necessary nor useful and may indeed be harmful. Much of it is directly destructive (armaments) or insidiously destructive (greenhouse gases and other pollutants; rapid depletion of non-renewables). At the other end of the spectrum, many countries are unable to produce sufficient basic items such as foodstuffs, health and education. Arthur is also concerned about the changing role of the middle class: "That good jobs for the broad middle class are less to be found these days than in the past and will be less so in the future." Jim Dator is concerned about a decreasing access to cash and an increasing reliance on credit. ""Money" in the old sense just won't do any more. "Credit", which was invented to fill in the money gap, is on the verge of stifling further consumption (and will at the next major turndown in the "economy" when people are forced to stop acquiring and start paying off debts, which will spiral the system downward, given the massive heights of the myriad mounds of debt)." It would seem that these two things are related. During the 50's, 60's and even into the 80's the middle class of the rich world became accustomed to rising incomes which enabled it’s members to purchase just about everything they wanted. Much of this was purchased on credit, but the most insidious aspect of credit was that it became a habit — there was never any real question of not using it because you could always pay it off. With the fall of middle class real income during the 90's, both the habit and the credit remain, but the ability to pay has begun to evaporate. I’m not so sure that we will, as Jim suggests, "spiral" down, but there is a danger which must be recognized here. Though I’m a little unclear on the point he is making, Tom Abeles appears to argue that production and distribution cannot proceed without money, and that money, under the monopoly control of banks, is not available to everyone in a manner that allows for an equitable distribution of goods and services. Many have suggested alternative currencies under local control as a way of circumventing this problem. We could extend this line of thought a little by speculating on what would happen if everyone’s line of credit were fully plugged up — i.e. everything possible had been purchased on credit and there was simply no way of buying any more. All consumers could do is pay the minimum on their monthly Visa bill. Banks could not extend any more credit because consumers could not afford to "purchase" any more. The ultimate consumer society? Finally, a comment on Ray Evans Harrell’s illegitimate profession in combination with Mike Gurstein’s observation that, while jobs may be going, work will not. When I started work in the late 1950s, I didn’t simply take a job, I began a career and so did ever so many of my university trained contemporaries. While I did change jobs several times, this was always done within the relatively narrow band of my "career path". My university trained friends and associates behaved similarly, whether they worked for the government or the private sector. Even people who did not go to university chose career paths. Some became mechanics, others plumbers, others industrial workers, etc. At the time, there was no shortage of paths to choose from. And paths included goodies such as periodic promotions, rising rates of pay, and building up a solid pension. To get myself on a career path, I didn’t even have to strategize very much. Employers came to our campuses and recruited us. It would seem that this is the world that is now being swept away. There will be career paths for some university grads, but proportionately far fewer than there were in my day. Students now have to think much more strategically than they did in the past. They have to know more about the labour market and about their talents and capabilities. Many will not be able to sell their services to government or a large company full time, so they will have to know how to sell their services part time, or they will have to find and develop new markets, perhaps in the entertainment field, whether these are legitimate or not. A couple of years ago, I was fortunate to be able to spend a month at ground level in a large Brazilian slum. Incomes there were low and uncertain but it seemed that almost everyone had some money to spend, enough to give their young children reasonably good care. Some people had steady jobs in downtown Sao Paulo, but no one was on a career path. Almost everyone functioned strategically, connecting with this bit of money or that, staying in the legitimate economy if they could, resorting to the illegitimate economy if they had to. I’m not suggesting that there are virtues in living this way; nor am I suggesting that the people I encountered lived fulfilling lives. What I’m saying is that an increasing proportion of even the rich world’s labour force may have to work strategically in future, though hopefully at a much higher standard than the poor of Sao Paulo. Ed Weick