One thing seems to be overlooked in the "end of work" argument--both
pro and con. While the evidence is still unclear as to whether
there is a net positive or negative impact of technology on the number of
jobs, there seems little doubt that technology is having a significant
impact on the manner and form of work and in this way on the nature of at
least some jobs.
How much impact and how many jobs are so impacted isn't, it's true, clear
but the old industrial work structures with master/slave authority
systems, repetitive and clearly definable/delimitable tasks, continuity of
work organization, stability of job content, and so on and so on has for
many disappeared and is for very many others disappearing. I won't put an
evaluation on it... for many it is an improvement for many others it's a
step back but for most it appears inevitable.
I have a feeling, in response to the "End of Work" argument, 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.
If this is the case, then the End of Work argument is not only a bit of a
red herring but also a diversion from the task of determining how the new
type of "employment" can or should be regulated, and what sort of safety
net/transition programs makes sense in the context of rapidly emerging
fluid, speedy, contractual, self-defining, skill/knowledge intensive,
job structures.
Mike Gurstein
