I think the problem with your approach --well-intentioned though it is -- is that I think you are assuming that the work/employment situation is a somehow permanent condition that can be understood in a fundamental way (and, as a corollary, I guess, that deficiencies can be compensated for by legislation). Now when I started the Job Society -- at roughly the same time as you started your initiative, and at the same time we both joined FW -- I thought the same.
Where I've changed is that I believe now that, ever since about 1750 onwards, the job structure (in England at least) has been changing significantly all the time. There's been an almost distinctly new job structure from one decade to the next, certainly from from 20-year period to the next. The two chief factors have been education and an ever-growing (and cheaper) energy use. All this is now about to change. Energy will start to become increasingly expensive (I think the present high price will be maintained as a new base from now onwards), as sources become harder (if not impossible) to find and as political instabilities intervene.
There has only been one absolutely clear job structure trend in the whole 1750-2003 period in my view. Most jobs have become increasingly de-skilled*, while a steadily growing minority of jobs need much higher skills. (*Not necessarily the job itself, but also ancillary skills. For example, a farmyard driver of a horse and cart had to know a great deal about horses and animal husbandry, and be a harness maker as well as being a driver. He would probably have to do some pot-holing from time to time and running repairs to his cart. He was a far more well-rounded, competent person than the average long-distance lorry driver of today.)
On your list you talk about long working weeks. The average working week of the normal male worker is about the same as it's been for almost a century -- probably about 20% less. It's the meritocracy which works long hours today. 20-30 hours a week a century ago, 55+hours a week today. It is this 30% or so of the population who are carrying the rest now -- and paying much more than half of the tax that's distributed to the rest in one form or another (in England anyway).
In my opinion there is no solution to the employment 'problem' (even if you can state it clearly, except as a current snapshot). But there are some very powerful trends going on and my approach is to try and understand those first. Once we understand those then we can derive particular consequences. Otherwise it's a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Best wishes,
Keith
At 21:01 06/01/2004 +1100, you wrote:
Over the years since this list was created I have made a number of attempts to begin a discourse on the difference between the future of work and the future of employment, and of the implications of an understanding of this difference for the future of humanity.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />Charles Brass
On each occasion, the conversation has petered out rather quickly.
Arthur Cordell and Ray Harrell have encouraged me to make another attempt.
Perhaps I might begin this time by saying why I believe this conversation is so important, though I would hope this was self-evident to those who subscribe to a list called futurework.
The fundamental reason the futurework list exists is because many people believe there are problems in the world of work today. These problems are articulated in a number of different ways. Common complaints include:
. too many people can�t get the work they want
. too many people are working too hard
. too much work is demeaning, dangerous or just plain boring
. too many recently created jobs have been insecure and contingent.
. too much of what needs doing to improve our quality of life just doesn�t seem to be getting done
We have, in fact, produced a list of 13 commonly ascribed �problems with the current world of work� which in the interests of space I will post in a separate message to this list.
Perhaps because there are so many apparent problems, and perhaps because each individual problem analysed alone suggests particular solutions, there are equally many suggested solutions to our current problems with work. Again, we have produced a list of five such commonly proposed solutions which I will attach to my next posting.
Taken individually, each of these proposed solutions seems attractive � and many times over the years on this list someone or other has suggested that if only enough will and endeavour were applied to following through on one of these solutions, all the problems would be fixed.
I am convinced that the problems are more systemic, and more endemic, than any of these individual solutions can encompass. Not that I don�t believe these �solutions� have value � in the short term many of them would help considerably. But in the long term the only way out of our current dilemmas is to think differently about the problems we face.
Over the past nine years that I have been thinking and talking about these issues, I have found that if I can�t get people to the point where they are prepared to think more fundamentally about the way our economy and our society works currently, and be prepared to consider alternative ways; then it is a waste of time to go any further.
So how am I doing?
How many other people are prepared to think about:
. how jobs are created, and why
. what sorts of work have historically been organized to be done through the creation of jobs, and why
. what kinds of work have historically not been done through the creation of jobs and why
. what is the historical relationship between the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs
. what could the relationship be between the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs
. how might the world be organized so that all the work which needs doing gets done, and all those who want to do things might be able to do what they want to do?
If there is a positive enough response I would be very keen to begin to explore these and related questions
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
