It was I who asked why the threads on the list seem to specialize in digression from the topic of re-designing work, income and education.
"Are orchestras and opera companies small?" Ray, "Small is Beautiful" is the title of the book, not a comprehensive summary of the book's analysis. And, yes, within the compass of Schumacher's conception of small, orchestras and opera companies ARE small. But smallness is only one part of S's three-part response to the technological problems of impermanence and absurdity that he diagnoses. The other two parts are cheap (that is, accessible to virtually everyone) and compatible with creativity. Parsing the TITLE of Schumacher's book is another digression. I cited a PASSAGE from the book about work, escapism, aggression and denial. I asked two questions: have we become so desensitized to the absurdity of denial that we are no longer able to respond? and isn't that impotence in the face of venal banality a symptom of precisely the escapism and aggression? Arthur replied to my question with a metaphor about a train coming down the track. You, Ray, literalized Arthur's metaphor and put pennies on the track. I suppose it's a valid response to any metaphor to take it literally and thus "derail" its fictive impulse. But it doesn't answer my question about work, escapism and aggression. Or does it? Does it say, implicitly, "I don't want to talk about that" and then enact that refusal to talk by 1. not uttering it and 2. substituting the title of the book for the passage in question and "refuting" a reductio ad absurdum interpretation of the title? So, "Who the fuck is Tom Walker?" My name appeared four days ago in a thread on Econjobrumors.com that I will present as exhibit "A" for Schumacher's diagnosis of denial, aggression and escapism. These people are -- purportedly -- grad students in Economics. http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic.php?id=13907 Hey guys, I'm a lay person and I wanted to get your opinion on a particular policy prescription to curb unemployment so here goes nothing! Too many workers are given a priority in this economic system; the employed. 2) The employed are being overworked and underpaid by their employers. 3) Reduce the burden on the employed by cutting work hours in order to make room for unemployed workers. 4) Businesses hire unemployed workers to compensate for those decreases in work hours. Why hasn't anyone in the Obama administration brought this policy up for discussion? Seems like a common sense approach that would create tons of jobs! Posted 4 days ago # lol Posted 4 days ago # I don't know if you are a genuine outsider or a troll but that is just fudging numbers. 1 guy working 8 hours = 2 guys working 4 hours each. Sure it will look like no one is unemployed anymore but that doesn't solve the problem of economic slowdown. You need more demand, more production and more jobs. Posted 4 days ago # because the amount of talent and efficiency is the same between those who have a job and those who don't have a job right? because this will be easily implementable politically right? because paperwork and compensation and benefits for 2x the amount of workers is 0 right? please remove your unemployed self out of this forum. Posted 4 days ago # Dear sweet lord Jesus this guy might know actually nothing about the way markets work. Posted 4 days ago # The serious answer to your question: the policy would either cause businesses to go bankrupt (by increasing their wage costs), or send tons of workers into poverty (by severely cutting their wages). OP would benefit from Econ 101. People say that a lot as a cheap insult here, but I'm completely serious. Posted 4 days ago # The Fed just needs to raise rates above 50%, then capital will become so expensive firms will be forced to substitute workers for capital via the reswitch (wicksell effect) that occurs at that level of interest. S'all good after that. Posted 4 days ago # OP, this is the lump of labour fallacy. Google the term. And... No, your idea does not work. Posted 4 days ago # ^you mean labor right you filthy brit. Posted 4 days ago # How to fix the OP? Posted 4 days ago # Thanks, ^^^^, very funny Posted 4 days ago # 3) Reduce the burden on the employed by cutting work hours in order to make room for unemployed workers. ________ leftish bullshit. Those who are productive have a job (or have it again soon), others simply cannot substitute productive ones. Posted 4 days ago # the nations wealth is built on the fact that the productive work a lot, once you change this, you substantially decrease the countrie's wealth. Posted 4 days ago # ^really? Posted 4 days ago # The OP's idea is good. It doesn't require one make the lump of labor fallacy. Learn some economic history about the length of the working day. Posted 4 days ago # ^^ sure Posted 4 days ago # Sometimes I wonder if I'm wasting my time studying economics since there are so few clear cut answers. Then I come across lay people like the OP and feel like maybe I haven't been wasting my life! Posted 4 days ago # ^Unfortunately I think OP is so stupid that we've all wasted our time. Posted 4 days ago # OP here, you guys are wrong. I just read about a study by an economist named Tom Walker and he proves that the lump of labor fallacy is a fallacy in it of itself. You all shouldn't be so arrogant, it makes you look stupid when you're incorrect. Posted 4 days ago # ^Who the fuck is Tom Walker? I know, he goes by OP. Go away Tom, nobody cares about your stupid paper destined to be published in the Journal of Nobody Gives a Shit. Posted 4 days ago # Tom Walker is not an economist, I looked him up. He's a joke. Go away Tom. Posted 4 days ago # His paper was published in the Journal of Social Economy. Eat that, naysayers! Posted 4 days ago # Tom Walker will give you 10,000 dollars if you refute his argument. http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/tom-walker-to-economists-put-up-or-shut-up/ Posted 4 days ago # Ok, I don't know where to begin here, so I'll keep it simple. To refute a fallacy requires a model or data analysis with testable hypotheses and more than one study. One article in a C level journal that likely has no actual evidnce, does not meet that standard. As to the idea of cutting hours to create jobs, if that worked, we would expect some empirical support. Yet even a casual glance at the unemployment rates in different countries versus the hours worked places doubts on the idea. Think about a barter economy. I work all day and get paid four chickens (which I can eat or trade with others). Now you tell me I can only work half a day and someone else is going to work the other half. Now I only get paid two chickens. Your "solution" has dramatically cut my wage (fewer chickens to eat or trade). While I get to enjoy some extra leisure, the fact that I didn't do that when I had the choice shows that you've made me worse off. And if the other guy doesn't work as hard or as effectively as I do, maybe we only end up with 3 chickens to split and not four. Your policy will make me get a pitchfork and run you out if town. Posted 4 days ago # ^ You don't know what you are talking about, including what subject is under discussion. Posted 4 days ago # "Tom Walker will give you 10,000 dollars if you refute his argument. http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/tom-walker-to-economists-put-up-or-shut-up/ " What the fuck is that? Jesus, that guy is dumber than Robert Reich. Posted 4 days ago # All hail sandwichman! Posted 4 days ago # This is actually a nice discussion to present to freshmen and see if they can refute it on their own Posted 4 days ago # Here is the paper by Walker. Game on gents! http://hussonet.free.fr/lumplab.pdf Seriously though this didn't work in france. Posted 3 days ago # Yes if only Obama would come out and say "to my fellow Americans who are underemployed, we have the perfect solution. We're going to make everyone underemployed. That will fix everything. Oh and to all of you underemployed who say you would like to work more, you're lying because some jackass on the Internet said so." My only question is would Obama be impeached before the election or after? Posted 3 days ago # France tried it by reducing the working week to 35 hours. Not sure about the effects on employment but there should be papers looking into that case. Marginal productivity of laboUr is decreasing on the number of hours / day, right? Would average productivity not increase if we went down from, say, ten to nine hours per day and we hired one more person? Would be nice if someone has facts and we all stop insulting each other. Posted 3 days ago # That paper is a real piece of shit. There isn't a single potentially falsifiable statement in it, just a bunch of yapping. If he weren't so dismissive of free market outcomes, I'd say he was an Austrian. Posted 3 days ago # ^ The above strikes me as stupid. A valid criticism of a paper depends on recognizing the topic of the paper. The topic of Walker's paper, as I read it, is NOT the effects on productivity or employment or whatever of a decrease in working hours. Posted 3 days ago # It's very costly for firms to train and recruit new employees. Therefore it's optimal in the short-run to be use OT rather than new employees. It's also costly to fire (decreases morale for existing workers) so firms are hedging against the risk of further economic decline. Finally, some workers are demanding OT to make up for "lost" earnings when firms cut back hours last year. Posted 3 days ago # ^ Well it is the topic of this thread since the OP suggests it as a way to "fix the economy". Further, if you read the article's conclusion it pretty clearly tries to argue that work-sharing would be beneficial, which means you have to consider the effects on employment, productivity, and a host of other factors. Posted 3 days ago # ^ should be ^^ Posted 3 days ago # OP gets to tell all the blue collar workers why they're being required to work less, and why they won't be paid for the hours they're no longer working. Then he can explain to their families why there's less food on the table. Or he can explain to small businesses why they're expected to take a huge hit for no reason. Making a lot of people slightly worse off in order to make a few better off is not a solution. In addition, if you cut hours, firms will substitute capital for labor, and hire far fewer workers than the policy anticipates. France did try this, but not as a solution to a recession. The reviews were mixed. Their unemployment rate is over 10% at the moment... Posted 3 days ago # We need socialism. We need socialism to allocate appropriate job, hours of work, food, leisure activities, and everything else for us. Posted 3 days ago # ^hey it works in academia. Posted 3 days ago # Is that guy making propaganda of his research here? Sorry, bro, this will not work. This is not wikipedia where the editors are lay persons. Posted 3 days ago # Hmmmm... $10,000. Seeing how easy it is to dismiss the argument, refuting it should be a walk in the park for some young bull out to make his horns. --Charley Posted 3 days ago # ^Ah, but there's the trick. As noted above, there is no refutable or falsifiable statement in that stupid argument. So the $10,000 can never be claimed. No wonder nobody took the bait. On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: > Any of you live next to a railroad track? I did. The train was across > our yard and a narrow street from my bedroom. We played on the tracks. > Put pennies down to make rings once the train smashed them. > > As for Tom, it seems that we both suffer from the problem of having too many > holes to fill in from each other's posts. So we get the: "You're not > listening thing." I reread everything but what I said was where his words > took me. I believe that's called inference. Sorry Tom, I didn't get it > the way you meant it. > > Anyway, my experience with lists is different from yours. There are > professional lists that do all kinds of projects all the time. You're right > that the people have to want to do them but why are we on a list that states > its intent as re-designing work if we aren't going to try? Wasn't it you > that came up with "why are we doing all this talking about other things when > the list is about re-designing work?" Was that Chris, Ed or Spence that > said that? > > I'm not rewriting you, I'm just telling you what I read and infer from what > you leave out. Coming from such different places we all do the same to each > other. When it's too far, like over the Atlantic, sometimes we have to > just admit we have no idea what the person in the other cultural system > means by the same English words we are both using. I have whole lists of > words that mean different things to the English than Americans. That's > important when singing an English song. Sometimes it's a wonder that > communication even happens. It speaks for our general goodwill that we > keep trying. When we share from our life it gives context to what is being > said and fills in some of the holes. > > As for small is beautiful and Schumacher. Are orchestras and opera > companies small? Mine is, it's chamber opera but it's still expensive and > requires a substantial community for people to make a living at it. > Otherwise I agree with his judgments but not his conclusion about small. > Rock and Roll bands are small but their simplicities are not better, just > cheaper. > > As for your questions? The answer's yes the "absurdity of denying the > facts has lost its obviousness." But I don't think a strategic movement by > the nation's leaders are necessarily without principle. At least I hope > not. > > For me these truths came into my mind fifty years ago when a book by a New > York Theater critic traced that history and gave me the answer that I still > find true. It is Walter Kerr's "The Decline of Pleasure" which traces the > history of the concept "pleasure" from the Arts to the Utilitarian's > "property ownership" with utility = only that which is useful in the > acquisition of property. Utility as a synonym for value. > > Another book: Donald Schoen's "The Reflective Practitioner" also traced > the history of the definition of work through the universities as they made > peace with the Industrial Revolution and changed to more "engineering > models" of education and how that has now collapsed, in Schoen's opinion. > I agree with Schoen. I was forced to learn this when Columbia University > hired me to give a series of lectures on Schoen because he used the Arts as > his prime example of "Reflection in Action." But it was about much more > than the Arts. > > And finally the brilliant American historian Lawrence W. Levine's > "Highbrow/Lowbrow, The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America" traces > the capture of the culture, the organization of time and space and the > social experiments on ethnic minorities by the management of America's > companies in the late 1800 down to the present. > > C.S. Pierce tried to put a dam in that river and divert it back to a more > stable psycho-physical foundation but he was ignored and consigned to live > out his life in Milford, Pennsylvania away from Harvard. America's > greatest theoretical philosopher, like some brilliant Jewish Russian writer > being condemned to waste away in his apartment in Minsk by the Soviets. > Today I was reading a Neurology text about rhythm and lo and behold there > was a quote from Pierce. It seems he is becoming readable to the ordinary > American. Pierce wrote a book on that called "How to make ideas clear" > except his ideas were far too rich for the diet of generic Americans being > dumbed down for Drone factory labor. > > I have an understanding of that. I grew up in the Red states and in the > most conservative of all, Oklahoma. I have relatives who end every letter > with an attempt to proselytize me to Jesus telling me that "no man comes > unto the Father but by him." I know very well the rage and the despair of > those groups and how they truly believe that the world doesn't matter since > it's a piece of shit and their true life is out beyond the blue. Only if > the world agrees with them are they truly safe. Glen Beck is a preacher and > Bill O'Riley is Paul Harvey's Irish Catholic apprentice. And they are in an > unholy alliance with the neo-conservatives for the sake of wealth and power. > I know because I sat at parties with the neo-cons in the seventies and > eighties and listened to them talk about it until they realized that I > wasn't one of them and they stopped inviting me. > > Not long ago a Doctor student of mine was taking a lesson when the National > Rifle Association called me and asked me to protest the UN on gun control. > That Obama was going to take away their guns and ammunition. I assumed my > best Oklahoma accent and told them I was from Oklahoma and was a gun > carrying liberal and that if they started something at a rally that I would > finish it because I thought they were un-American traitors. The doctor's > mouth dropped to her chest. When we hung up she said, "I had no idea you > felt that way." I said, "tit for tat." You can't let them get away with > this. They will start something unless they think that you will retaliate. > > > I learned that from father on the reservation when this mild mannered man > would take a man who had attacked him, grab him by the throat, spin him > around and throw him up against a wall and demand to know how the man had > the gall to treat a school teacher like that when he cared about the man's > children. It was the lead poison. Hyper-aggressivity but you couldn't > give in or they would accelerate and you would end up in the morgue. In my > father's twelve years at the reservation there were no murders and no > suicides. And lots of student went to college after graduation. He > always had the community and the police on his side because they knew he > cared about them and their children. But it wasn't nice and you couldn't > be "nice" and survive. > > Now can't we at least play? Imagine a world that is different and where we > have orchestras, opera companies and what you want as well? > > REH > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:45 PM > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Servants and Nannies? > > It's just that everyone can see that train coming down the tracks and no one > knows what to do about it, so they say nothing. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:19 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Servants and Nannies? > > Well, no. I'm not saying any of that because that is not what I said. > It makes me uncomfortable when you "rephrase" what I've said as a > question about something completely different -- as if there is no > possibility of communicating, which after all starts with listening. > What I said is that lists do not redesign anything. People on lists > can collaborate to redesign; but only if those people choose to > collaborate. If they choose to have a rambling conversation about > current events and various and sundry ideas, that's fine too. > > Alright, then. Here is a question, motivated by the below quotation > from E.F. Schumacher's Small is Beautiful. First the quotation: > > "That soul destroying, meaningless, mechanical, monotonous, moronic > work is an insult to human nature which much necessarily and > inevitably produce either escapism or aggression, and that no amount > of 'bread and circuses' can compensate for the damage done -- these > are facts which are neither denied or acknowledged but are met with an > unbreakable conspiracy of silence -- because to deny them would be too > obviously absurd and to acknowledge them would condemn the central > preoccupation of modern society as a crime against humanity." > > The question. Two questions actually: > > In the forty years since that was written, has the absurdity of > denying the facts so lost its obviousness that hacks like Mr. Reihan > Salam can make a career out of churning out inanities like "there is > no reason to believe that these armies of servants and nannies won't > earn decent wages" or the likes of Andrew Breitbart and his Foxy > enablers can build empires from spreading defamatory falsehoods and > the most we can expect from our convictionless 'leaders' is an > apology? Isn't that then a demonstration of exactly the "escapism or > aggression" that Schumacher warned against? > > Honestly, reading Schumacher makes me angry that the "good people" are > still groping around, refusing to even acknowledge the elephant that > he described clearly and eloquently so long ago. "Oh, the sky is blue, > you say? But how do you really know? You'll have to explain your > radical notions in terms the ordinary person in the street can > understand. The ordinary person, that is, who seems to have no > difficulty comprehending lies, innuendos, bromides and dog whistles." > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: >> Are you saying that no one on this list has any experience putting > together >> a community with jobs and school and community center? That no one has >> had to create a whole community experience in collaboration with public > and >> private sectors? Practical experience not just theory. Share that >> experience and not to argue over it. Organizing the intent of the > community >> with input from everyone, cooperation with other communities and health >> service for all? Or is everything here just based around profit as the >> sole motivation for doing anything? What about sharing experiences? >> Coming up with a trigger question to start it off. Discussing the > question >> from every angle and then making some kind of structure to define the >> problem and the relationship of its parts. Once that's done how about > some >> kind of discussion of a plan or order in which the problems would be > solved >> and a community arrived at. Sim City? My grandson does this on the >> computer but he has no knowledge. How about everyone here? All of that >> knowledge and no program? Just some thoughts off of the top of my head > as >> I do the laundry. >> >> REH >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman >> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 6:32 PM >> To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION >> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Servants and Nannies? >> >>> I still contend that this list should Redesign work and not just do the >> same >>> old 19th century word games. >> >> That is all very well, Ray, but LISTS do not redesign work -- any more >> than they compose symphonies or paint pictures. I've done my part in >> terms of designing an institution and a calibration tool to underwrite >> the transition AWAY from 19th century wet dreams about servants and >> nannies. >> >> The transition TO autonomous creativity I will leave to the >> specialists in that field -- not because it doesn't interest me but >> because it seems I seem to be the only one with the patience to listen >> both critically and empathetically to those over-intellectualized >> philosophers whose outmoded platitudes, if they don't actually rule >> the world, at least drown out any possible alternatives with their >> rude coughing. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> One of the great pleasures of my life is working on the Beethoven >>> Hammerklavier Sonata. It's a life's work. >>> >>> I was working many years ago with one of the great opera coaches, an >> African >>> American woman named Sylvia Lee. She was married to the conductor Henry >>> Lee and because there was no work for black coaches in America she moved >> to >>> Germany to Munich to play and coach for the agents administering the >>> rebuilding of the German opera houses after the war. She became such a >>> success that she was later picked by Maestro Max Rudolf to come to >>> Philadelphia to the prestigious Curtis Institute of Music to be his opera >>> coach. Ms. Lee would take trips to Washington, D.C. where she would > play >>> for the Frederick Wilkerson studio. "Wilkie" was considered a great >> voice >>> teacher and was an African American/Cherokee. I was singing in the Army >>> Chorus at the time and studying with Wilkie and coached with Ms. Lee. > An >>> amazing experience. One day Ms. Lee took me to the Library of Congress >>> where she looked all through the stacks for a certain book. Finally she >>> found it and sat down to read. I was basically just along to accompany >> her >>> not knowing why she was there. >>> >>> I heard her exclaim and say "Ray, here it is! You must come read this." >>> It was a passage about Beethoven going to some rich aristocratic SOB >> asking >>> for a stipend. The Aristocrat asked what he thought he would need. He >>> said: "I understand you give Goethe______. That would be fine for me > as >>> well." To which the Aristocrat answered: "You Herr Beethoven are NO >>> Goethe!" Later when the man's carriage came down the road, Beethoven > was >>> walking with Goethe and Goethe got over into the ditch to allow the >> carriage >>> to go by. Beethoven refused to step aside and made the man drive his >>> carriage into the ditch instead and as he rode by, Beethoven looked the >> man >>> in the face and said, "you see, I AM no Goethe!" >>> >>> Ms. Lee had dragged me to the Library of Congress just for me to read > that >>> passage about the composer of the Hammerklavier. The man who after WWII >>> was the hero that brought the German people back from the abyss of Adolf >>> Hitler and all of this after he was dead. The man who wrote the >>> Hammerklavier when he was totally deaf. >>> >>> The stories about Beethoven and the wealthy and the local Burgermeisters >> are >>> legion. He told them that their grandchildren would be embarrassed to >>> admit their name because he would write something bad about them in his >>> musical scores or have a musical joke around their name if they didn't >> treat >>> the art properly. Remember that when Napoleon is praised there is always >>> the Beethoven Third Symphony with a destroyed dedication to Napoleon >> because >>> Napoleon betrayed Democracy and made himself Emperor. That was the > first >>> thing I learned about Napoleon. That Beethoven spoke truth to power and >>> made a public show of changing the dedication of a great masterwork >> because >>> the man betrayed the people. >>> >>> How many butlers and nannies are latent great composers, painters, >> singers, >>> dancers trapped in the drudgery of the English Manor system? The same >>> system here in the American South that trapped the black Artists of > Africa >>> and made them spend their lives chopping cotton and being raped by their >> so >>> called "masters." >>> >>> A woman who was on the street and not afraid to admit her story and how >>> Wilkie, my Black Washington voice teacher, pulled her out of the horror >> and >>> put her to work singing and writing is Maya Angelou the great American >> poet. >>> Wilkie used to say: "How many great voices are trapped in the South?" He >>> rescued quite a few as they filled the opera houses of Europe and the > Jazz >>> halls of America. He was the coach for Gielgud's 1964 production of >>> Hamlet, the movie Porgy and Bess with Dorothy Dandridge and taught Paul >>> Robeson, Richard Stillwell and Roberta Flack. >>> >>> I still contend that this list should Redesign work and not just do the >> same >>> old 19th century word games. The real diamonds are human beings. >>> Economists cast these diamonds before the swine and say that it's nature. >>> Well crawl out of the hole folks. Science today is consigning these >>> economists to the same hole as the over intellectualized philosophers of >> the >>> 19th century. They love to play and talk amongst themselves but rarely >>> take a serious look at the whole problem and how to design genuine >> pleasure >>> and not the hokey "ownership society" shallow shit. >>> >>> REH >>> >>> Here's an URL that Mike Hollinshead sent me. It's interesting: REH >>> http://canadastonehenge.com/ >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman >>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 4:01 PM >>> To: Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION >>> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Servants and Nannies? >>> >>> "there is no reason to believe that these armies of servants and >>> nannies won't earn decent wages..." -- Annalee Newitz >>> >>> Such an oddly magical statement of untruth. There are plenty of >>> reasons to expect less than decent wages, beginning with current wages >>> levels for servants and child care workers, continuing on to trends in >>> wages over the last thirty years and concluding with the projected >>> elimination of other options resulting in a buyers' market for servant >>> labor. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Keith Hudson >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> From Forbes magazine, 23 July >>>> >>>> Will Your Children Grow Up To Be Servants And Nannies? >>>> >>>> Reihan Salam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why the labor market of the future will be even more polarized. >>>> >>>> Will large numbers of today's children grow up to become servants and >>>> nannies in the homes of the digital bourgeoisie? There is good reason to >>>> believe that the answer is yes. >>>> >>>> The most pressing issue of the day remains sky-high unemployment. There >>> is, >>>> however, almost no consensus about how to think about the the depth of >> the >>>> problems facing the U.S. labor market. Many believe that the staggering >>>> unemployment rate is purely cyclical. Karl Smith, an economist at the > UNC >>>> School of Government, has written a post on "the myth of structural >>>> unemployment", arguing that "the structure of the American economy > hasn't >>>> changed that much in the last 24 months." >>>> >>>> Yet one wonders if the last 24 months are the right place to look. In >>> Wired >>>> for Innovation, MIT economist Erik Brynjolffson and Adam Saunders of >>> Wharton >>>> offer an insightful portrait of how the U.S. economy has evolved over > the >>>> last decade. Their analysis strongly suggests that the shift toward a >> more >>>> IT-intensive economy will lead to even more polarization of the U.S. >> labor >>>> market. Brynjolffson has dubbed the "Great Recession" a "Great >>>> Restructuring," adding gravitas to arguments advanced by thinkers like >>> Jeff >>>> Jarvis and Richard Florida who've argued in a similar vein. "As growth >>>> resumes," Brynjolffson writes, "millions of people will find that their >>> old >>>> jobs are gone forever." >>>> >>>> Smith is undoubtedly right that we can't neglect the cyclical dimension, >>> and >>>> that journalists and would-be visionaries have a tendency to grasp at >>>> sweeping rather than narrowly tailored explanations for high >> unemployment. >>>> In Smith's view, for example, construction employment will likely >> recover, >>>> as the building boom of the 2000s was not out of step with the earlier >>>> building boom of the 1970s. But consider the following counterfactual. > As >>>> Barry LePatner argued in Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets, the >>>> trillion-dollar U.S. construction sector is unusually fragmented and >>>> undercapitalized, and thus ripe for consolidation. Economic as well as >>>> environmental imperatives could drive consolidation, leading to a >>>> construction sector that is leaner, more skill-intensive and more >>>> IT-intensive. This would mean far higher productivity. And it would also >>>> mean that the labor market position of less-skilled construction workers >>>> would deteriorate. >>>> >>>> There will, of course, always be a place for less-skilled workers, > albeit >>> at >>>> low wages. At a certain point, wages in the informal sector might look >>> like >>>> a more attractive alternative. Discouraged workers who've stopped > looking >>>> for work in the mainstream economy would, in this scenario, remain on > the >>>> margins. Indeed, the steady deterioration in the labor market position > of >>>> less-skilled men is one key reason why male labor force participation > has >>>> declined so markedly over the last 30 years. The pressing question is >>>> whether we are likely to see this trend accelerate. >>>> >>>> Between 1973 and 1995 U.S. labor productivity grew at an average rate of >>>> 1.4% a year, a rate that means living standards would take 50 years to >>>> double. In contrast, the 2.7% growth rate in productivity from 1948 to >>> 1972 >>>> doubled productivity in 26 years. And that earlier period is remembered >> as >>>> an economic Golden Age, when working and middle class Americans saw >>>> extraordinary progress in their living standards and the U.S. economy > was >>>> without peer. >>>> >>>> From 1995 to 2000 the productivity growth rate increased to 2.6% per >> year, >>>> almost matching the Golden Age. As Brynjolffson and Saunders observe, >> this >>>> productivity boom was traced to the deployment of IT investment across a >>>> wide range of sectors, particularly retail. The more interesting >>>> productivity boom, however, occurred between 2001 and 2003, when the >>>> productivity growth rate hit 3.6% per year. This productivity spike was >>>> driven less by investments in IT than by investments in organizational >>>> capital, a catch-all term for productivity-enhancing business practices. >>>> >>>> The authors observe a sharp divergence between firms that successfully >>>> transformed themselves into effective digital organizations and those >> that >>>> did not. Very bluntly, digital organizations flourish while others > wither >>>> and die. Brynjolffson and Wharton economist Lorin Hitt identified the >>>> defining characteristics of digital organizations, and the most striking >>>> were those centered on valuing the strongest performers within an >>>> organization: In digital organizations, employees are empowered to make >>>> decisions and they are subject to performance-based incentives. >> Recruiting >>>> and investing in top performers is a high if not the highest priority. >>>> >>>> The logical implication is that the transition to digital organizations >> is >>> a >>>> recipe for even more inequality. In "Performance Pay and Wage >> Inequality," >>>> economists Thomas Lemieux, W. Bentley MacLeod, and Daniel Parent > maintain >>>> that the increasing use of performance pay can account for "nearly all > of >>>> the top-end growth in wage dispersion". Assuming this pattern holds, >> there >>>> is no reason to believe that we will see any decrease in wage > dispersion. >>>> Quite the opposite: The most skilled workers will cluster in digital >>>> organizations, and wages at the top will continue to expand at a healthy >>>> clip. >>>> >>>> This raises the question of what will happen to those trapped in the low >>> end >>>> of the labor market. Recently, the cultural critic Annalee Newitz > offered >>> a >>>> provocative hypothesis: "We may return to arrangements that look a lot >>> like >>>> what people had over a century ago," Newitz writes. As more skilled > women >>>> enter the workforce, and as the labor market position of millions of >>>> less-skilled workers deteriorate, we'll see more servants and nannies in >>>> middle-class homes. While this future might seem disturbing at first, >>> there >>>> is no reason to believe that these armies of servants and nannies won't >>> earn >>>> decent wages. But let's just say that this isn't the future most of us >>>> envision for our children. >>>> >>>> Reihan Salam is a policy advisor at e21 and a fellow at the New America >>>> Foundation. The co-author of Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win > the >>>> Working Class and Save the American Dream, he writes a weekly column for >>>> Forbes. for Forbes. >>>> >>>> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Futurework mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sandwichman >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sandwichman >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > > > > -- > Sandwichman > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
