----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 6:22
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of
work
Thanks to those who replied to my post on the
future of work.
I will comment separately on each
reply.
Ray Harrell said, among other things:
Today, we do not have to work in order for society to survive except for the
"idle hands" myth and the "Gold Star" for merit myth that actually gives away
cash in order to keep the population
happy.
This is actually not true. It is true
that most of us in the developed world do very little to directly ensure our
survival (ie provide food etc) - we have become heavily dependent on an
industrial infrastructure to do that for us (and no doubt enjoy a better
lifestyle as a result).
If I may take a little side trip around that
block in the road since we very rarely arrive at anything resembling reason
without understanding the context in which things happen.
First of all the highest money making sector in
NYCity is the Financial Sector. Since they work directly
with money and money is their product one should not be surprised by such a
thing. They also are one of the sectors that can drop
a third of their work force when they need to cut back. But
surprisingly they don't necessarily cut back on the amount of work being
done.
With a 2/3 size workforce they still handle the
same amount of product as before. How can they do
that? Was that original 1/3 necessary to begin
with? Why did they hire them in the first
place? What kind of hiring was it to begin
with? Was it a virtual or AGILE job structure where they
were hired by the job? No. They were
regular full time employees. What about the use of temp
personnel? A few years back Sony corporation had almost its
entire upper office non-management employees manned by temporary personnel
with no required company loyalty and when they finished a job they just
released them.
Today, as far as I can tell, they have gone back
to the other structure because? People are more
comfortable with permanent personnel. Permanent personnel
are more familiar with the systems, more efficient, etc. To some
extent that is true but much of the work being required of that permanent
personnel didn't require any of that kind of depth.
And when the company needed to cut back they simply dropped those people whose
only reason for existence in the company was some kind of company
comfort.
My contention Charles is that there is a social
reason that is a subconsciously implied that flows throughout the work
psychology that has very little grounding in business reality but a very
important reason in the way a society and its workers see
themselves. There is also an intent that flows from the
upper collaboration of managers, the super wealthy funders and the
executive government. This is about identity in my opinion as well
as deliberate programs.
Otherwise why does Sally's proposal for a
guaranteed annual income strike most people just a little more plausibly than
they would approve of Cherokee or Aboriginal land
policies?
Let me go to the second highest producing sector
in NYCity. Now NYCity is the fashion capital of America and
a world Capital. It is the retail head of America's stores
with stores like Saks, Bloomingdales and even Macy's leading the way
across America's clothing image of themselves. But retail
clothing is not the second leading industry.
How about Technology? We are
not silicone valley but this is a powerful world technology center but
technology is not the second leading industry either.
There are big aircraft industries on Long Island as well as Space
Technology and especially "Timing Industries" that service NASA and the
National observatory. But they are not the second
leading industry either.
The Nuclear Power Industry provides a lot of
money as well as the other energy industries for a region that has more people
than many of the world's countries but they are not the second leading
industry either. NYCity Hospitals are some of the best in
the world and educate 15% of the nation's Doctors and Nurses and NYCity
Schools and Universities educate hundreds of thousands of advanced students a
year and the NYCity public schools has one million students annually not
counting the private schools but they aren't the second leading industry
either.
Public Transportation is such that you could seat
many of the nation's largest cities in the NYCity subway and bus system
without bothering the cabs and limosines. But they aren't
the second leading industry in NYCity either.
Let's cut to the chase. The
second largest industry in New York City is Tourism, Arts and
Entertainment. How much a year? Well let
me say that when this country, the US of A, is arguing over the size of the
NATIONAL Endowment of the Arts, New York City is funding a Department of
Cultural Affairs that is almost as much as the rest of the country
combined. The Arts, Tourism and Entertainment Industry brings in
14 Billion dollars a year to the city of New York. For every NY
dollar invested in the Arts, Tourism and Entertainment Industry eleven dollars
are stimulated. Also, it is non-polluting,
renewable and develops a better citizen, at least on the high, less capitalist
end. But the Arts are as far away from the hiring practices
of the Financial Sector as one can get and still be in the same country and
the same economic system.
You see Charles, I know that there is another
reason behind hiring all of those unnecessary personnel because in the Arts it
ALMOST never happens. You don't hire an extra soprano unless
she is in the musical score. WAIT! I can hear it
now. What about Yanni or Zubin and all of those thousands of
violins for the three tubby tenors concerts? You're
right, you got me. THAT is like Smith Barney and the
Financial Sector. Concerts played in stadiums for
hundreds of thousands can afford a little fat and they get
it. But in the Arts and Entertainment Sector you are most
likely to get outstanding technology with six or seven performers on the stage
playing for thousands of spectators. Even if you
charged $25 a ticket and they charge a great deal more, you can still
make a fortune with such a small labor force and so much automation which
is tax deductable as a business
expense. It's hard to find anything as
productive as a "Stones" concert. Everybody makes
money. Why do you think the Beatles had to
retire? Where in the world would they spend all of that
money? Small in Popular Entertainment makes lots of
money.
But most of the Diamond Tiaras of the Art world
are not small labor forces. And they don't allow all of
that technology to make all of those chorusmembers redundant as well
as the Stage personnel. In a symphony or a Broadway
Show, you cannot downsize a member required by the Art,
period. * No padding and no
skimping. This was the business model that Peter
Drucker said would eventually have to be the business model of the future
for the world and he may be right, but if he is then we are in for some
drastic changes.
*Note here. I am not talking about
amatuer choruses which can be as big as they wish. But even
there the size dictates how much art will go on based upon the agility of the
number.
Professional Artists and Musicians are hired
by the job by and large. NYCity has three full time
orchestras. One Symphony and two house orchestras to
service the Metropolitan and the New York State Theater.
Every other secular Instrumental musician is free
lance. They go from job to job. Some
instrumentalists play a concert in the morning, a Broadway show in the
afternoon and a totally different one in the evening.
America graduates around 25,000 musicians from
her conservatories, schools and Universities every year. About 2%
make a full time living performing. That Charles is
efficiency. No waste whatsoever, in the industry, and a
lousy pay scale with chorus members making less that $15,000 a year, dancers
even less and instrumentalists who get in the Union making a living but
working a schedule that other professions would consider worthy only of
the obsessed and for much less money. A Capitalist's dream and a
Union official's nightmare. The finest orchestra
in America has a salary that is above $100,000 but they are stars in
their business. Consider a comparable lawyer, doctor,
scientist or a Senator. They all make a better salary than our
best of the best instrumentalists. It is that keeping of the
salaries low, keeping an efficient "necessary only" labor
force with no waste as well as an unlimited expert labor supply,
that is something that even the most angry Cost Cutting CEO (Mad Al
Dunlop for example) would envy. That makes the Arts so
productive in New York City. Or does
it?
In point of fact they aren't. In
spite of all of this efficiency and lack of waste, excess labor,
only the Popular Artists and Movies make a profit. The
Pop Artists are small ensembles with technology
(remember?). Movies are expensive but once made can be
reproduced for pennies and sold for anywhere from ten to hundreds
of dollars a piece. Not bad. The
movies are a consistantly better deal than the arts are for
NYCity. Remember the 11 to 1 dollar investment that I
mentioned earlier. Also the Arts have all of these extra
things that they stimulate as well. Expensive clothes,
good restaurants and all of the other "fine things" in life that go along with
Opera Tickets of $250 a seat.
So at least the Metropolitan makes a profit
right? Nope. There is not a single opera house in
North America that makes more than 60% of its income in
sales. All the rest? they have to "fundraise"
or translate "beg" from people who will make them play ONLY
what they enjoy, so the purpose of the arts as a developer of spirit,
soul and identity is subverted and the Metropolitan Opera is a colony of
Milan.
So Charles, what does all this
mean? Inefficiency is encouraged in big bloated companies
only to be "downsized" every so often in order to ........you name
it. Whatever excuse they can come up with at the
time.
On the other hand, efficiency with only the
necessary labor force, unlimited labor, etc. is not able to make a
profit or even more than 60% of their income from sales. The
system doesn't work.
You can make all kinds of stories about toilet
workers that make time or quality the value which gives you a larger or
smaller workforce but the one thing about all of these is that these
workforces that you posit are interchangeable. That is not
what is happening in the high tech industries that are the future of work in
the world. These industries need people who are expert and
who, like Beethoven's flute player, can handle stress and deliver on
cue.
My contention is that your comments are for the
past not the future. I agree with Sally Lerner
and Peter Drucker that the future will be more like the Symphony
Orchestra in its labor needs but unlike the symphony the corporations will,
through automation, dark factories that work constantly with small staffs
etc., make a lot of money with expenses only for upkeep that would
never equal the cost of a human. So as Kit Sims
Taylor's paper published on this list a few years ago made very clear (The
Brief Reign of the Knowledge Worker, Information
Technology and Technological Unemployment) there are going to be about
40% fewer jobs than there are people who
need them. That is still not as bad as the Arts which
has 98% more expert workers than available jobs but it is interesting that the
job market will hire people at about the level that the Opera Companies
can sell tickets. Remember ticket sales were
60%. Maybe there's some kind of formula here that I'm not
capable of filling out. Perhaps you could explain why both
the future workforce and the Arts organizations have a "shortfall" of
40%.
Finally:
All
of this was put on hold during the Clinton
Administration. That was Clinton's genius that he seemed to
get this point so what he did was create thousands of jobs that went
nowhere. They called it "service sector"
jobs. But essentially he made a deal with Wall Street that
he would provide government stimulus for investment if they would provide
jobs. With Bush, Wall Street reverted to its Creative Greed
and broke the contract but that is another story. Its been
both sad and disgusting to watch Democrat Wall Street Guru Larry Cramer
revert along with the rest. The one who hasn't thus far is Krugman
which may mean hope but I'm not convinced.
Clinton joined
the Reagonites who broke the sixties affluent drug explorations with a
big recession and making everyone work. That was also the point of
Clinton's workfare program. No Idle
hands. That was Reagan and Clinton and also
Bush. But Clinton used employment and merit to redistribute
wealth. Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have made the same
point in protesting the Bush tax cuts.
This may
not be the Australian world Charles. But it is the world
that I have seen evolving and it is not just my ideas.
However, there is still work which needs to
be done. In our ancestors days virtually all the work which needed to be
done was directly related to the bottom level of Maslow's hierarchy. We
have liberated most of us from this, but there is still work which is needed
to be done - or we will revert to the lifestyles of our
ancestors.
I never said that work didn't need to be
done. I just commented upon the strategy and tactics that are
coming out of the modern company and their interactions with government.
Even Ray can't sing and write poetry if he is
perpetually hungry. And he can't inspire his students if they are all
out catching tonight's dinner.
That is the problem with Art in
America. With such a small job force and the producers being
compromised by the need to fundraise, American serious composition
has largely died. I am giving a month long
festival for the composer Ned Rorem on his 80th Birthday but he is an
anomaly. What composer we will get to be the next
composer for the American Master Arts Festival Biennial in two years is a
problem There are many but most of them spend most of their
work teaching and don't write much. Rorem has ten
operas, 400 songs, symphonies, concertos, string quartets, choral
and other chamber music. He has done it through sheer force
of will. I don't know anyone else who would premiere a
master song cycle on the death of his lover less than six months after his
death. But you are largely correct. And
that is why America is the world's third largest country and has an Arts
program that can't compete with countries that are smaller than many of
America's States. American performers will immigrate
in a moment if Austria calls. We make our living here
because we have won in the competition and have the best products but this is
way beyond your example. I've fed students and given over a
million dollars in scholarships and grants in the past 25 years. If I
had not done it I would have had no material to work with.
Artists must often purchase the material before they can work with it.
So, the nature of the work which needs to be
done has changed (throughout history in fact - one Australian author - Jim
Penman describes it as civilising) - but there is still more which needs to be
done (needs in the literal sense of that word - needs or society can't
function) than people to do it.
There are genuine needs for work but I don't
agree that the strategies that come out of mass production and "economies
of scale" are the tactics for solving those needs. Not
here anyway. As I said above. They've
failed. Its time for new models. And
geniuses to come up with them.
Hence, we do need to work. Not just to
keep us busy between hangovers but to make our world work.
You may need to work for pay but that is not why
Reagan needed you to work. He needed to stop you from
"Turning on, Tuning in and Dropping out." That is also why
the Republicans and Clinton collaborated on a workfare program that brought
less money and less time with one's children (than welfare) but more
social acceptance and less social abuse from the upper class and their puppy
media.
Unfortunately, our 'job' systems simply
haven't kept pace with the changing world of work and hence we don't have
mechanisms for recognising, and exchanging, the value which is done in the
work we do.
I would agree with that.
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc.
200 West 70th Street, Suite
6-C
New York City, 10023
212 724 2398
"A Magic Circle Repertory Company in every city
of 100,000 across America."
