Do you
mean that Mitch Daniels might take a summer off to work in the fields picking
fruit with migrant workers? Rumsfeld
might work as a janitor at Wal-Mart? Wolfowitz arise
in the middle of the night to bake bread for the morning rush hour? Eliot
Abrams work in a retirement home, changing beds and bringing food trays? John
Poindexter work as a receiving clerk in a county jail? Condi Rice
to stand in a factory sorting tomatoes for canning all day? Dick
Cheney pump gas, check tires, wash the windshield? George
Bush, as fit as he is, haul garbage cans and throw them onto a truck? Wonderful
idea. - Karen The economies that arise
from comparative advantage and specialization lead to great productivity,
at the same time it cuts of off and makes us insensitive to those many tasks
that are done by others so that we may continue to do our specialized job in
this economic productive beehive. Maybe people should
rotate and do other things if only to realize the enormous complexity and
interdependency of society. Even if such knowledge comes at the cost of
lowered measured productivity but heightened awareness of our basic
interconnectedness. arthur My comments about cleaning toilets in
various posts about the changing nature of work have begun to be taken too
literally. Arthur Cordell wonders whether there is
something Freudian in the analogy, and points out that a much more unpleasant
task for him is completing his tax return. This will do just as well as an example,
except that those who help you complete your tax returns are generally seen in
a better light than those who help you clean your toilet. The principle is the same, however.
These are both kinds of work which need to be done. One way to do them
(the very old fashioned way) would be for everyone to do them for
themselves. This is highly inefficient, which is one of the major reasons
why societies move to a system in which labour is more specialised - ie you
train to become an accountant and as a result become better at a particular
kind of work, completing tax returns. Some people think that until we reach the
ulltimate in this sort of specialisation we won't have fully implemented
capitalism. These people point out that outsourcing domestic activity has
created all the industries which currently exist, and that there is about 40%
of human activity which is still done domestically and that outsourcing this
represents the next great hope of an economic revival. This may be true, but as I say to the
greatest Australian exponent of this way of thinking - thanks Phil, but I want
to wipe my own arse..... Whether or not outsourcing everything is
the future of work is not the real question I am addressing here. It
certainly represents one alternative, and as near as I can see one which
achieves my fundamental objective (which is to create a world which has a
viable place for everyone). It certainly, however, does not represent
the sort of world I would prefer to live in. As I colourfully said above,
some things I want to do for myself. I don't want to be defined simply as
a 'doer of things for others'. Back to toilet cleaners. In our
modern world people are defined by what they do for others (after our name, the
first thing we are asked for when we are introduced is 'what we do').
Hence, we have people who are defined as toilet cleaners (or, for Arthur's
benefit, tax accountants). The fact is all of these people are more,
so much more, than this simplistic definition of themselves. But we focus
so much on this job approach to work that it hard for us to see behind the 'job
definition' which first confronts us. And then, as has happened in recent
years, when there aren't enough jobs to go around, we define people as jobless
and that's a whole other ball game. So, when
I talk about cleaning toilets I am not talking about a job, I am talking about
work which needs to be done and looking to find a model for how it might be got
done in the most preferred way. Charles Brass the mission of the futures foundation is |
- Re: [Futurework] The world... Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: [Futurework] The facti... Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
- Re: [Futurework] The facti... Harry Pollard
- [Futurework] Labour payments (was: The worl... Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Charles Brass
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Ed Weick
- RE: [Futurework] The world of work Cordell . Arthur
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work mcandreb
- RE: [Futurework] The world of work Cordell . Arthur
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Ed Weick
- RE: [Futurework] The world of work Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: [Futurework] The world of work Ed Weick
- [Futurework] We might be doomed ( was: The ... Keith Hudson
- [Futurework] RE: We might be doomed ( w... Karen Watters Cole
- [Futurework] Doom isn't necessary (... Harry Pollard
- [Futurework] Do I enjoy work? Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] Do I enjo... Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: [Futurework] Do I enjo... Keith Hudson