Re: The End of Work/The End of Jobs
tom abeles wrote: Tom Walker wrote, in part: What has been occuring instead is an INCREASED reliance on increasingly meaningless (to productivity) criteria of hours of work, job tenure and individual performance. What this means in practice is not "reward commensurate with contribution" but a winner take all lottery. --- i am not sure that I understand what is happening in your model. Can you give me a scenario and take that the next step forward That's a good question. With the application of science and technology to industrial processes, productivity becomes increasingly SOCIAL and not individually attributable. Karl Marx noticed phenomenon this nearly 150 years ago in the Grundrisse: "to the degree that large industry develops, the creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labour time, whose 'powerful effectiveness' is itself in turn out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production." Some sense of the scale of change can be had by looking at labour productivity statistics over the longer period. Labour productivity per hour in the U.S. in 1992 was approximately 13 times what it was in 1870. During the same period, the average annual hours worked per person employed was nearly cut in half, from 2,964 in 1870 to 1,589 in 1992. On average, then, a worker in 1992 produced seven times as much per year in slightly more than half as many hours. Much of that productivity gain, by the way, occurred between 1929 and 1973. I suppose one could say that the average individual U.S. worker in 1992 worked 13 times harder than the average worker in 1870 or was 13 times more skilled or some intermediate combination of increased skill and effort. I suppose. Another way of looking at the change, though, is that "inorganic nature", rather than the worker, has been made to do more of the work: "No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing [Naturgegenstand] as middle link between the object [Objekt] and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, mastering it. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body -- it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth." All this may sound very grand indeed if one forgets that the "inorganic nature" in question largely has consisted of the consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels. Over the past 20 years or so there has been a marked polarization of income which has been intensified by a polarization of annual hours worked -- that is to say that (on average) those earning at a higher hourly rate have also been working progressively more hours per year. Often this dispersion has been described as a "skills gap" or an "education premium", thereby attributing the change to differences in individual ability, knowledge or effort. Considering the major source of productivity gains over the past century or so, however, it would be better to look at the dispersion in income as a bounty paid to the most prodigious consumers of energy. That is to say, relatively small differentials in skill or educational credentials become the warrants for relatively large differentials in entitlements to consume energy at work. Individuals are then compensated roughly in accordance with those later entitlements and not the original more modest differences in ability, knowledge or effort. Leaving aside the element of randomness relating individual success in obtaining employment to credentials, we might find, for example that A, with 20 years of schooling obtains a warrant to consume 40 units of energy per hour at work while B, with only 16 years of schooling obtains a warrant to consume a mere 20 units per hour. As a result, A may well "produce" twice as much per hour as B, thus "justifying" much higher compensation. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
Re: The End of Work/The End of Jobs
Michael Gurstein wrote: 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. I guess I'm not the only one on this list to want to substitute: "technology under current capitalist conditions" for: "technology". 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. "Master/slave", yes, but also more genteel paternalistic and perhaps even locally egalitarian conditions such as the relations of IBMers (e.g., seles reps) to "Big Blue" 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. Might the current concoction of techno-capitalism be leading us to ever worse techno-drudgery. Meanwhile, the PhD computer scientists who are building this future often have imaginative horizons limited by the latest episode of Star Trek, and envisage what I have previously describd as: "Techno-feudalism in flying fortresses." 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. I remember a person in IBM -- an older man with a white beard -- who had a calendar on his office wall that had the following slogan at the bottom of each page: Was the Sabbath made for man, or was man made for the Sabbath? Was technology made for man, or was man made for technology? I, for one, am not too hopeful. Mike Gurstein \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The End of Work/The End of Jobs
I have been reading a book about the escalating forms of slavery throughout the world and its relationship to the world population crisis and global capital. *Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy* by Kevin Bales, Bales estimates there are now 27 million people in forms of debt bondage, and contract slavery mostly in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, some Arab states, Brazin, but virtually everywhere in the world. The numbers are rising rapidly, in agriculture, mining, factories, sex trade, domestic service. "Government corruption, plus the vast increase in the number of people and their ongoing impoverishment has let to the "new" slavery. For the first time in human history there is an absolute glut ofpotential slaves. It is a dramatic illustration of the laws of supply and demand; with so many possible slaves, their value has plummeted. Slaves are now so cheap thaat they have become cost-effective in many new kinds of work, completely changing how they are seen and used. Today slaves cost so little that it is notworththehassleof securing permanent, "legal" ownership. Slaves are disposable. Today most slaves are temporary; some aare enslaves for only a few months, it is simply not profitable to keep them when they are not immediately useful, medicine costs money, and it's cheaper to let them die. Although slavery has always existed, Bales distinguishes between the historic more paternalistic, "old" slavery and the "new" slavery conforming to modern global capitalism. Old Slavery: legal ownership asserted high purchase cost low profits shortage of potential slaves long-term relationship slaves maintained, medical care given ethnic differences important New Slavery legal ownership avoided very low purchase cost very high profits surplus of potential slaves short-term relationship slaves disposable ethnic differences not important In Tailand a girl between twelve and fifteen can be purchased for $800 and the costs of running a brothel are relatively low. The profit is often as high as 800 percent. This kind of return can be made for five or ten years, when she becomes HIV positive she is thrown out. Agricultural bonded laborers, after an initial loan of $50 (for food, medicine, etc.) generate up to 100 percent net profit for the slaveholders. Bales estimates the total yearlyprofit world wide at $13 billion directly, but the "indirect value is much greater". Slavery lowers a factory's productioncosts, these savings can be pased upthe economic stream, ultimately reaching shops of Europeand NorthAmerica as lowerprices or higher profits for retailers. And slavery as an international economic activity reverberates through the world economy in ways harder to escape. Workers making computer parts or televisions in India can be paid low wages in part because food produced by slave labor is so cheap. This lowers the cost of the goods they make, and factories unableto compete with their prices close in North America and Euorpe. Slave labor (which corrupt governments support) threatens real jobs everywhere. Michael Gurstein wrote: 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
Re: The End of Work/The End of Jobs
Michael Gurstein is right to distinguish between the end of work and the end of jobs as we know them. As a parent, I can say for certain that the work never ends. Not only may the number of those employed increase, as Mike suggests. Many of those employed will be employed at more "jobs", whether concurrently or consecutively. This condition COULD be a progressive step, in terms of increased autonomy at work if it weren't for the old-style coupling of income and employment benefits to a standard of full-time labour force attachment that is no longer operative. The old-style coupling was itself simply a convention, there shouldn't be such a profound obstacle to changing it. But here's the catch, as I see it. EITHER there has to be a new "standard package" of labour force attachment OR income and benefits have to be uncoupled from whatever randomly determined attachment that individuals happen to acquire. What has been occuring instead is an INCREASED reliance on increasingly meaningless (to productivity) criteria of hours of work, job tenure and individual performance. What this means in practice is not "reward commensurate with contribution" but a winner take all lottery. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
Re: The end of work?
ia children who live in poverty. Would Nova Scotian motorists be willing to drive a few kilometres an hour slower on the old road or take a few extra minutes on their journey to help eliminate child poverty in the province? If they knew those few extra numbers, currently invisible, I'm convinced the answer would be a resounding "Yes." Not only that, eradicating child poverty would be a good economic investment for the province. Numerous studies show that child poverty is directly correlated with poor health, premature death, and poor educational attainment, which translate directly into higher social costs and poor workplace productivity down the road, and which come back to the economy as costs as surely as the depletion of the fishery. This is not rocket science. It is street-sense economics. Ordinary Nova Scotians can understand it, and respond with wisdom and compassion. I may be hopelessly naïve. But I do believe that even those most firmly convinced of the value of MAI-type agreements would see the equation differently if just a few extra numbers were added to the accounts. I recently read an interview with the Chief Executive Office of Philip Morris, who earns a tidy $4 million a year. Using the selective MAI / GDP type mathematics that is confirmed by all we're taught and read in the press, that man looks "rich." His apparent wealth is envied and emulated, he may receive honorary degrees from universities he supports, or may head the local United Way, like the President of Imperial Tobacco in Montreal. Not only rich, but a respected citizen! Even if we discount the social costs of what he produces and sells - (Personally I can't do that, because I feel a pain in my heart every morning when I see the 13 and 14-year-old schoolgirls puffing away on the street corner as they wait for the school bus, or when I read that the number of teenagers who smoke regularly has tripled in recent years) - but even if we can't expect the Philip Morris CEO to count these costs, there are others he can not so easily ignore. In the interview he reveals that he arrives at the office at 6am every morning, and leaves at 10pm. He works weekends. "What else do you do, aside from work?" asks the interviewer. "Sleep," he replies. An impoverished lifestyle, methinks. No time to listen to music, to read a book, to play with children, to walk in the woods. (And how easy it must be to cut down a forest when there is no time to enjoy the trees and trails.) Even the CEO of Philip Morris must understand the meaning of a few extra numbers - the costs of overwork, the health effects of stress, no time with family. If his account books reflected just the value of time and health, in addition to sales and profits, I don't believe he would remain unmoved. Thirty years ago, almost to the day, just before he was assassinated, Robert Kennedy said: Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things..The GNP counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage..Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play..It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion or our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. Of course, it would be a much more direct path to a decent society if policy-makers recognized fundamental human, social and environmental qualities as having intrinsic value in their own right, and if these values were considered in all policy decisions. But until then, and while money and economic criteria still dominate the policy arena, and the consumer ethic guides the behaviour of ordinary citizens, a genuine progress index at least can demonstrate convincingly that these non-material values are also the living basis of true wealth and well-being. There is no doubt that if the full social, economic and environmental costs of the MAI were included in the equation, we would see through the simplistic, narrow, spurious mathematics of the globalization dogma in an instant, and begin investing in genuine security, humanity, community strength and ecological resilience, that are the actual basis of wealth and prosperity, and, at a more profound level, that give life meaning and make life worthwhile. ---end--- -Original Message- From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Victor Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 30, 1998 3:54 PM Subject: Re: The end of work? This may be late and off-topic, but it would be interesting to see whether it is possible (it may have already been done, I don't know) to produce a variant of the current international GDP accounting system where, as Mr Milne bluntly and corre
Re: The end of work?
A ritual response to Jeremy Rifkin's argument about the end of work was to accuse him of committing a supposed "lump-of-labor" fallacy that there is only a given amount of work to be done and that if machines do the work there will be less for people to do. The Economist magazine is especially fond of invoking this fallacy and has done so seven times since 1995 in its ongoing effort to discredit the "naive popular belief" that unemployment can be reduced by redistributing work time. I've wondered about this fallacy and my wondering has taken me on a search for the origins of the story. I believe I've found the source and, perhaps not surprisingly there is much less "economic science" there than has commonly been supposed. To make a long story short (I'm also writing the long story), there appears to be not one but two modern versions of the lump-of-labor fallacy and they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it is a misnomer to refer to either of these versions as "the lump-of-labor fallacy" as the historical version was more eclectic in its reference, not confined to the question of reducing and redistributing the hours of work. The two modern versions of the so-called fallacy appear to have descended, respectively, from Frederick Winslow Taylor's 1911 _Scientific Management_ and from an 1890 Atlantic Monthly essay by Francis Amasa Walker on "The Agitation for the Eight Hours Day" (the marginalist version). The core of Walker's argument was echoed by John Rae in an 1892 essay in the Contemporary Review and incorporated into Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics. Far from establishing an incontrovertible fact of economic science, the two modern versions that have survived were vigorously disputed in their own day. The Taylorist version of the fallacy was disputed by Frank T. Carlton in his 1911 _History and Problems of Organized Labor_ and the marginalist version was disputed by Charles Beardsley in a 1895 article, "The effect of an eight hours' day on wages and the unemployed" in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Carlton and Beardsley disputed the internal consistency of each of the respective versions. To my knowledge, no one has previously called attention to the existence of two distinct and incompatible versions of the fallacy. Although the definitions used by Taylor and by Walker/Rae/Marshall correspond with modern definitions of the lump-of-labor fallacy, none of them use the term lump-of-labor (although Carlton uses it in opposition to Taylor). Usage of the term in the period of the late 19th century and early 20th century is not specific to the question of the hours of work. The earliest reference I have found is in a 1891 essay by David Schloss on "Why Working Men dislike Piece-work," published in The Economic Review. I haven't had a chance to look at the Economic Review article yet, but here is the citation of it I found in the Economic Journal for September, 1891: "Mr. Schloss points out the difficulties that arise from the standard adopted by employers, which is apt to be that of the best, and not of the ordinary workmen, and from the greater mental strain which is experienced by those employed on piece-work. He then deals with the 'Lump of Labour Theory,' which he considers to lie at the root of all the difficulty." So what? The what is much larger than the coherence, integrity or validity of the lump-of-labor fallacy, itself. The strange career of this purported fallacy calls into question the coherence, integrity and validity of a mode of economic argument -- neo-classical or marginalist -- whose practitioners routinely and ritually resort to a non-existent fallacy to deflect questions about the relationship between aggregate employment and the hours of work. The truth is that the relationship between employment and the hours of work is simply "too hard" for a marginalist analysis to grasp. Given the choice between investigating a topic that exposes the limits of the marginalist analysis and imposing an intellectual taboo on that topic, marginalism has chosen the taboo. The so-called "lump-of-labor fallacy" amounts to a monumental intellectual fraud perpetrated by textbook authors and editorial writers who probably don't have the slightest suspicion that what they are saying is groundless. Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: The end of work?
Thomas Lunde wrote:
Ed Wrote:
All of these? I would suggest there will be no end of work.
Ed Weick
Thomas:
[snip]
How
can you have an economy when there is minimal employment to
create markets?
(I don't know who said what in the above)
I agree that there will be no end of work, but this conclusion
seems to me to branch in two directions:
(1) There will be no end of *real* work: caring for the sick and
disabled, educating the young, etc. (Although this work
might be able to be reorganized to be done in more
rewarding and less stressful ways than at present.)
(2) But capitalism with its apparent inability to provide
"use value" without making profits ("creating markets", etc.)
may also entail that there will be no end of *make work*:
advertising, model changes ("planned obscolescence"), etc. --
conceivably under even more stressful working conditions
than at present.
And, of course:
(3) There will still be the real work of making food, etc., and
dealling with all the "side effects" of technology, from
development of resistent "bugs" in nature to thoroughly
artificial problems like the Y2K computer "bug".
All this is obvious, but I would invite all the techno-
zillionaires like Bill Gates to reorient themselves to trying to
solve these social problems -- as a *challenge*, a "hobby", etc.
The issues are intellectually challenging (so their high IQs
should be stimulated by it), and working on such problems
might even bring to these persons who, even today, are free to
choose how to spend their life-time, greater "immortal [or at least
historical] glory" than merely doing technostuff.
I hope this contribution has not wasted digital and
human "bandwidth".
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
