So at the end of the last century we had the "end of the
frontier" and now we have the end of "work", "jobs",
whatever, for the end of this one. I suspect a valid
case could be made for what John Warfield calls
"small information envelope" type of thought which
creates a kind of subconscious fear of the whole.
What I hear Rowe, Rifkin and others saying is that the way
in which we look at these things is not practical enough.
Rowe's comments about the ivory tower of economics
resonated well with me because I belong to an "illegitimate"
profession, which even Rowe linked with prisons (entertainment).
A profession which even though it has rescued the country's
ass in balance of payments and has a better record of humane
treatment of it's unions and workers then the current crop of
flex fanatics, is still considered (in what seems an orgy of
Calvinist polemics) illegitimate. How is the market less of a
gamble than any other gambling? We had a former member
of this list who was confused by his son being able to make a
living as a gambler in the casinos. (something claimed impossible
in a profession claimed only worthy of the "addicted")
I can imagine that the gambling industry with other forms of
entertainment given the kind of support in the country's
churches and synagogues that the Wall Street Journal recieves
with its credo of creative greed, might, just might do better
at providing a living than anyone could possibily believe in
this climate.
After all, their thought is both ignorant and wrong about
homosexuals and it was not so long ago that they were
blaming their Jewish population for murdering Jesus.
Who is to say that they aren't wrong about the above economic
values as well? In Rowe's article Fallows is quoted as
documenting the ethno-centricity of the North American
economic values. That also resonated with my experience.
To bad there are no Italians on this list. Their whole
country would be illegitimate as a culture, people, history
and economy in this climate of "prisons, gambling and
entertainment" discussion of jobs. But wait, has anybody
looked at their country's size, natural resources relative
to GDP lately? It is not unusual to hear Italian businessmen
make the point that
North America is only successful because it is rich and not because it is
smart. Do they have a point and can they document it.
The only thing we read about the Italian government in our press
is that they change alot and allowed an elected female
prostitute to urinate in Parliment.
How COULD they be
so successful, and then there are the Japanes with their
high unemployment. 4% according to the NYTimes recently.
Zilch natural resources, a huge population, earthquakes and
no more land than California. Do they have the same beliefs
about economics and sex as the North Americans? I don't
think so.
Instead I would suggest that Frederick Jackson Turner was
on to something with his Frontier theory as motivation, but
that his imagination was too limited. Space, for instance,
can be a tremendous frontier to challenge the human spirit.
Consider what it would mean if tomorrow it was discovered
that there was absolutely no possibility of space travel.
Such a limitation on the human spirit of adventure would
probably doom the species. Not unlike Ursula LeGuinn's
planet where the human colonizers went crazy because the
local inhabitants killed all of the human women and declared the
men a protected species for the purpose of study with no
possibility of escape from the ultimate death of their species.
As for the "they will discover a way out if we just believe and
persevere" line of argument, I would point out the disaster of
that type of thought in the Nuclear Power and waste situation.
Maybe we should look back to the founding fathers of the
Western world and consider that human potential and exploration
is a worthy reason for working and that it deserves to be supported
by the society and valued as the highest goals of the culture.
Germany exists not because of the Marshall plan but because
they could replace Hitler's picture with Beethoven's and still
believe in their worth. Right now in Oklahoma, the German
that made that point, Gunter Grass, is on trial as the state,
Calvinist Kulture, has made the "Tin Drum" illegal as child
pornography. After that they will go after the rape scene
in Bergman's Virgin Spring and then Fellini's Amarcord. They
have jobs and big houses and lots of tornados to keep the
construction industry feeding the GDP, but to what purpose?
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble of New York, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
