|
Rifkin's book did document the low employment
consequences of automating what we have traditionally understood to be the
productive sectors. However it is a little misleading to suggest he was
saying 'we should not be unduly upset by living in an automated, low employment
economy.'
Rifkin implicitly recognized the dislocation caused
by automation, and offered as an alternative 're-employment' through the
creation of new employment-offering sectors grounded in sustainable communities
and green economics, an an alternative to our culture of self-interest and
myopic social planning.
With Rifkin, his alternative vision often takes
back seat to his critique.
There is a John Polyani quote, used by the Green
Party, that comes to mind when I think about Rifkin: "Idealism is the
highest form of reason." It is a nice counter to the pragmatists who
choose to dismiss Rifkin, and other visionaries, as unworkable.
bb
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:50
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] The consumer
economy terrifies me.
It
is always about jobs, jobs, jobs and rarely about how to deal with the
condition of widespread automation.
arthur
It's something the prolific Jeremy Rifkin dealt with
in "The End of Work". But if I recall correctly, he argued that we would
no be unduly upset by living in an automated, low employment
economy.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:23
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] The consumer
economy terrifies me.
I
believe that after WW2 the US adopted a full employment act. Coming
out of the depression of the 30s and wishing to guaranty jobs, it became
part of national policy. I don't have the
citation.
It
was more about keeping the political situation stable (this during the time
of cold war) and less about creating a consumer economy. The net
effect, though, is as Barry says to delay "...the need to reassess the role
of human labor in an automated economy. "
It
is always about jobs, jobs, jobs and rarely about how to deal with the
condition of widespread automation.
arthur
Barry,
The consumer society terrifies me, too, but I believe
you are wrong where you write:
At 16:04 21/10/2003 -0500, you
wrote:
Some wealthy people, with the
ambition and means to rule, cleverly created the consumer economy to
provide jobs after world war two, thus delaying the need to reassess the
role of human labor in an automated economy.
Not so, I
think. We have been in a consumer society ever since early man started
long-distance trading in pigments and ochres for personal adornment
75,000+ years ago -- an imaginative use of possessions in order to exhibit
status ranking. The latter is behaviour that is deeply predisposed in the
genes of all primate species. This imaginative ability to impute status in
almost everything we buy (except food, clothing and basic shelter) is a
product of our frontal lobes -- something that other primates have little
of. "Some wealthy people" (as you put it) take advantage of this but they
are not the cause; it's ever-present in all of us.
The only thing
that will check the consumer society is sheer exhaustion of time and/or
effort and/or space, and I believe that some societies are already close
to this despite the efforts of governments, business and opinion-moulders
to promote consumer spending (e.g. in Japan, Germany). Promotion has been
much more successful in America and the UK, even to the extent of most
consumers being deeply in debt and at the mercy of the slightest rise in
interest rates. Here it is likely that their economies will not stagnate
but collapse catastrophically. Anytime soon, I suggest.
Keith
Hudson
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>,
<www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|
