Sounds like the Soviet Union when they developed all of those highly trained people but they got little status from having it so they brought the whole thing down. They said and you seem to be saying "up with the rich!" And this from a swaggering lower class dude. Just like the folks in Oklahoma who vote for Bush against their own interest. I agree with you about teaching the crafts. But I have different take on their decline. Over here it is because of a rise in education as a status good and that means liberal arts and sciences not the practical crafts. Over here they remove atheletics from schools when athletics are the most obvious way out of the poverty for minorities. They call that upgrading. I call it unfair labor practices. Jan Peerce never went to college and didn't finish High School but he was Jewish and beloved. Kobe Bryant never went to college and he is demeaned and chased by the press for his sexuality because he's a basketball player and colleges are very powerful. Tom Cruise never went to college either. But he went to film school a craft and performance intelligence. He would never make Mensa but he is tremendous at his craft and well paid for it. I've seen many wonderful performing artists graduate from high school and destroy their talents in college.
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: [Futurework] No time to relax, no time to use more goods, no economic growth > 212. No time to relax, no time to use more goods, no economic growth > > It is my case that there have been certain key economic goods which, > throughout history, have been particularly significant in giving tremendous > boosts to the economies in which they were available because they added to, > or consolidated, the social status of the initial customers. > > It is not my main case that economic growth is coming to an end. This has > been derived from my hypothesis, but it seems likely to me. The reason is > that the class which initiates the consumption of key economic goods -- > status goods -- seems to me to have too little time left in their working > week to use and display those goods, even if some were to appear in the > market place (which I can't see just at the moment -- the only ones I can > see are embellishments/replacements of existing goods). > > The class that initiates the consumption of status-dominated goods has > plenty of money -- or, sufficient money, anyway -- but is working too long > a working week. However, if the initiatory class, such as the lawyers > below, reduce their working week they will have less income and reduce the > chance of a new status good taking off and boosting the economy. While the > poor are into a poverty trap, the professional better-off are into a > time-trap. I see no way out of it unless huge changes are made in our > educational, social and working structures. How all this will happen, > goodness knows, but one thing is certain: we will be forced into it by > circumstances, not by choice or by voting for one enlightened political > party or another. > > > Keith Hudson > > > <<<< > LAWYERS ARGUE THE CASE FOR A LIFESTYLE REVOLUTION > > Patti Waldmeir > > These are tough times for lawyers. Not because of the economy - because of > the holidays. According to the American Bar Association, most US lawyers in > private practice work 60 hours, or often much more, nearly every week. A > mere 40-hour week is considered "part-time". Anything less is simply > unpatriotic. > > But lawyers who work 12-hour days do not bake Christmas cookies. They > scarcely have time to buy them. Santa will be lucky, in such households, if > he gets a stale ginger biscuit beside his glass of milk. > > This cult of overwork -- the cult that raised me, and so many of my > middle-aged contemporaries - now has a recruitment problem. Younger > Americans are unaccountably demanding a right to life after work. Older > lawyers may still be happy to service the jealous mistress. But younger > ones, male and female, have begun to look for love elsewhere. > > The statistics are everywhere more than half of recent US college graduates > say their highest professional goal is "attaining a balance between > personal life and career". That may be the impossible dream but it is the > kind of fantasy that earlier generations would not have dared to utter. And > even those who have once embraced the law are increasingly forsaking their > mistress for "lifestyle reasons", such as the right to glimpse their > children awake on weekdays, or the right to refuse to bake Christmas cookies. > > Recently, a small cell of lifestyle revolutionaries met in the parish hall > of a Washington, DC, church, to plot a new path to work/life harmony. > > Struggling to hear above the chorus of burbling babies and tetchy toddlers > who had accompanied their mothers to the hall, the "Lawyers at Home" forum > of the capital Women's Bar Association took instruction on "alternative > work schedules", or the art of working less without sacrificing your career. > > Their quest is as old as the feminist revolution. They want to have it all > the job, the children, the home-baked cookies. But these young mothers - > unlike my own generation of menopausal revolutionaries - are not just > demanding the right to work like men. They are asking much more the right > to work like mothers - less intensely, less pathologically and just > generally less. > > Some make a moral case for their holistic vision that children have a right > to see their mothers occasionally, even if the matriarch is a lawyer. But > this case, of course, is easily rebuffed the child whose mother stays at > home does not have his rights violated. > > Luckily there is also a business case for a lifestyle revolution in the law > and it was made in the church hall that day by Cynthia Thomas Calvert, of > American University's Program on WorkLife Law (sic). According to her, > younger lawyers are leaving law firms in droves, often largely for > lifestyle reasons - and many of them are men. "This is not a women's issue, > it's more of a generational issue," she says. "It is the Baby Boom partners > vs the Generation Xers." > > But the discontent of the Xers costs money Calvert says each second- or > third-year associate costs between $200,000 (£114,000) and $500,000 to > replace (including recruiting and training the departing lawyer and his or > her replacement). And there are other costs too loss of institutional > knowledge; loss of clients; and the loss of morale and productivity that > comes with high attrition. What is more, most of those who choose life over > law do not leave the profession altogether they move to government jobs, or > to in-house law departments, where they will scarcely be likely to hire the > firm that disappointed them in the first place. > > Ironically, the same law firms that are losing so many young lawyers also > have the means to keep them. According to recent figures from the American > Bar Association, some 95 per cent of firms allow attorneys to work > part-time, but only 3 per cent of lawyers actually do so. > > Why? Partly because we matriarchs think the youngsters should suffer as we > did we could not have it all, so why should they? Lawyers who work > part-time say they are often resented, stigmatised and denied promotion. > They can have it all - but only at a high price. > > But in a world where half of all law school graduates are women -- and > where most women eventually become mothers -- law firms that insist on more > than 60 hours a week end up alienating a big part of the workforce. The > younger generation of mothers does not want to work like the older > generation of fathers leaving home before the children are up and returning > only when they are safely in bed. > > They think it ought to be possible to work for part of the day, or part of > the week, or part of the year, not as a moral imperative but as a business > proposition. New clients can be found on the playground just as well as on > the golf course "Kids are such a great ice-breaker," says Cynthia Calvert. > And existing clients hate changing lawyers so much that they may be willing > to accept one who is not available every moment of every day, as long as > they can be sure she will remain with them for some years. > > This is not just about children. It is about life. The youngsters are right > to remind us that it is not healthy for women to work like men. Nor is it > healthy for men to work like men. Americans have long had a pathological > relationship with work, nowhere more so than in the legal profession. > Fixing that is not a women's issue - it is one for all of us. > > Financial Times -- 15 December 2003 > >>>> > > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
