Re: [Futurework] money, currencies and Gaia
Natalia You are such a believer in the power of Gaia. Perhaps you are right, and there is nothing for us to do and mother Gaia has already decided whether we survive or not. However, I prefer to believe myself to be a functioning part of Gaia, and hence think I have an obligation to do what I can in 'the right direction'. And with respect to money I believe that this means looking much more closely at the assumptions that underpin our money practices, deciding which ones are helping and which ones are hurting and moving to assuage the hurt. Hence, my interest in community currencies which are much much more than many people realise. When done properly, they are actually a new way of dealing with wealth, value and money in the world - and a much needed way. However, they aren't even enough by themselves. What is needed is to create the infrastructure through which they can become mainstream - and that's altogether another problem. But when we get that right, we will have discovered new ways to think about how to get done what needs doing and how to ensure that those who do it can survive in the world (which is another way of saying we will have created a new world of work). thanks for keeping the dialogue open regards Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: ...to engage all Australians in creating a better future... - Original Message - From: Darryl or Natalia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:36 AM Subject: [Futurework] money, currencies and Gaia Hi Charles, Ed, and All Members still interested in money, Just downloaded six weeks worth of mail after installing a new computer tower, hence the very late reply. Your last e-mail, Charles, which I quote only in part below, urges me to say that optimists are not necessarily required to come up with all solutions to the world's problems. It suffices that they give a damn, and speak up. They are hardly expected to resurrect that which never had a clear pulse to begin with. I very much relate to systems of local currencies for the reasons you cite, but fail to appreciate how invoking the perfect currency system will be applied to our chaotic systems of creating money/wealth. In other words, we need an honest system, reflective of real value in the creation of money -- for the perfect currency system to take roots and mean anything.. Think of the way in which governments grant leaseholds and rights to industry to exploit natural resources owned by the nation, who is taxed in order to support corporate startup and operational costs. Big money gets rights to the wealth of the world, but the people who pay the taxes to support this practice get less than nothing in return. This government assisted investment class is quite exposed, yet even proving such activity as price gauging at the gas pump fails to result in any kind of redress. The privileged have ensured that the laws protect their powers. Waiting for these leaseholds and exploration rights to expire, then not renewing them unless on sustainable and equitable terms is one optimistic view of making amends, but most resources have been signed off for 50-100 year terms, as far as I know. This leaves little room for change, as you pointed out in an overview of Gaia's predicament, that can have effect in time for any correction by legislation.. I am counting on Gaia to correct the situation shortly. The Northwest Passage is now clear enough for a sail from Tokyo to Boston. Arctic ice typically melts into mid September, such that next year's permanent ice will be much reduced. A total summer melt is forecast for 2030. With these kinds of forces at play, I doubt we need bother about ideal economic systems that accommodate flawed values, monetary and otherwise. Once natural corrections temper, having displaced most destructive industry and activity, local currency systems will likely be the only kind to have meaning or effect. Hopefully, the internet will survive to spread word of sustainable practices for all activity. Thanks for your last reply, Natalia All of the 'missing money' you refer to below arises because of the way we have commodified money and allow people to manipulate its supply for their personal gain. Hence, my interest in creating systems which, while they may not be able to entirely avoid human greed, at least ensure that the greedy are much more visible and accountable - ie community created and managed currencies. So, at its core, I hope my interest does not exclude your passionate calls for us to be more sustainable about our use of Gaia's resources. Charles Brass ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http
Re: [Futurework] Four sentences and a request
Gail Thanks for the opportunity, and I really appreciate the difficulty of getting these ideas into a coherent form. I share Mike Spencer's frustration with the construction of the sentences, but as I have struggled for over ten years to get these ideas across, I can empathise with your group. I should say that I don't share Mike's contraction of your last sentence. I don't see what you are struggling to describe as being some sort of return to small village life, I see it as a reinvention of some of the good parts of that life in a 21st century context. I do think he has done a somewhat admirable job in contracting the first three sentences, and I repeat his versions below. But I don't think he has captured enough of the intent, so I am going to make a few more comments below his three. 1. The world is unstable and the future promises to be chaotic, yet we find it hard to believe it can get any worse than it already is though it very well may. 2. We have to learn to do necessary and useful stuff for ourselves, invest in the tools to to it; do it for ourselves; do it for or with our neighbors when or as appropriate; and encourage our neighbors to reciprocate. 3. See 2. Doing this will make us happier and better off in general, especially if all our friends and neighbors do the same. Mike focuses on the doing necessary and useful stuff for ourselves aspect of your four paragraphs. I think your conception goes beyond that (and you try to reflect that in your paragraphs, which is why they do become so convoluted). What you are trying to capture, I believe, might be approached from the scarcity/abundance frame. If you believe that work or jobs are scarce - both in the absolute sense and in the sense that 'good jobs' or 'good work' is scarce - then what we currently do makes sense. If you believe, however, in abundance - then our systems might organise themselves so that people can make and do what makes sense to them and their current circumstances, confident in the knowledge that if their attitudes or circumstances change they can move to something else which now makes sense to them. If we could capture this in Mike's first three sentences I think we would have made an improvement, and I would try to capture your fourth by saying: 4.and if we do this we will all feel as though everything we do in our lives, including all of our work, provides meaning to us, to those with whom we interact and to the world. regards Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: ...to engage all Australians in creating a better future... - Original Message - From: Gail Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:12 AM Subject: [Futurework] Four sentences and a request Hello FWers, This may be a bit much to ask (and indeed is half in jest) but I would very much welcome help from the members of this list. I find myself, among others, having promised to produce four sentences (and no more than four sentences) for a group that is thinking about the future of work and is looking for practical proposals. The deadline hasn't quite arrived and meanwhile any comments on the following four sentences would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Gail Four Sentences: 1. The current bimodal character of projections of the future -- on the one hand densely urban, high tech and widely networked (in short, more of the same, intensified and accelerated), on the other hand environmental and energy disruptions, population crashes, smaller communities and much hand labour -- makes it difficult to project the future of work and discern appropriate educational and other personal and public policies. 2. However, given this high uncertainty about the perhaps not-so-distant future in which any one of us might find ourselves (whether conditions of flood, famine, or fortune; among friends or isolated in disoriented crowds of strangers; scratching a living from the soil or living securely and well-informed in a world of agricultural surplus and discretionary expenditures), it appears that the focus on the future of work might perhaps most viably and sensibly be on the self-organizing and entrepreneurial capacities of the individual person rather than on large collectivities of workers such as are often envisioned, e.g., the labour force, and furthermore, in such circumstances, that the issue of the future of work and practical proposals for it might most effectively be addressed as an issue of risk management. 3. Emphasis on the competent self-organizing individual facing an uncertain future might suggest children lovingly nurtured and schoolchildren supported in learning
[Futurework] Different kinds of money
Arthur referred to the comments made by Verdon to my post on alternative money. Somehow I lost this post and didn't properly acknowledge it. It is reproduced in full below, and I apologise to Verdon. Arthur is entirely correct. Verdon does much which is useful in his exploration the role and nature of money. He correctly suggests that money began as something which was intrinsically valuable in its own right. Notwithstanding this, however, money was always a measure against which the value of one item could be compared with another (ie wheat compared with shoes, not wheat compared with the particular unit which comprised money in that society and then shoes compared with the money unit). The reason this is important, as Verdon goes on to imply, is that anything can represent money - so long as those who use it as money agree that it is valuable and will exchange it for whatever they have or want. Verdon then goes on to point out the inherent subjectivity of any human measurement - and that applies to money whether the unit of money is intrinsically valuable or not. In the modern world of money we pretend that this subjectivity doesn't exist by quoting official looking exchange rates on the evening news (much as Verdon points out that we pretend objectivity in Olympic diving by having multiple judges). However, all decisions about money are subjective - ie they are about trust. Hence, Verdon and Arthur are right, anything can be money - but the key issue is what is it about anything which is chosen as money which might make people believe in its value. The reason why I go on about this is simply that most of us most of the time forget the criticality of the trust which underpins our entire monetary system. Or at least, we choose to forget it because otherwise we would have to deal with it. Those in control of our current money systems are hell bent on making a profit from them (ergo the Zimbabwe experience in which the despot is attempting to manipulate money to his advantage, and seems to be failing). Many of us feel dissatisfied by the current system (though usually for different reasons, which is why it is so hard to get a real discussion going) - I have long concluded that it can't be reformed short of the sort of disastrous revolution which I have devoted the past twelve years of my live to avoiding. Hence, I am interested in how small groups of people might come together to agree that something outside the conventional dollar might be their 'currency' and how a multiplicity of such decisions might increase the likelihood that 'currency' was put to a better use. Ultimately, this is all because I despair that the current economic system is capable of providing work for all who want it - and I hope (and believe) that this issue might be successfully tackled through the creation of a network of community currencies which operate 'below the radar' of the conventional system. Thanks to Arthur and Verdon for encouraging me to think this through. Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: ...to engage all Australians in creating a better future... I thought the contribution by Verdon was of interest. If I have it right he seemed to be saying: To have a trial project where contributions are valued and rewarded with money. Not a strict wage for labour system but, rather, payment for contributions that are valued by the broader community. This could be part of a guaranteed annual income trial as well. The trick will be to get consensus on what is valued and gets to define it. Verdon Said: I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't think money is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular economic system that we have created in the last few hundred years that is the problem - specifically the structure by which we can gain access to money - which is generally selling our labour. My theory of money - a story of value, a medium of exchange, a number system. Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, silver (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of money that was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis Khan developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the sake of brevity this first proposition is accurate enough. At some point money became a concrete symbol for something intrinsically valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), paper, etc. Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value (e.g. paper and coin no longer backed by gold). Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the majority of money is epheral and electronic bits. The subjective perception of Value A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells
[Futurework] Different kinds of money
Something I said a week or so ago prompted a couple of people to write about money - and to talk about inflation in Zimbabwe and other places. What they replied was interesting, but did not reflect on what I was trying to say - which was that we are condemned to use money as the medium through which we exchange to receive what we need to live. And I wondered whether there might not be other ways to think about money, to create money, and to exchange money which might improve the way the world actually works. If we can't do this, I despair for our future. Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: ...to engage all Australians in creating a better future... - Original Message - From: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:40 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Money, money, money? I may be revealing my longstanding affinity with dinosaurs here, but I remember that a very long time ago I encountered the Quantity Theory of Money in Economics 101. The basic formula for the theory is MV=PT, where M is the quantity of money in circulation, V is its rate of circulation, P is the average price of all transactions, and T is the volume of transactions occurring during one period (all according to the very ancient macroeconomic textbook I still have on my shelves). What may have happened since ancient times(and here I'm speculating), say fifty years ago, is that the nature of some of the variables may have changed quite radically (or at least very considerably). A long time ago, T would have consisted largely of goods and some services. Nowadays, it would still consist of goods, but the services part has increased hugely over previous volumes. And by services, I don't only mean seeing a lawyer or a doctor. I mean a very large increase in the kinds of paper people are trading and selling to each other, stocks, bonds, funds of various kinds, derivatives, etc. Instead of consisting mostly of the ploddy things you buy at the store, T has become a rapidly spinning maelstrom of investment certificates and because T is spinning rapidly, so is V. M and P need not necessarily increase, but of course they have too. M consists of something you can put in your pocket, like coins or paper, and credit. What seems to have happened over the last few decades is that the credit part of it has increased greatly via instruments such as credit cards, mortgages and other methods of borrowing. With increases in M, V and T have come increases in P. What has probably not kept pace is something we might call W, wages or personal incomes, a matter which, if true, could pose some pretty big problems for people that are fulfilling their dreams on credit. There, I've said it as plainly as I can, perhaps having revealed that I'm nothing more than a dinosaur. Ed - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Money, money, money? I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't think money is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular economic system that we have created in the last few hundred years that is the problem - specifically the structure by which we can gain access to money - which is generally selling our labour. My theory of money - a story of value, a medium of exchange, a number system. Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, silver (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of money that was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis Khan developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the sake of brevity this first proposition is accurate enough. At some point money became a concrete symbol for something intrinsically valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), paper, etc. Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value (e.g. paper and coin no longer backed by gold). Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the majority of money is epheral and electronic bits. The subjective perception of Value A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells for $14.99. What makes the difference? An Olympic judge holding a score of 7.9 versus one holding up a score of 9.8. We don't actually know if the score of 7.9 is actually a higher score because the judge is a better and more experienced judge, we overcome the inaccessible assessment of the subjective perception of value by accepting the illusion of precision that a number system provides. The number system becomes a means of exchange. Money is theoretically meant
Re: [Futurework] This list
I have been part of this list for over 10 years, and basically have stopped reading almost all posts. I remain passionately interested in the future, and in particular the future of work, but much of what travels through this list is, by my measure, very wide of the mark. A couple of years ago Arthur experimented with a week long 'tutorial' session which I lead (and hence I guess it is obvious that I enjoyed it) but it too attracted both relatively little interest and quite some dogma (I still have every email posted during the session, however, and still refer to them in some of the work I do). I am not sure what might be done to return to our roots, but I for one would welcome the return. Thanks Lawry for sparking this post. Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: ...to engage all Australians in creating a better future... - Original Message - From: Lawrence de Bivort [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:07 AM Subject: [Futurework] This list Greetings everyone, Since Mike posted this message a couple of weeks ago I have been thinking quite a bit about this list and the state that it is in. Mike mentions one problem, and I think we have several besides this one. I've been a member for several years, and I have never seen the list as dead as it is now. There is very little that passes for conversation, and very little genuine exploration or learning going on. We have always had a problem straying from the nominal subject of the list, the future of work. But we have always had vibrant discussions, until these last many months. Karen is carrying on valiantly with her Casey Reports, but receives no feedback and little thanks. Harry and Chris doggedly pursue their pseudo-discussions with argumentative, unwavering, and repetitive self-righteousness. We have obviously lost many valued members in the last couple of years, and it is with sadness that I think of their brilliance, energy, bonhomie, curiosity and knowledge. Some of these have explicitly or privately referred to Chris and Harry as the cause of their departure. The moderators of this list, the list-owners, seem by their silence to accept the deterioration of the list. Who else misses the qualities that we created here some time ago? And if I and Mike are not alone in missing them, what should we do to bring this list back up. The moderators may well tell me that I am overstepping my place with this email, in which case I will happily follow my friends over the horizon and disappear. If this happens, those of you who know that I enjoy and learn from your postings, and who may from time to time enjoy mine, please make note of my email address in the header to this message, and please know that you will ALWAYS be in my heart and your contacts will always be deeply welcomed by me. To those who are only lurking here, if you too wish for a day in which vibrant conversations might again prevail, I would love to hear from you as well. And, finally, a desperate request: if any of you are engaged in constructive and convivial discussions in other fora and might welcome my participation, please email me Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] [META] Re: Bill Gates,Rockefellers Africa's biopiracy Hello all -- I dropped off the FutureWork list a couple of years ago, not only because Harry was trolling [1] the list, trying to provoke opportunities for his condescending barbs and his free-market-cures-all polemics but as well because all the other bright folks on the list were politely responding to him as if his posts were mature and sensible contributions and his jibes and provocations were unintentional oversights. I quite missed the dialog so now I've subscribed again and, oh dear, oh dear, what do I find? That Harry is still trolling for arguments, intentionally provoking them and pointlessly prolonging them. It's a bit reassuring that others are no longer tolerating his provocations with good grace in the interest of decorum. On the other hand, allowing the list discourse to degenerate into the kind of shouting match that makes Harry feel righteous and important is not a big win, either. I would hesitate to suggest that the list owner(s) bar Harry from the list but perhaps it would be constructive to simply ignore all of his posts that are devoid of redeeming value or which serve chiefly as a launching platform for his belligerent rhetoric. Harry's skill is an ability to be so irritating that one feels compelled to respond. Suppressing that compulsion might
Re: [Futurework] The future of education
Keith Let's get out timing right. I am arguing that 20 years ago auto workers were by and large unskilled and that over the past 20 years their numbers have reduced significantly, but that those who are left are vastly more skilled and better paid.And I know that first hand, I used to work on the Ford production line as a foreman. Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson To: Charles Brass Cc: futurework@scribe.uwaterloo.ca Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] The future of education Sorry, Charles, but when you worked at Ford in Australia, what job did you have? Did you ever go onto the shop floor? How many workers did you know? How many operations did you have intimate knowledge of? Perhaps Ford in Australia is an entirely different place from Massey-Ferguson in Coventry that I used to know 30 years ago with five large production shops and one assembly shop which I used to visit every day for some years*. Except for workers in the toolroom, there were few jobs that could not be learned in 30 minutes, some in 5. I suggest that you have invalidated your own case by saying that Ford of Australia could take people off the boat. Modern factory workers are far, far, far less skilled than they have ever been. They don't compare, for example, with my blacksmith grandfather who was so fast and skilful that he had two strikers.(*At the time I worked there it was the factory with the largest production of farm tractors in the world and exported 80% of them. On my shift, I was in charge of quality control with responsibilities for the results of most operations from the hardening of the gear wheels to the final lick of paint in the [automated] paint-shop.)"Hugely more skilled"? No, I'm afraid not. The only really skilled people I knew were the metallurgists and chemists I supervised. There was also one old guy who used to ramble around the gear-cutting machines every now and again and I never did discover what his job was until one day a Prof of engineering at Birmingham university came into the shop and asked for him. It turned out that this old man had a little room of his own, slept most of the time except when brewing a pot of tea, and was a recognised expert in gear-cutting and could do things that the Prof couldn't. The old man used to set the gear-cutting machines for the operators. All the latter had to do was to ensure that the cooling solvent hose-pipe was playing over the cutting head.Keith HudsonAt 19:40 20/06/2005 +1000, you wrote: in 774 Keith Hudson said (in part)"The reason why such a large part of the education system in the larger countries has become dumbed down is that the majority of the skills required in the job market have also become dumbed down as a result of industrialisation, mass production, automation, computerisation and rationalisation generally by the larger manufacturers (and many services) which increasingly supply the bulk of the staple consumer goods of today's society.For example, the manufacture of a car, which used to take 70 or 80 person-hours within living memory now takes only 25. "Sorry, Keith, but you have got the facts right, but the interpretation wrong. I used to work at Ford Australia in the 1980's when Ford basically took anyone straight off a boat into the plant. Sure, there are now many fewer workers, but they are hugely more skilled, and better paid, than their forebears.Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futuresfoundation.org.authe mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: [Futurework] The future of education 747. The future of education In the last few weeks I've been changing my mind about the need for education vouchers. Or, rather, I've been changing my interpretation of what has been the reason why the standard of education in state schools in the larger developed countries has become increasingly dumbed down. I still think that education vouchers will be inevitable in several countries such as England and America, and the short item below from today's Independent on Sunday concerning the growing amount of extra private tuition being pai
Re: [Futurework] The future of education
in 774 Keith Hudson said (in part) "The reason why such a large part of the education system in the larger countries has become dumbed down is that the majority of the skills required in the job market have also become dumbed down as a result of industrialisation, mass production, automation, computerisation and rationalisation generally by the larger manufacturers (and many services) which increasingly supply the bulk of the staple consumer goods of today's society.For example, the manufacture of a car, which used to take 70 or 80 person-hours within living memory now takes only 25. " Sorry, Keith, but you have got the facts right, but the interpretation wrong. I used to work at Ford Australia in the 1980's when Ford basically took anyone straight off a boat into the plant. Sure, there are now many fewer workers, but they are hugely more skilled, and better paid, than their forebears. Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: [Futurework] The future of education 747. The future of educationIn the last few weeks I've been changing my mind about the need for education vouchers. Or, rather, I've been changing my interpretation of what has been the reason why the standard of education in state schools in the larger developed countries has become increasingly dumbed down.I still think that education vouchers will be inevitable in several countries such as England and America, and the short item below from today's Independent on Sunday concerning the growing amount of extra private tuition being paid for by parents of state schoolchildren is further grist for the mill.I am now beginning to think that the basic reason is that a country's total education system -- state plus private -- really reflects the structure of the job market. The reason why such a large part of the education system in the larger countries has become dumbed down is that the majority of the skills required in the job market have also become dumbed down as a result of industrialisation, mass production, automation, computerisation and rationalisation generally by the larger manufacturers (and many services) which increasingly supply the bulk of the staple consumer goods of today's society.For example, the manufacture of a car, which used to take 70 or 80 person-hours within living memory now takes only 25. Even within the last five years, the largest American manufacturer of domestic washing machines reports that the number of person-hours required to assemble each one has declined from about 3.5 hours to 1.5 hours. Forty years ago, few (highly-paid) car factory workers in my home town of Coventry -- and I knew many because I supervised them -- thought that secondary education or any form of examination qualifications were unimportant, particularly for their sons. Why? Because, after a quiet word with someone in the personnel office, they could always get a job for their sons in their own workplace. Even if it meant their sons being "on the brush" at a lowish wage to start with, their sons could almost automatically advance to higher-paid machining jobs within a few years -- even into the most sacrosanct (and highly-paid) of all of them, the toolroom -- according to the informal "apprenticeship" system then operating.All the time, however, automation was being incorporated step by step and this, together with the post-war baby-boom effect of the late 1970s, produced a dramatic increase in youth unemployment. Since then the prospects for the young have only been partly alleviated by an increasing number of (generally poorly-paid) service-type jobs which have blossomed in developed countries because of the prosperity given to us by the ever-cheaper cost of energy from decade to decade.At the same time as the skills of most jobs have become dumbed down since, say, about the 1870s, a growing minority of very high-skill jobs -- in administration, financial services and in science and technology -- has been necessary. Whereas, in the 1870s, the number of these jobs would probably have amounted to no more than 5% of the population, the proportion today probably amounts to about 20-25% of the total. And the necessity for these sorts of jobs is growing. In England, this number of highly-paid, highly-skilled (or at least highly-protected) jobs is almost completely supplied by the 7% of those who were educated in private schools and who were, until fairly recently, catered for by a small group of highly favoured universities
[Futurework] the future of work (supplementary)
What are Australias problems with work? 1. An unemployment problem there are not enough jobs? 2. An overwork problem those with jobs working longer and harder? 3. A spirit/soul problem work fails to provide meaning inpeople's lives? 4. An international competitiveness problem Australia is tooisolated to be a real playerin the international economy? 5. An economic growthproblem we cant get our economy moving asfast as we need to? 6. A gender problem work and its structures and processes aretoo male dominated? 7. An attitude problem Australians are too lazy or apathetic towork as hard as we need to if we are tobe competitive? 8. A management problem the Karpin Report (for example) identifiedserious deficiencies in our managerialskills? 9. A population problem we are too small to have a viable domesticeconomy, or to create a meaningful exporteconomy? 10. A measurement problem our current measurement systems are toonarrrowly focused and need to be broadenedto include social capital and household andvolunteer work? 11. A vision problem our leaders arent providing the visionaryleadership which would identify emergingmarkets, products or processes? 12. A conceptual problem we simply dont understand the true natureof the changes which are taking place in theworld of work? 13. A timing problem there is no crisis, just some temporary blipswhich time will correct? Solutions to Australias problems with work 1. Increase economic growth growth will create jobs growth will create wealth growth will allow a better social security safety net chief proponents: politicians and economists 2. Increase the scope of the marketplace outsourcing of domestic activity has created every industry which exists at the moment, there are still 40% of household activities to outsource so the solution is to outsource these as well most visible proponent: Phil Ruthven of IBIS Business Services 3. Mandate a shorter working week the available work could be apportioned morefairly if some people didnt take more thantheir fair share chief proponents:The Shorter Working Time Network French and Canadian Governments Trades Unions 4. Increase Australias commitment to training and development if Australian workers were better educated they would be better able to compete for the highest paid jobs (and Australian industry would be more internationally competitive) chief proponents: ANTA, ITABS and the billion dollar trainingindustry 5. Deregulate the labour market remove restrictions on labour flexibility andindustywill invest in Australia chief proponents: multi national corporations Charles Brass ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Arthur and Ray Harrell replied to my recent post about the difference between the future of work and the future of employment. As part of his reply Arthur said: We have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the arts) What I muse about is why we are discussing the potential assassination of Tony Blair on this site, and not how to bring about the sort of transition which Arthur proposes - and I heartily endorse? Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
