Working, The Issue

Inasmuch as I've been (or, at least may seemed to have been) off topic in my past few posts, I'd like to conclude the recent discussion by drilling down into the true challenge facing America (and most all other nations as well!).  This same denouement will also help me segue back into the traditional topic of this BLOG: participatory web dynamics.

Yesterday's NYT contained a Tom Friedman editorial that almost tells the whole story in its final paragraph

"We are increasingly taking easy credit, routine work and government jobs and entitlements away from the middle class — at a time when it takes more skill to get and hold a decent job, at a time when citizens have more access to media to organize, protest and challenge authority and at a time when this same merger of globalization and I.T. is creating huge wages for people with global skills (or for those who learn to game the system and get access to money, monopolies or government contracts by being close to those in power) — thus widening income gaps and fueling resentments even more."

As kids, we used to say that "almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. So, boys and girls, can you find the one word in Friedman's column that almost entirely undoes his typically sage commentary ?...

Well, it's the first one: the personal pronoun "we."  We, either as individuals as well government as a whole are not the cause, at least not in any accountable sense.  Rather, it's a much larger and more pervasive set of detached and dispassionate agents at work: the quickly-changing nature of work itself!

Friedman ascribes key contributors to IT and Communications (that, from his pronoun selection, I infer are under the control of "we"); and his main point points toward a polarizing population and shrinking middle class. A recent post in my friend Doug Poretz' Facebook offers a complimentary perspective.  He argues that our leaders' futile preoccupation with jobs misses and essential point: what's needed is an evolved appreciation of the nature of work: the way's in which folks collaborate to produce more/better services and stuff.

This Doug would add to that Doug's remarks the following: perhaps, there's still another layer to this wealth of nations' and everyday folks' tale—the real value and nature of the products themselves!  In other words, what new services and different stuff might actually find a materially expanding demand?  What scenario replaces the  patterns of bygone middle-class work (that need more and more labor to get done?): e.g., what's to replace our dimishing need for soldiers, farmers, factory workers, etc?

I, for one, haven't a clue.  But, I am fairly sure that if someone doesn't crack this code soon, the kinds of violence done, by disenfranchised youth erupting all the around the globe, is likely to get a lot worse!  And, FWIW, this is where Poretz, Friedman and I agree: what makes the situation all the more volatile, what's different now than in previous periods of widespread disruption, is the ubiquitous an instaneous communications (a.k.a., social networking) environment that surrounds us.  People are far more able to collaborate, for good or bad ends, than ever before.

In his dense but rewarding The Information, James Gleick elaborates on an emerging belief that Information is not just the real stuff of life (i.e., the genetic code) but that it comprises the third element of everything! Quoting Seth Loyd, Gleick writes

"Earth, air, fire and water, in the end, are all made of energy; but, the different forms that they take are determined by information. To do anything requires energy [and space/time]. But to specify what is done requires information."

It follows, then, that the faster information flows (and as Metcalfe and others note, the larger the network within which it moves), the more happenings happen.  So, isn't it reasonable to conclude that we are, in fact, headed toward what Kurzweil calls The Singularity: a point at which our exponentially-expanding information transitions to the wisdom we need to solve most any problem that we can imagine?

And, on that positive albiet metaphysical note, I'll close for now once again marveling over the potential of the participatory web: i.e., to, at the same time, be the source of concern but more hope for our future.

Comments

[paul Linney]

You asked
“any comments on latest BLOG post?”

I have a few, but it may be a meager observation considering there is so much more, I believe, to the calculus that might begin to fulfill the solution that your Blog presents. It is more than just work or the nature of work. IMHO, the changing nature of work or the lack of the availability of work is just one symptom of a much greater malady affecting western society as a whole. The other cultural uprisings I believe are related more to political oppression in general and motivated by deep rooted religious belief. The issues in the USA are rooted in a corrupted political system that is in transition

Your blog’s latest post has an interesting perspective on the nature and evolution of the “ quickly-changing nature of work” but does not address the evolution of capital in terms of control, access, ownership and distribution in our present day socialistic society. (Capital defined as the “Means of Production” in the classic economic concept and not to be confused with money or wealth.)

Should one possibly also address the diminishing access to capital due to the forceful intervention of governmental regulations, control and taxation? Perhaps “WE” should abandon the concept of “WE” and return to the responsibilities of the individual and to Adam Smith’s principals of the free market which is truly free from the corrosive forces of government control? After all there is an age old conflict between the intellectual leadership, the entrepreneurial creativity desire and the civil authority.
Is it time to drastically change the nature of civil authority and return to the basic 28 principles of freedom and then allow the free market to find the solutions to the issues?

I submit that the conditions of work, or changing nature of work lies in the arrogance of a few standing on the edge of error, dictated by dogma, and is created in ignorance. It is those few in power that have created the conditions which subverts the free market, limits opportunities, destroys the spirit of the individual and enslaves society to the great tit of the government. Once “We” as a society have the wisdom and courage to change the conditions which allows this to continue, then we will break the chains that tie us to a broken system.


The economic condition that “We” as Individuals now face however, IMHO, is really only a pimple on the ass of society In a historic perspective.

You only have to go back to the 1930’s and observe what real hardships were. The Depression, 26% unemployment, Dust bowl in Midwest, no work, mass immigration and desertion of family homesteads, failure of crops for 4 straight years, Hunger rampant in society, lack of good health care, tremendous despair among the population…..and on and on and on… but all were lessons that allow our parents generation to recreate, invent, solve and improve on all of those issues and bring society to a higher standard of living that you and I have enjoyed and now has spread to all points of the world and most cultures.

It is our turn, or perhaps our children and grandchildren’s turn to solve, recreate, improve and advance society with whatever tools or technologies that are available to them….but, as the lesson learned from history and so eloquently transcribed in Bronowski’s “The Accent of Man”
“every man, every civilization has gone forward because of its engagement with what it has set itself to do. The personal commitment of a man to his skill, the intellectual commitment and the emotional commitment working together as one, has made the assent of man”
That assent has always been to positive regardless as to what culture or civilization has taken that next great step.

If you realize that most great civilizations by one test have failed: They all have limited the freedom of imagination of the young. Imagination manifest itself in work, free of regulation, conditions, rules and fear, all of which restricts the creative mind, and it is that creative mind of the present generation that must be turned loose and that will save/advance the western world. If they fail, it will be accomplished by another culture at some future date in time….. but man will ascend to the next level and it will be positive, it always has been. It just might not be our culture that causes and controls that advancement.

It is a sad thought but where will “WE” be in 500 or a 1000 years? I submit that all the clamor of today’s problems, the transition of social needs and structure, restructuring of the work effort and need in society, the consolidation of wealth and the role of government in transition won’t be a blip in the obscure footnotes of history.

I only can believe that society as a whole across the globe will be in a better place. The best place however may not be America, if America even exist as a culture let alone a country at that far distance place in time. Will it even matter as long as civilization has advanced and cultures have evolved to where ever history has brought them?

[Doug]

Wow! That's a mouthful. it will take me a little time to process the full content of this post (as, I am sure, there's a small herd of ponies in it;-)
Anyway, I'm glad you picked up on the central them: the "Royal (I use that term advisably We." Every time I hear a politician utter words like "If We give [the rich] more money [in tax breaks] how do we know that they'll spend it on [on widely beneficial projects]?
As if, all the money [or, in your terms, capital] belongs to everyone and is to be allocated by the gubm'nt!!!

[paul linney]

I offer a small clarification to your response, and as previously stated in my original post, "Capital" is NOT to be confused with money, or wealth. Capital, as it relates to economic theory, is really "The means of production", ie: the tools which are used as a means to the end to achieve a given productive effort, and that means of production relates to work, as expended by the individual, to achieve his goal of production. Even if work today is going thru a transition of what you had referred to as the “quickly-changing nature of work, may relate to, IMHO, is the integration of new technologies as tools, or capital, in the overall process of providing goods and services to those who “Need or want” a product or service.
As to your question “What scenario replaces the patterns of bygone middle-class work” I assume is related only to the American “Middle Class" The evolution that I believe, IMHO, is occurring is the transfer of the manual labor force to a labor force located where labor can provide production at a market value which is affordable in a global market and not isolated to a national market before the globalization of the economy. In theory this has an effect which expands the purchasing power of the “Dollar”. It is the miracle of the free market system, the freedom to choose. Market competition on a global scale. Our issue as a nation might relate to more of an under-educated populist still chasing the manual labor market provided by previous generations which built the middle class.
Regardless of how goods and services are produced, or how it is accomplished with what effort, be it small or great, has historically work has always evolved and has been perceived as a quickly-changing nature of work”. Examples: People power to the industrial revolution, horse power to tractors in the production of food, or maybe a better example related to your post would be the Library compared the WWW and the speed at which an individual can gain access to knowledge….and it is knowledge that is empowering to every individual. What each person does with that knowledge will determine the outcome of any effort….be good or bad. History has shown us that even bad participation and interaction by a populist will lead to a positive advancement of mankind/civilization in the long run. Some time it may take a long time, but it will advance to possibly what you have referred to as the Kurzweil‘s singularity……………………….I’m just saying

[Doug]

There's long list of variously funny quips about money: e.g., `those that say it can't buy happiness just don't know where to shop.";-)
But seriously, I get the point on capital. But, I think it can be said that money IS nothing more, nor less, than a claim upon it: i.e. the right to decide how, when and where it's used.
Some may say that the the most important innovation of the Industrial Revolution was the emergence of equity markets. If that's not true, we certainly have bred a lot of useless (financial services) professionals;-)