The End of Work
In 1850, 60% of the working population were employed in agriculture. Today, less than 2,7% of the workforce is engaged directly in farming.
Jeremy Rifkin
PS I just finish the book, The end of work by this author. I don't agree with the solution he proposes but the problem is real. With automation, re-engineering, downsizing, streamlining, robotization, etc.... pretty soon the world would need only 10% or 15% of the workforce to produce all the stuff we need. What are the other 85% going to do in order to have money to have a decent life? They can do Hand things, cut hair, massages, acupuncture, cinema, singing, painting, cooking, plumbing, personal training, mechanic, cyclist, restaurant waiter etc....But do we really need so many painter's? His solution is something like 40% working in government/ regulation/depending on Gov., 30% in non profits/NGO's and 30% on the private sector with compulsory short week (part time).
One thing is clear, we have oversupply of almost everything. Pricing power is zero unless you have a brand. Marketing is the key to do well in this world. It always was I think.
If you know about programming/systems it helps because today even a toaster has a microchip. You can't fix a toaster anymore, nothing is just electric anymore.
Share story
I haven't read the book, but I keep thinking about this and try to discuss with others, that normally don't see the point in the argument.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to contribute with 2 ideas, trying to be short about a very complex issue:
1. worse things are more likely to happen then having a solution that appears to come out an individual mind (like the one you mention from the author). I mean, if labour force isn't needed, society will re-evaluate the importance of health, security, education, and so on. This is such a new world that discussing it can be difficult. If humans are not required for work, if democracy lives on brand management more than on citizen's inputs, if money can be "generated" within the finantial markets with little or no connection to something real, ... what's the use for humans? Why protect, feed, educate, care for them (us)? If you have the money to pay, the relationship is safer, but in a increasingly poor world what prevents the abandonment of populations to their own? Fear of rebellion and social revolt? With armies of robots, even this is something manageable.
2. In my view, there is so much to do in restoring the planet's capability to sustain its life, that this will be the answer to the non-needed. Move back into the countryside, create a new vision about the relationship with Nature, not so based on market, profit and monoculture, more based on biodiversity, balance and recovery or cure. Answers to this are growing as fast as the IT, market based, global economy. But they are not finantially atractive, nor socially secure. And the workload ... god... so much to be done in correcting all the side effects of human and human structures exponential growth over the last 100 years or more.
I'd like to find people to talk about this and hear their ideas. Feel free to contact.
i have thought about going back to the caves! (going back to do some farming). That is a sure way to be poor. Cities offer so much sinergies. To get water in a farm you have to spend 2 year! That is no way to live. i guess that all the jobs that are repetitive/rotine will be replaced by machines. You can do what is manual and case by case!
DeleteThat's what stopping me from the "going back to the cave" option. I want to live "in a cave" but don't want to be poor, aka a immediate social victim of any misfortune. The more I think about it the more obvious the formula becomes: the cave must be an hi-tech cave.
DeleteThe remote work market is growing a lot since 2002. The possibilities to earn an income from the cave are becoming tangible. If you have other ideas on "income from a cave", I'm ready to listen.
As soon as I have some sort of solution for the financial part of my living, I'll be posting a comment from a very nice cave.
Thanks for replying.