I have read a series of articles wondering whether the age of work is coming to a close and thinking about what might follow. I find many of the arguments convincing. It is time for policy makers to prepare. And it would smart for those of us under 60 to prepare too.
The first thing to recognise is that the modern concept of work is rather artificial, a product of the industrial revolution. Before that time, most people stayed in one village and worked at their own parochial needs and out in the fields. Then collective agriculture became established, and after that industry, which required people to move to cities and specialise. To make that an attractive prospect, owners had to pay money, and in return they demanded fixed availability and a contract. The working era was born.
We should not be too negative about the working era. The net result of specialisation has been prosperity, and prosperity has brought health and longevity. But it has had side effects. And it also was always a bit of a struggle for the market to ensure that the number of jobs more or less matched the number of available labourers.
That contrived market is breaking down. Mainly, that is a result of automation. No matter what lawmakers do to the tax system and incentives, it becomes progressively more sensible for more tasks to be done by machines. We should celebrate this too, because many of the jobs certain politicians are so nostalgic about were filthy, unsafe and degrading. Now the cry from these people is always for more jobs, by which they really mean ever-cheaper labour and higher profits for businesses, but it simply does not add up any more. We are in a boom right now, but the next downturn will be brutal for jobs, no matter what is tried in the form of make-work schemes and incentives.
We should celebrate this for reasons beyond the saving of drudgery and early deaths. Keynes suggested a 15-hour week as early as 1930, and the main reasons it has not come about are artificial. The breaking down of the consensus on progressive taxation has led to inequality, incentivising the winners to become more and more greedy and work harder and harder, and forcing everyone else to work whatever hours they can to stay afloat. There is also the mental side. Politicians need GDP and job creation for their ego. Workers, especially men need it for their ego as well. We are set up to keep running on this crazy treadmill until it finally collapses. Meanwhile people cram into urban areas, pay more rents, find their work meaningless and become disconnected from family and friends.
Two articles in 1843 were ostensibly not about this topic but seemed to relate to it. The first explored the craft movement. Some people are jumping off the treadmill to find meaning in their lives, often by starting artisanal companies. This is surely a signal that something is wrong. Even clearer was the next article about the prevalence of loneliness throughout society.
So, post-work is coming, and the end state could be much better for humanity. The challenge is the transition. And, in the clamour to maintain a dying system, almost nothing is being done to usher in the new era.
The obvious part is about incentivising people financially so that the remaining work is shared out more equally, and that people with less work can make ends meet. Progressive taxation can be a part of this. So can the modern fad of the Universal Basic Income. Personally, I prefer a model where people are still paid for work, but work is defined more broadly than between an employer and employee. I would include caring, including looking after the infirm and children. That is valuable work, but it is usually unpaid because it is seen as a family responsibility – not by co-incidence a responsibility traditionally borne by women. This single change would go a long way to sorting out the financial problems of transition.
The emotional problems are quite another thing. Here, I find a remarkable parallel with the blog I wrote a couple of months about overcoming fear of early retirement. For basically that is what post-work would entail – early retirement on a massive scale.
I listed a hierarchy of five fears, and then concluded only the first and the last were real, the middle ones being symptoms of the last. The first fear is of poverty, and that is real. No one can consider quitting work if they can’t see their way to a fair standard of living afterwards. In the post-work era, this fear is mitigated by Universal Basic Income, pay for care and similar policies.
The next three fears I noted were fear of ageing, fear of boredom and fear of irrelevance. All of these I thought were a symptom of fear of self, by having one’s core ideas exposed as hypocritical or unworthy, or having uncomfortable truths exposed, such a flawed core relationships. The fear of self is all about mental health. Each successive generation has markedly stronger mental health, and advances in social standards and medicine are even accelerating this trend. The fear of self will not disappear, but it will become less prevalent. Public dollars invested in mental health are a great use of funds.
I find fear of ageing to be largely an illusion. If we do less work and are healthy mentally, then we will probably become healthier physically as well and live longer, so long as we can evolve our daily routines. So if we currently commute on the subway and walk a mile a day that way, we would need to replace that mile somehow in a post-work society. That should not be too hard, with all that extra time freed up for walking and for everything else.
But this does play into the next fear, that of boredom. From a policy perspective, I find this is the crucial one. Somehow work has evolved to become our driver of energy, physically and socially. When people stop working, especially involuntarily, they tend to lose energy and struggle to fill days healthily. It is part of the conundrum between the time poor and the time rich. The time poor are full of ideas but never find time to execute them, while the time rich have all the opportunity but can’t find ideas or the energy to put them into effect.
So the fear of boredom is somehow justified in this case, and a job for policy makers is to prepare us for more leisure time so we don’t become bored. That starts with education. There can be a greater emphasis on cultural appreciation, sports, and on building skills beyond their application to paid work. The fringe parts of education today can become core tomorrow.
There is also an aspect of urban design. There will be greater value in community activities, and these can be designed in, including transport links. If there are more carers, then more elderly people can stay at home, but both the carer and cared for could benefit from different kinds of social amenities to help this work.
The other fear is fear of irrelevance. This is about requirements of the ego, and can only change slowly as society accepts that a valuable life does not to be a classic working one. This can be handled like other large public campaigns such as smoking and seat belts.
So, the world of post-work is close at hand, it is something we should celebrate, but the transition requires some actions now. The financial aspects need to be complemented with social aspects and with changes in priorities for education, healthcare and urban design.
I wonder if any nations will have the courage and foresight to act on this agenda, before it becomes a crisis. It is a big shift and not an easy message to sell at the beginning, and competition between nations will also be an inhibitor. Perhaps the Scandinavians, as usual, will lead the way. Maybe China, with its high state involvement and trust, will surprise us. Sadly, I can’t see the US, the land with the most to gain, taking much of a lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment