Jeremy Rifkin - "The End of Work"

"Within less than a century, 'mass' work in the market sector is likely to be phased out in virtually all of the industrialized nations of the world." (164)

U.S.

1950's -  33% of all U.S. workers were employed in manufacturing
1960's - 30%
1980s - 20%
1995 - 17% (Rifkin, 167)

Canada

1966 - 23.5%
1986 - 17.2%
1991 - 14.7%
1996 - 14.2% (Statistics Canada)

But this revolution won't apply only to 'blue collar' workers

Think of Moravec's Universal Robots:

"the new computer-based technologies promise a replacement of the human mind itself" (166)

"the role of human as the most important factor of production is bound to diminish in the same way that the role of horses in agricultural production was first diminished and then eliminated by the introduction of tractors." (Wassily Leontief, quoted by Rifkin, 166)

The 'Natural Rate' of Unemployment:  Bank of Montreal -  "In our view, the NAIRU is probably in the range of 5¼% to 5½%." (http://www.bmo.com/economic/special/usin99a.htm)

NAIRU = non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment

Is 'the end of work' a bad thing?

Rifkin seems pessimistic, imagining a growing gap between those who have &  those who have not.

"For some, particularly the scientists, engineers, and employers, a world without work will signal the beginning oa new era in history in which human beings a liberated ... from a life of backbreaking toil and mindless repetitive tasks.  For others, the workerless society conjures up the notion of a grim future of mass unemployment and global destitution..." (170)

But he doesn't seem to think this is how things must turn out.

"The new high-technology revolution could mean fewer hours of work and greater benefits for millions." (170)

But he adds: "The same technological forces could, however, as easily lead to growing unemployment and a global depression." (170)

The key is managing the future properly.

"A fair and equitable distribution of the productivity gains would require a shortening of the workweek around the world and a concerted effort by central governments to provide an alternative employment in the third sector -- the social economy -- for those who labor is no longer required in the marketplace." (170)

Virginia Postrel suggests that a view like Rifkin's reflects a wrongheaded approach to the challenges posed by technology & globalization.

Postrel identifies a breakdown of the traditional left/right or progressive/conservative view of politics.

Fear of the Future:  The future has both conservatives and progressives (a certain kind of progressive, anyway) scared:

Conservatives - the future threatens traditional cultural values/traditional ways of dealing with the environment

Notice Postrel's identification of environmentalists with conservatives.

Progressives - the future needs to be controlled

Technocracy

"Technocrats are 'for the future,' but only if someone is in charge of making it turn out according to plan." (197)

E.g., Rifkin's claims about shortened workweeks, etc.

What's the alternative?

Dynamism - "For dynamists the evolving world order cannot be controlled by a humanly constructed plan, but will develop in a decentralized fashion through a process of experimentation, adaptation, feedback, and creative destruction of the old." (189)

Whose view is more persuasive -- Postrel's or Rifkin's?

Suppose Rifkin's idea of the 'end of work' turns out to be right.  What, if anything, should we do about it?

More generally, what do we owe to each other?