The End of Work

I highly recommend you take a couple of minutes to read this thought-provoking piece by Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist and author (“Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age” and “Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How We Can Take it Back”)
My thoughts and queries to follow.

Are jobs obsolete?

By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN September 7, 2011
The U.S. Postal Service appears to be the latest casualty in digital technology’s slow but steady replacement of working humans. Unless an external source of funding comes in, the post office will have to scale back its operations drastically, or simply shut down altogether. That’s 600,000 people who would be out of work, and another 480,000 pensioners facing an adjustment in terms.
We can blame a right wing attempting to undermine labor, or a left wing trying to preserve unions in the face of government and corporate cutbacks. But the real culprit — at least in this case — is e-mail. People are sending 22% fewer pieces of mail than they did four years ago, opting for electronic bill payment and other net-enabled means of communication over envelopes and stamps.
New technologies are wreaking havoc on employment figures — from EZpasses ousting toll collectors to Google-controlled self-driving automobiles rendering taxicab drivers obsolete. Every new computer program is basically doing some task that a person used to do. But the computer usually does it faster, more accurately, for less money, and without any health insurance costs.
We like to believe that the appropriate response is to train humans for higher level work. Instead of collecting tolls, the trained worker will fix and program toll-collecting robots. But it never really works out that way, since not as many people are needed to make the robots as the robots replace.
And so the president goes on television telling us that the big issue of our time is jobs, jobs, jobs — as if the reason to build high-speed rails and fix bridges is to put people back to work. But it seems to me there’s something backwards in that logic. I find myself wondering if we may be accepting a premise that deserves to be questioned.
I am afraid to even ask this, but since when is unemployment really a problem? I understand we all want paychecks — or at least money. We want food, shelter, clothing, and all the things that money buys us. But do we all really want jobs?
We’re living in an economy where productivity is no longer the goal, employment is. That’s because, on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need. America is productive enough that it could probably shelter, feed, educate, and even provide health care for its entire population with just a fraction of us actually working.
According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, there is enough food produced to provide everyone in the world with 2,720 kilocalories per person per day. And that’s even after America disposes of thousands of tons of crop and dairy just to keep market prices high. Meanwhile, American banks overloaded with foreclosed properties are demolishing vacant dwellings Video to get the empty houses off their books.
Our problem is not that we don’t have enough stuff — it’s that we don’t have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff.
Jobs, as such, are a relatively new concept. People may have always worked, but until the advent of the corporation in the early Renaissance, most people just worked for themselves. They made shoes, plucked chickens, or created value in some way for other people, who then traded or paid for those goods and services. By the late Middle Ages, most of Europe was thriving under this arrangement.
The only ones losing wealth were the aristocracy, who depended on their titles to extract money from those who worked. And so they invented the chartered monopoly. By law, small businesses in most major industries were shut down and people had to work for officially sanctioned corporations instead. From then on, for most of us, working came to mean getting a “job.”
The Industrial Age was largely about making those jobs as menial and unskilled as possible. Technologies such as the assembly line were less important for making production faster than for making it cheaper, and laborers more replaceable. Now that we’re in the digital age, we’re using technology the same way: to increase efficiency, lay off more people, and increase corporate profits.
While this is certainly bad for workers and unions, I have to wonder just how truly bad is it for people. Isn’t this what all this technology was for in the first place? The question we have to begin to ask ourselves is not how do we employ all the people who are rendered obsolete by technology, but how can we organize a society around something other than employment? Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with “career” be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?
Instead, we are attempting to use the logic of a scarce marketplace to negotiate things that are actually in abundance. What we lack is not employment, but a way of fairly distributing the bounty we have generated through our technologies, and a way of creating meaning in a world that has already produced far too much stuff.
The communist answer to this question was just to distribute everything evenly. But that sapped motivation and never quite worked as advertised. The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can’t capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance.
But there might still be another possibility — something we couldn’t really imagine for ourselves until the digital era. As a pioneer of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier, recently pointed out, we no longer need to make stuff in order to make money. We can instead exchange information-based products.
We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights. The work we do — the value we create — is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful.
This sort of work isn’t so much employment as it is creative activity. Unlike Industrial Age employment, digital production can be done from the home, independently, and even in a peer-to-peer fashion without going through big corporations. We can make games for each other, write books, solve problems, educate and inspire one another — all through bits instead of stuff. And we can pay one another using the same money we use to buy real stuff.
For the time being, as we contend with what appears to be a global economic slowdown by destroying food and demolishing homes, we might want to stop thinking about jobs as the main aspect of our lives that we want to save. They may be a means, but they are not the ends.



Rushkoff’s recommendation is that “We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights. The work we do — the value we create — is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful.”
While I agree with Rushkoff that computer technology is making obsolete more and more paid jobs (this blog, Fellowship of the Minds, being an example), the big question that pops into my mind is:

Who will decide how much “food and shelter are basic human rights” and who gets to redistribute that “food and shelter” from those who have much to those who are without?

The problem is this: that “who” must have a lot of power to decide and redistribute — power enough to overcome those in society who do not agree with this formula. And as we’ve been warned, repeatedly:

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”


“The Devil may appear as an Angel of Light” (St. Paul)

This is a problem that has vexed humanity for eons. Until Rushkoff addresses this problem, sadly, his essay, while thought-provoking, in the end is just so much pie in the sky….

Rate this post

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Notify of
Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf

We are hearing the same sh@@te from our politicians here: jobs, jobs -, jobs. How come every immigrant who comes into the country gets a job but not every Irishman. “If your’e Irish stay out of the parlour”. People have had enough of these loony left politicos. Roll on the rebellion till we throw off the yoke of Germany and France.

lowtechgrannie lowtechgrannie
lowtechgrannie lowtechgrannie

This guy is probably the kind of scholar advising Skippy and the gang at 1600 Pennsylvania. It’s that kind of thinking that makes a fella decide to go golfing or take another vacay on the Vineyard.


He is assuming that everyone is willing to play “happy family.” He has completely ignored evil, which doesn’t want everyone to be happy. It isn’t about jobs at all: It’s about free will. The God-given right to choose for one’s self what one will do, how one will contribute, whether or not one will face the trials and draw strength, or quit.


Speaking of the postal system. How am I to send a real letter or birthday card to a family member or friend if the postal system closes? Not everyone has a computer,and if the sytem fails, how will one pay his or her mortage or electric bills etc ? We need our postal system. But maybe on a slightly scaled back week. Sorry but one size does not fit all. The computer is a useful tool, but not the be all end all of all things.


I’ll miss the Postal Service but I’ll never miss licking stamps…maybe we’ll have to hire couriers . I’m not about to let anyone have access to my bank account. He does have an academic point,though,about what will we do in Eutopia/heaven on earth.
Meet George Jetzon :occupation … work at home for Spacely Sprockets, (push a big red button….)
yeah,it’s a grind ,but a guy’s got to do something to earn a living.
(and they said all of those cartoons were a waste of time)