Work Will Never Be The Same Again

Newcastle Herald

Wednesday August 14, 2002

Greg Cussan

SINCE Keith Windschuttle wrote Unemployment (1979) and Barry Jones wrote Sleepers, Wake! (1982), their broad predictions have been supported by much well-informed research and by events themselves.

Essentially, these predictions were that work, as we have known it for roughly 200 years, is rapidly declining, and that unemployment is now structural, not cyclical.

Simply put, this means that the dramatic loss of particularly lesser-skilled jobs, is not a temporary phenomenon reversible when `things get better', but is now a permanent feature of our society.

And further that eventually no jobs are secure, at any level of skill or training.

Consequently, it is disappointing and unhelpful to hear commentators discuss official unemployment statistics as if they bore some meaningful relationship to everyday reality; and to hear speculation about eventual recovery assuming that it will be accompanied by a return of traditional employment.

Disappointing, because they should know better. Decidedly unhelpful, because they are reinforcing expectations that discourage serious exploration of more promising solutions.

Phil O'Neill from Newcastle University asks (N/H 29/7) why the regional job situation is so stark, given that Australia is a world-class economic performer.

Robin Mcdonald from the Hunter Valley Research Foundation reportedly queries why the economy is so `schizophrenic', in terms of polarising haves and have-nots.

The fact is that these are now characteristics of all industrialised capitalist nations. And the reason is that there is something new under the sun.

Periods of radical technological change are not novel in developed nations; there have been at least four since the Industrial Revolution in the 17th century. However, the most recent developments have broken the established cycle.

Microelectronic technology (of which computers are a subset) has features that distinguish it dramatically from previous innovations.

For the first time in history, it is possible to increase output while simultaneously reducing input ? that is, produce more with less. Even more significant, current technology becomes less complex yet more sophisticated, and actually becomes cheaper while increasing in capability.

These qualities almost constitute the Holy Grail for manufacturers/employers; and when married to a socio-economic philosophy that prizes profit above all else, the outcome seems rather predictable.

For many reasons, the most amenable way of maximising profit is by minimising production costs, which include the cost of labour. So the cheaper the worker, the better, and the moment technology can reasonably replace the worker altogether, it is adopted (with the additional benefits that machines don't strike, take tea breaks or read Marx).

And clearly, at least initially, automation can most effectively replace jobs that are routine and repetitive ? that is, machinelike ? in their structure. Ultimately, however, professions too can be routinised, and automated.

In light of the above, it becomes clearer why Asia dominates manufacturing; why new industries seldom generate as many jobs as they displace, and rarely at a similar skill level; and why considerable wealth is being created, but very unevenly shared out.

Work is a remarkable social institution. It is difficult to envisage another social device that caters for so many diverse human needs.

Small wonder that job creation is seen as integral to any program addressing societal problems ? crime, addiction, alienation.

However, for reasons already discussed, we cannot anticipate more jobs of the kind we've lost, in familiar industries. If work is to play any part in our future, it will be different, both in type and purpose. In fact, we will probably need to redefine what work is, and what we consider to be a worthwhile job.

As long as our governments believe (or pretend to believe) that employment is simply in the cyclical doldrums, they will only be interested in stalling tactics ? constantly recycling unemployed people through retraining programs, work-for-dole schemes, vocational courses ? all geared towards jobs that won't return, in radically changed industries.

Consequently, whenever authoritative commentators play along with official statistics and obsolete work attitudes, they encourage governments to maintain their cargo-cult mentality, and foster the illusion of an eventual return to `normalcy'.

Enormous possibilities exist for creating work that is socially, environmentally and ultimately economically desirable, an example of which may be paid parental leave. But these possibilities will require the full support of governments that must be convinced by their electorate to look forward, not back. Greg Cussan is a psychologist with experience in vocational and occupational psychology. He works as a counsellor at the Newcastle campus of TAFE.