Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Warning

When it was released, David Halberstam said the The Reckoning was his most ambitious of the trilogy on American power; the earlier two were on politics and the media.
Halberstam described why he wrote the book. “One day I was on a book tour and I kept noticing that Chrysler was almost gone, Ford was in trouble, all those great American companies were (gone). ... The Japanese were taking cars, which was an American signature, and doing better at them. I didn't see it as a business story. I saw it as a social cultural story."

In economist John Kenneth Galbraith's New York Times 1986 review of the book, he said the result of Detroit’s downfall is that "life for most Americans (is) bound to become leaner. But in the middle of 1986, there seems to be little awareness of this, let alone concern about it."
Indeed, that was Halberstam's gloomy conclusion of The Reckoning. He wrote: "No country, including America, was likely ever to be as rich as America had been from 1945 to 1975, and other nations were following the Japanese into middle-class existence, which meant that life for most Americans was bound to become leaner. But in the middle of 1986, there seemed little awareness of this, let alone concern about it. Few were discussing how best to adjust the nation to an age of somewhat diminished expectations, or how to marshal its abundant resources for survival in a harsh, unforgiving new world, or how to spread the inevitable sacrifices equitably."

Amen. And the review on Associated Content of April 17 said: “Although The Reckoning is a 20-year-old book, its message has never been truer than it is now as America's once leading automobile industry is heading for deep decline. In my opinion, Halberstam's book should be retitled The Warning. By the time this book was published in 1986, the United States had already gone through two devastating energy crises orchestrated by OPEC. While Ford Motor had experienced some success with its energy-conscious Ford Taurus, the production emphasis was still on gas-guzzling trucks and luxury vehicles. While praising Nissan and other Japanese car companies' business model of affordability, fuel economy and quality control, [Halberstam] doesn't completely let them off the hook in his description of Nissan's union strife in the Fifties.

“In the meantime, in 2007, the price of gasoline is over $3 a gallon, the Iranians are once again threatening the Straits of Hormuz, Ford has laid off thousands of workers, Toyota is now the world's second largest carmaker,” the column written April 17 concluded.

Make that gasoline that could hit $4 gallon and, as of this morning, Toyota is the world’s No. 1 automaker.

What 99% of the people out there, including the politicians (who constantly yammer about "the American Dream". as if they even know or care about what that is) don't understand, is that the 30 year ascendancy of American economic hegemony was a complete anomaly - an accident, if you will, just like Spruance winning the Battle of Midway.
Think about it - from 1948 to 1978, the US workforce was flooded with new college graduates (thanks to the G.I. Bill) and worldly war veteran high school graduates, moving into a newly dynamic industrial base, that grew faster than Guth's inflationary universe... with abundant negative consequences. By the '70's (which I remember ALL to well), Kodak had "workers" napping in film rooms, G.E. had engineers and such (not executives) on the local golf course, and the American work force had become a hyper-bloated warthog from hell by 1978. Change that nibbled on the edges came in the '80's and 90's, but now the same worthless gang of idiots is running GM/Ford/Chrysler, et al, making cars nobody wants or needs, thinking that more (not better) marketing and adding gadgets will boost sales of inferior products. And now they have their collective hands out for guvmint money.

Well, I say - "Fu*k 'Em!
We (the US) are in the middle of an economic transformation the likes of which we haven't seen since the steam engine. Yes, people will be thrown out of work - for a while. Yes, companies will be in receivership, in order to re-organize - for a while. But the transformation will come, no matter what manner of backward, insane, neo-socialist, buggy-whip making stupidity the guvmint tries to inflict, And if the guvmint doesn't midwife this transformation, it will be stripped down against it's will too. We are moving, albeit slowly, into a new economic paradigm, in which KNOWLEDGE, will supersede information as the controlling factor - this means jobs will be discarded and replaced with new types of jobs, manufacturing will shift from human-based to machine-based labor, hell, even the very definiton of what a damn job IS will change. The end of the "job", if you will, is coming, and nothing can be done to stop it..

The end of the "job" as a way of organizing work, it is a social artifact that has outlived its usefulness. Its demise confronts everyone with unfamiliar risks -- and rich opportunities.
Each day's newspaper and blog carries another story of new job losses. We hear the recession has been in effect for quite a while. The coming Obama Administration is trying convince you that they can create jobs, but critics claim some of its new taxes and regulations will destroy jobs. We are told the only way to protect our jobs is to increase our productivity, but then we discover that business process re-engineering, using self-managed teams, flattening our organizations, and turning routine work over to computers always make many jobs redundant. We used to read predictions that by 2000 everyone would work 30-hour weeks, and the rest would be leisure. But as we approach 2010 it seems more likely that half of us will be working 60-hour weeks and the rest of us will be unemployed. What's wrong? It is not that the President or his critics don't care what happens to us, or that organizations that asked for our loyalty and grew because of our efforts have double-crossed us. The fault does not lie even with that dread monster overseas competition, which has been blamed for everything from unemployment to falling living standards. It's a shame these things are not the culprits, for if they were our task would be simpler.

The reality we face is much more troubling, for what is disappearing is not just a certain number of jobs -- or jobs in certain industries or jobs in some part of the country or even jobs in America as a whole. What is disappearing is the very thing itself: the job. That much sought after, much maligned social entity, a job, is vanishing like a species that has outlived its evolutionary time. A century from now Americans will look back and marvel that we couldn't see more clearly what was happening.
The job is an idea that emerged early in the 19th century to package the work that needed doing in the growing factories and bureaucracies of the industrializing nations. Before people had jobs, they worked just as hard but on shifting clusters of tasks, in a variety of locations, on a schedule set by the sun and the weather and the needs of the day. The modern job was a startling new idea -- and to many, an unpleasant and perhaps socially dangerous one. Critics claimed it was an unnatural and even inhuman way to work. They believed most people wouldn't be able to live with its demands. It is ironic that what started as a controversial concept ended up becoming the ultimate orthodoxy -- and that we're hooked on jobs. Now the world of work is changing again: The conditions that created jobs 200 years ago -- mass production and the large organization -- are disappearing. Technology enables us to automate the production line, where all those job holders used to do their repetitive tasks. Instead of long production runs where the same thing has to be done again and again, we are increasingly customizing production. Big firms, where most of the good jobs used to be, are unbundling activities and farming them out to little firms, which have created or taken over profitable niches. Public services are starting to be privatized, and government bureaucracy, the ultimate bastion of job security, is being thinned. With the disappearance of the conditions that created jobs, we are losing the need to package work in that way. No wonder jobs are disappearing.
"People get ready - There's a change a-comin'"
more on this rant to come....

No comments: