same on issuu:
adding page while taking in Anthony Goldbloom‘s ted on what jobs are for machines and what jobs are for people..
same time added:
and perhaps where i’ll focus most of this thinking:
because of previous interpretive labor page in particular
refusal of work et al
from Esko Kilpi
@RiaBaeck (via Esko rt)
*Work is always solving other people’s problems and what defines those problems is that to understand them and to solve them, a person has to think not only about what she believes the right answer is, but also about what other people have seen and learned. What they think the right answers could be. Work, then, is exploration both what comes to defining the problems and finding the solutions. The network is the key resource. Every valuable piece of learning can be put to use by someone else, or somewhere else. At best, then, work is remixing and recombining successful elements to create new versions.
so that rather than ‘solving other people’s problems’ .. we spend time listening to our own hearts ..
Under circumstances of rapid technological change, the management challenge is not better planning and control, but creation of protocols that make possible *openness to possibilities.
Firms are *social and legal constructs. They are what we think firms are. It is time to renew our old construct of the firm as a newer version, a creativity- and network effects-based view of the firm, utilizing **tokens and smart contracts. The democratization of technology that is taking place at the moment does not guarantee social change, but it does create opportunities for totally new social/financial practices.
kierkegaard busy ness law
Michel Bauwens (@mbauwens) tweeted at 0:23 AM on Mon, Aug 28, 2017:
What if jobs are not the solution but the problem? | Aeon Essays https://t.co/3MdwKM6rtb
forces us to imagine a world in which the job no longer builds our character, determines our incomes or dominates our daily lives.
to imagine a world in which income no longer exist..
What would you do if you didn’t have to work to receive an income?
what would you do if you didn’t have to receive an income..
And what would society and civilisation be like if we didn’t have to ‘earn’ a living – if leisure was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or volunteer to teach children in less-developed places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and watch reality TV all day?
I’m not proposing a fancy thought experiment here. By now these are practical questions because there aren’t enough jobs. So it’s time we asked even more practical questions. How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical? If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society – as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for nothing?
is thinking we need income.. ethical.. to the human spirit..? indigenous..?
[imo – too much of article assuming income as necessity..]
How would human nature change as the aristocratic privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of all?
We won’t have any answers until we acknowledge that work now means everything to us – and that hereafter it can’t.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/ultimape/status/927739305182851072
you are not an artisan by @vgr
So long as we’re pretending that we’re rediscovering an early-modern work ethic.. This is work as fashion accessory and conversation fodder..t
In other words, we’re more afraid of machines taking away our social status than our jobs..
So when people talk about saving work or jobs, they mostly talk about saving sexy, income-generating conspicuous production packaged as creative work, in a debt-fueled de facto leisure society.
In algorithmically scalable work, machines need very little help from humans to do a lot. In algorithmically unscalable work, they need a lot of help to do much less. Whether what they do is sexy or creative in human terms is besides the point. What matters is how truly repeatable the defined tasks are.
Almost all our confusion about automation can be traced to a single sloppy conflation: between algorithmically scalable/unscalable and schleppy/sexy. We do this by inappropriately defining the word repetitive as “whatever humans find boring.”
If you actually look at the work computers leave for us — supporting algorithmically unscalable information work — you will see that it is a far larger category than the “sexy that can be packaged as creative” subset that we are racing desperately to save. It may still not be enough to keep everybody productively employed, but there is certainly more to do than we think there is.
The easiest way to appreciate the emerging human condition to adopt a couple of new metaphors for machines: machines as children and humans as intestinal flora.
hey man.. why be this smart.. and still assume .. earn a living ness..?
Put the two together and you get a view of technology as a giant child we’ve given birth to, that is probably never going to grow up and take care of us in our retirement. Instead, we’ll have to live in its guts and take care of it forever, doing the complex schlep work it cannot do.
people choose sexy work mostly due to conspicuous production (status and identity) considerations. They are effectively working for attention, not money.
What unites all these trades is that they accept roles based on kinds of schlepping that machines are bad at rather than insisting on work that humans like to do..t
the thing you can’t not do
Scott Santens (@scottsantens) tweeted at 3:01 AM – 25 Nov 2017 :
“There will always be jobs if people are prepared to work for sufficiently low wages. But the big question is whether people are going to be better off as a result of automation in the future. Some will. Some won’t.” https://t.co/xytBkJ8bRO #basicincome https://t.co/u6lJ111eAH (http://twitter.com/scottsantens/status/934361278763724801?s=17)
In his bestselling book Homo Deus, the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari makes a simple point about why the future of work may differ drastically from its past. Since the Industrial Revolution, he writes, “As old professions became obsolete, new professions evolved, and there was always something humans could do better than machines.” People in developed countries went from “fields and flocks” to industrial jobs, and then into service industries. “Yet this is not a law of nature,” he points out, “and nothing guarantees it will continue to be like that in the future.” ..t.. With many jobs in service industries on the verge of being automated away, what new work will there be for the millions of people who currently do them?
There are two broad schools of thought about what is happening to paid employment in the 21st century…
1\ technology ..does away with some jobs, it usually creates others.
2\ The other view is more downbeat, and points to the possible dawn of what Harari describes as “the useless class”: large numbers of people who will have no economic value. In this view of things, we need to accept that if paid employment will soon be in much shorter supply, we have to come up with radical answers – starting with the introduction of a universal basic income..t
let’s go root radical – ie: money less.. for all of us
we’re all going to have many careers and jobs over our long working lives now. We’re going to be employed and self-employed – that distinction’s going to go, I think. But the important thing is to have really good basic education, plus some cultural traits like resilience, curiosity and adaptability… and at various points, we’re all going to have to retrain.” ..t .. – Aviva’s chief digital officer is Andrew Brem @abrem
17 min – allan shore: proximal separation.. parent physically there but emotionally unavailable because too stressed/distracted
and this society rewards workaholism.. they tell you what a great guy you are.. they reward you for the very things that undermine the health of your family..
and for a lot of people it’s not even a question of a choice
work et al
Miranda Ash (@mirandaash) tweeted at 5:46 AM – 2 Apr 2018 :
Your toxic workplace is the 5th leading cause of death Stanford research shows–time to intervene… https://t.co/NOwtWrzVce via @Inc (http://twitter.com/mirandaash/status/980773454457790465?s=17)
Economic Sociology (@EconSociology) tweeted at 6:20 AM – 18 Apr 2018 :
The #work ideology has ruled our lives for centuries, and it does so today more than ever. But a new generation of “post-work” thinkers insists there is an alternative. @gdnlongread @davidgraeber @n_srnck https://t.co/40qw59WHWR (http://twitter.com/EconSociology/status/986580208135307265?s=17)
An obsession with employability runs through education.. t
As a source of social mobility and self-worth, work increasingly fails even the most educated people – supposedly the system’s winners. In 2017, half of recent UK graduates were officially classified as “working in a non-graduate role”
Among others, Graeber condemned “private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers … telemarketers, bailiffs”, and the “ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza delivery) that only exist because everyone is spending so much of their time working”.
Unsurprisingly, work is increasingly regarded as bad for your health: “Stress … an overwhelming ‘to-do’ list … [and] long hours sitting at a desk,” the Cass Business School professor Peter Fleming notes in his new book, The Death of Homo Economicus, are beginning to be seen by medical authorities as akin to smoking.
“Either automation or the environment, or both, will force the way society thinks about work to change,” says David Frayne, a radical young Welsh academic whose 2015 book The Refusal of Work is one of the most persuasive post-work volumes. “So are we the utopians? Or are the utopians the people who think work is going to carry on as it is?”
book request at library
One of post-work’s best arguments is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the work ideology is neither natural nor very old..t
David Graeber, who is an anarchist as well as an anthropologist, argues that these policies were motivated by a desire for social control.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but Hunnicutt, who has studied the ebb and flow of work in the west for almost 50 years, says Graeber has a point: “I do think there is a fear of freedom – a fear among the powerful that people might find something better to do than create profits for capitalism.”..t
Graeber argues that in a less labour-intensive society, our capacity for things other than work could be built up again.
The end of work as we know it will seem unthinkable – until it has happened..
karoshi – death by overwork
President KFC Buckets (@realworldrj) tweeted at 4:31 AM – 16 May 2018 :
HBS: how to motivate workers even though they know and you know their job is bullshit https://t.co/RSdnOp7KwZ (http://twitter.com/realworldrj/status/996699682414964736?s=17)
the idea “that one person’s time can belong to someone else is actually quite peculiar.” t