Work, Leisure and the Social Contract

(Republished from a personal blog post “Squalor at the feet of Affluence” posted February 10, 2016)

@KStreetHipster was quoted in an article in Vox for her observations on the discrepancy between financial prosperity (aggregate wealth of the U.S., growth in GDP, etc.) and public squalor (roads and bridges, trash buildup, clean water, education, elder care, veterans affairs, housing, mental health, etc.), ultimately hypothesizing that the work to be aimed at such things is not in the interests of the affluent, of investment funds, of the financial-return-focused corporate infrastructure that is by definition the source of work for the country. The question she asks is fair:

“Are we just not going to do something?
Just because it won’t make someone rich?”
Tess Kovach (@KStreetHipster) @kovach

An impressively prophetic vision from 1953, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.’s “Player Piano” places in perspective the inexorable drive toward technological progress insofar as society has implicitly accepted:

• Efficiency (ratio of process output to input resources)
• Economy (return on investment)
• Quality (avoid defects and failures)

among the noblest aspirations (and thus priorities) of not only corporate functions, but more broadly to non-profit and government tasks as well. One would be considered irrational to suggest otherwise — how could their opposites be justified? Surely, these are key elements of economic prosperity — and this prosperity may be a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for social prosperity. Yet, Efficiency, Economy and Quality benefit processes — they do not necessarily benefit society. In particular where their pursuit impacts:

• Dignity (I earn my keep)
• Purpose (why am I here?)
• Pride (satisfaction from doing/contributing)

which deeply underpin what the working class understand as their part in the social contract with the ruling class (employers, government, etc.) The working class of America’s heartland would be among the most rabid supporters of these values, yet the purest pursuit of capitalism is poised to displace many of their jobs; propelled by technology delivering massive productivity through automation (see Pilgrimage to Hope).

Returning to the points made by @KStreetHipster:

“Work exists everywhere.
There’s a disconnect between the work to be done and the jobs we have designated.
There’s a whole society to improve.
Crime and inequality and poverty and on and on, but (most of) our jobs aren’t for improving society.
Instead our jobs are (typically) for enriching someone.
Not a societal good in and of itself, but a private good.
We have a lot of work that needs to be done. It just happens to be the type of work that doesn’t line someone’s pockets: it’s not profitable.

The many examples of work she cites (roads, bridges, schools, judicial system, health care, education, etc.) constitute some of the most noble and lasting results to which we might attach Dignity, Purpose and Pride. Yet these are seen as contra-capitalism, particularly when painted as a work program rather than a simple public need. This is precisely the cognitive dissonance within the working class exploited by political interests to frame any expenditures (nominally through taxation or government policy) as an undesirable drain on their wealth.

In 1930, John Maynard Keynes wrote “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren“, contemplating the progress in productivity of the time and extrapolating to a future where our economic problems are “solved”. It is interesting to consider the four criteria he cites as necessities underlying reaching such a state:

1. Population control
2. Determination to avoid war and civil dissent
3. Trust in science (see Tyranny of Truth article)
4. Continued accumulation of production over rate of consumption

in the context of political positions on reproductive rights, foreign policy, respect for scientific rigor (e.g., climate) and promoting consumption-based economics. To be fair, Keynes notes:

“without work, mankind is deprived of its ‘traditional purpose’”
(per above: dignity, purpose, pride) even suggesting
“life is tolerable for its struggle”.

Addressing this, he famously introduced the idea of the 15-hour work week, the purpose for which would be giving people “task satisfaction” — effectively a rationed benefit, carefully metered out from the productivity realized through automation. (See also: The Guardian “Let’s hear it for the four-hour working day”).

Keynes speculated on why many of the affluent may never sympathize with the public good:

“Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes –those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they.”

Voltaire considered the potential consequence of a lack of work, and why the affluent may find it necessary to provide work for others (Candide, 1759):

“Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need.”

Consider this image from Wall-E in contemplating this work-scarce automated future:

the humans enjoy their shakes and watch entertainment as the machinery around them perform all the functions of work. Yet there is no dignity, purpose or pride. We would call this a state of Leisure.

It is interesting to note the Greek word for “leisure” is σχολή (“scholé”) which is the root at the origin of our word “school.” Rather than technological workers, it was exploitation of slave labor that granted the Greeks time for “leisure.” (For this ruling caste) that leisure afforded pursuit of philosophy, mathematics, astronomy and science we consider the foundation to many modern institutions, including (ironically) democracy.

Advancing civilization and science may be a lofty aspiration for a possible future dominated by technological automation, but greater abundance of time to devote ourselves to better understanding ourselves, our world, and each other may be a path toward broader citizenship as human beings.

© 2016 All Rights Reserved

Originally published at rickarthur.net on February 10, 2016.