Comments 10

تطور العمل

Dec 9, 2015 Dani Rodrik

كمبريدج ــ في منتصف ديسمبر/كانون الأول، من المقرر أن تصدر منظمة الأمم المتحدة أحدث تقاريرها السنوية عن التنمية البشرية. ويركز تقرير هذا العام على طبيعة العمل: كيف تتحول الطريقة التي نكسب بها عيشنا بفِعل العولمة الاقتصادية، والتكنولوجيات الجديدة، والإبداعات في مجال التنظيم الاجتماعي. ولا ريب أن آفاق البلدان النامية بشكل خاص متباينة إلى حد كبير.

الواقع أن العمل أمر غير سار بالنسبة لأغلب الناس في أغلب الوقت. فتاريخيا، كان القيام بقدر كبير من العمل المضني هو الكيفية التي أصبحت بلها البلدان غنية. ومن خلال الثراء يتسنى لبعض الناس الحصول على الفرصة للقيام بعمل سار.

فبفضل الثورة الصناعية، قدمت التكنولوجيات الجديدة في المنسوجات القطنية، والحديد والصلب، والنقل مستويات متزايدة الارتفاع من إنتاجية العمل للمرة الأولى في التاريخ. وفي بريطانيا أولاً في منتصف القرن الثامن عشر، ثم في أوروبا الغربية وأميركا الشمالية، تدفق الرجال والنساء من المناطق الريفية إلى المدن لتلبية طلب المصانع المتزايد على العمل.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

Dani Rodrik

Writing for PS since 1998
150 Commentaries

Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science, and, most recently, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

james durante Dec 18, 2015

You're religious because you recite dogma and ignore facts. I cited you historical facts about the meager (now vanishing) gains of workers. You responded with an avalanche of red herring topics: your psychology, my character, a misunderstanding of Marx, being a family man (lol), blahhhhhh. If my facts are in error then correct me. But enough of your histrionics.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher Goodwin Dec 15, 2015

The trouble with people like james durante, apart from a tendency to have big noses, is their willingness to shove such protuberences into other people's lives. For them, politix is a religion, and they know all the answers. So instead of allowing each and every one of us to have the responsibility to decide for ourselves what our priorities are to be, and handle accordingly in the market. (it's called "freedom" by the way, and some of us appreciate it;) the durante's of this world think that they know what we "need", and that they can satisfy such needs - if only we will submit to their discipline, and have our mere (very mere) "wants" denied. This is to treat us like children, to infantilize us. "Mummy knows best."

BUT, but but - for those of us who are parents, we know that children grow up, and have to learn to srtand on their own two feet. Give fish, teach fishing. Quicker and easier to give a fish_ more helpful and wiser to teach fishing. The process of learning takes time, and involves mistakes, also in economics. Private market mistake fall on the entrepreneur, who risks his (and other' NB) money in trying to do what has not been done before. Few succeed, and make a lot of money. Most fail, and lose it. Tough. But GOVERNMENTS (durante is doubtless a
governmentalist: but please correct me if I am wrong,) always convince themselves that what they about is for the "public good," and is needed for the good of "society" - (a vapourous kind of one size fits all word, containing much in the way of delightful suggestion, and very little concrete utility or meaning,) - and in any case is to be paid for by the taxpayers, which usually means "the filthy rich" who own all the corporate wealth - tax them to hell, with any luck they'll die, and no one need weep for them: except insofar as they are the life insurance companies, who are going thus to be unable to pay the pensions that durante and friends expect to come tumbling into their laps when they retire. Of course, they despise such pensions, and think everyone should be satisfied with the bounty of the State pension provisions - except that, as we all know, the State has already spent all the money on "necessary" wars, and electoral bribes, and croney capitalist contracts for useless hi tech weaponry. State pensions are unfunded: the cupboard is bare. You might call it criminal, but I think you will find that the state can "get away" with what would be a crime if you or I were to do it.

I do not bless "capitalism" - I know it for what is is: an illusion, invented by Marx as a theoretical description of how the economy works: NB a very bad description, but it was the best He could do: and millions of his followers seem to take his, what should we call it, "Economic Model" as Gospel Truth in the Marxian Religion. (Now why should I default to a discussion of Marx' claptrap in theological terms ? Some thing must have put it into my head - but I am an atheist, so I do not go in for this pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye - must be something I read.)
Faith in such "models" without testing them to see if they work is the sign of the sillies: like all those AGW soi disant "experts" - or UNO world governmentalist, who, not content with the corruption of the individual nation staes want an extra layer of command, control and corruption on a global scale, because it takes the "ideal" model of the government apparatusses we currently know (and, variously loathe,) and think that a humungous, overreaching, all embracing collossus of World Government would be even better. Of course, such enthusiasts do not want to see any existing (and demonstrably fallible) structure of order, but instead an improved, "perfected" Divinely, Infallibly, Uncompromisingly and Unalterably perfect Super System - without any means of adjustment, correction or reform, because, of course, "We" are going to set it up as PERFECT in the beginning, and see ("Say ?") that it is Good, and so it will be Good: by definiti0n. Welcome to MegaFascism, brought to you by good Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Collectivists and other Good People everywhere.

Thank you, james, for your "off the cuff" psychiatric diagnosis. Forgive me if I decline to pay you a fee for this crap. I think you must be deranged. Get help.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher Goodwin Dec 14, 2015

Nearly didn't read this. Got to § 4 "But, for decades, workers gained few of the benefits ...." The usual moisinformation. Cue sobbing violin.

Give over. The factory system gave farm labouers who switched to mill work :- (1) Much better housing.(2) Much higher pay (3) much better job seciurity (4) much better education for their children. Win win win win, as it were. But if we are going to get another basin full of socialist hard luck storytelling, therewill be no improvement.
- james durante Dec 15, 2015
  
  The problem with people like Christopher Goodwin is that economics, for them, is religion. "Bless capitalism, our Lord and Savior!" It was "the factory system" that provided all these goodies for workers? You are exactly wrong. It was the factory system that led workers to organize at a time when unions were illegal and fight back against strike breaker thugs hired by the companies. I know they don't teach labor history in school. But educated people look at historic facts; they don't bleat religious dogma. So look up the Homestead Strike, Cripple Creek, Blair Mountain, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the fight to end child labor, for overtime pay, for the eight hour work day and on and on. Rodrik at least hints at this in the paragraph that begins "Eventually capitalism transformed itself..." This is almost as laughable as Goodwin inasmuch as all the ills of the factory system have been shipped to Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Guatemala and other cheap labor, no regulation markets. Capitalism never transforms itself; the battle between return on investment versus return to labor will only end when capitalism is, in fact, transformed.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gene Coyle Dec 13, 2015

The piece by Rodrik is story-telling. It should keep the masses quite by promising pie in the sky, by and by.
I expect the author will feel great embarrassment someday.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Stewart Dec 13, 2015

"For most people most of the time, work is mostly unpleasant."

Dani, you need to get out more.

For most people most of the time, work is the elixir that makes life worth living. The satisfaction of knowing someone values your labor contribution so much they actually pay you for it doesn't accrue only to people in the top 1%, such as yourself, it accrues to all of us, all around the world, every day.

"Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need." Voltaire, Candide 1759
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Dec 11, 2015

A shortage of jobs, although not impossible, is most improbable. Just as improbable as a shortage of labor. What is far more likely is a dysfunctional distribution of tasks and benefits. I think this article already incorporates this understanding, but it wouldn't hurt to give it a little more emphasis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Imtiaz Taher Dec 10, 2015

The author did not include the threat to manufacturing automation poses. I think, this disruptive technology will be a big threat to labor intensive developing countries including Bangladesh. In addition, I find this kind of preaching about collective bargaining a bit ridiculous from the perspective of developing economies. Just like pollution, the industrialized world have done the bulk of it (capitalist excess). Now, they are demanding developing countries to play fair (and in the process, become less competitive). It's hypocritical of them to twist manufacturers' arms to increase their profit margin while imposing all these barriers. I am all for workers' rights and welfare. But everything in moderation. You should not make perfect the enemy of good.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Dec 9, 2015

Dear Dani, for every positive factor, there are more than 100 obstacles being put by the regulators to ensure those positive factors or incentives, do not happen. The workforce is no longer stupid and does not buy anymore into this rubbish. One needs to remove for a start any “conflict of interest” and all “unfair competition practices” especially by the regulators who are acting in dual and triple capacities in some cases.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Keith Chan Dec 9, 2015

Interesting piece. Though I was expecting to read about the impact of robotic automation on both developed and developing countries.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry hough Dec 9, 2015

There is a basic problem that outsourcing and immigration make the supply of labor infinite. It is not only the US. Advanced developing countries will outsource to poorer ones.

Democracy is scarcely a solution. England only got democracy in 1832. There are many quasi-democracies as there were in England in the 1700s and the United States today.

If the rich gain control of the electoral process (and remember that above $125,000 family income is the top 20% or the rich by any reasonable defintion), the so-called left-wing party can be taken over by the rich as in the US and ruled by Citigroup to producing a tripling of the market since the bottom and, according to the Fed, a decline in wages for the bottom 90%. And we get Trump and Europe seems to be moving towards Hungary. Democracy in developed Turkey is far from ideal.

Indeed, the widespread ownership of common shares in mutual funds in the retirement plans of the top 20% and now government means that we really have a very broad group of Marx's owners of the means of production who do have an interest in a tripling of the market and the lowering of wages.

Life is not going to be simple and 1848 and 1917 are not going to be the last events of their type.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/oYrkhtc/ar;

تطور العمل

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Disaster Capitalism Comes to Puerto Rico

Rethinking Animal Agriculture

How Can Countries Reduce Poverty Faster?

The Media’s #MeToo Problem

PS. Explain This: The Gendered Right to Mobility

Electrifying Africa’s Labor Market

India’s Central Bank Under Attack

The Case for Compensated Free Trade

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register