What Will We Do When Robots Take Our Jobs?

Posted August 30th, 2016 in Articles, Blogs by admin

We are in the midst of a revolution, occasioned by the disappearance of a massive number of jobs as we know them. We are experiencing the end of work as we know it.

What do we mean by the expression “the end of work?” It means technology, as defined as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and “robotization,” exerting a slow but continuous degradation on the value and availability of work—in the form of wages and the number of adult workers with full-time jobs. The widespread disappearance of jobs would usher in a social transformation unlike we’ve ever experience or imagined. The issue won’t be saving jobs, it will be saving or recasting the concept of work, which has become a religion in its own right.

Some aspects of the future world of work are already present. In my Psychology Today article, “The End of Jobs As We Have Known Them,” I argue that the jobless future is already here. Futurist Jeremy Rifkin contends we are entirely a new phase in history, one characterized by a steady and inevitable decline of jobs. He says the world of work is being polarized into two forces: One, an information elite that controls the global economy; and the other, a growing number of displaced workers.

Organizational structural changes have altered the nature of careers and jobs . Organizations have become “flatter” with fewer management levels as more work has become knowledge work. Project work and teamwork have also changed the nature of jobs.

Careers that once were viewed as progressions “up” a ladder are now often multidirectional and lateral. Robert DeFillippi and Michael Arthur define these changes as the creation of the “boundaryless career,” where the career path is defined by the individual’s soft and hard skills, not by their formal education or experience.

PWC’s report, “The Future of Work: A Journey to 2022,” a study of 10,000 people in China, India, Germany, the UK and the US, gave their views of the future of work, concluded that increasingly large corporations are turning into mini-countries and will take a more prominent role in social issues, the most important of which be the environmental; the development of more sophisticated measures of human productivity that include psychological and social components, and the disappearance of the boundary between work and personal life.

Economic growth is increasingly not driven by human labor but by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots.

In 2013, Oxford University researchers In a published paper titled: “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerization” C.B. Frey and M.A. Osborne, researchers at Oxford University, created a model that calculates the probability of substituting a worker in a given sector. Frey and Osborne conclude machines may replace 47% of active workers in the future. Of 1,896 prominent scientists, analysts, and engineers questioned in a recent Pew survey on the future of jobs, 48% of them said the AI revolution will be a permanent job killer on a vast scale.The Bank of England has warned that within the coming decades as many as 80 million jobs in the U.S. could be replaced by robots.

We are already witnessing chronic unemployment or significant underemployment for adult men and youth. The share in the economy of men in jobs and wages aged 25-54 has continuously declined through good and bad times since the 1970’s. And real wages and employment opportunities for college and university graduates have substantially declined since the year 2000. Only 68 % of men between 30 and 45 who have a high school diploma were working full time in 2013, according to a recent report by the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based public-policy group.

Even the professions are not spared by the impact of economic restructuring that we’ve experienced.The number of hours logged by first-year and mid-level legal associates fell 12 percent from 2007 at some of New York’s largest law firms, says Jeff Grossman, national managing director of Wells Fargo Private Bank’s Legal Specialty. Architecture graduates ages 25 to 29 had the highest unemployment of the 57 degree programs surveyed by the Education Department in 2009. What about the medical profession? CABG rates are continuing to fall, says cardiologist Jack Tu, co-author of the ICES report and team leader of the Canadian Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Team (CCORT). “Anecdotally, a lot of surgeons are concerned they don’t have the [procedure] volume to meet their targets government funding [as a cardiac centre],” says Tu, a senior scientist at ICES and Canada Research Chair in HealthServices Research. Volumes will definitely continue to fall, resulting, eventually, in a surplus of cardiac surgeons, says Tu. “We need to stop training so many. They’re not going to have a lot of work.”

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, authors of The Second Machine Age, argue computer technology is evolving so rapidly that predicting their capabilities and applications in a decade is almost impossible. Remember it was only 2007 when the first Iphone was released. Look at the capabilities of smartphones now.

Job creation is very different today than it has been in the past. The newest industries being created are mostly related to computer software, telecommunications and like applications, are the most labor efficient and don’t require many people. Economic historian Robert Skidelsky, author of Keynes: Return of the Master, argues, “sooner or later, we will run out of jobs.” If Skidelsky is right, it raises the question of what will our society look like without universal work or even close to it?

The application of AI, robotics and computer software kills a wide variety of skilled jobs.

The replacement of human labor with AI and robotics has expanded from jobs that produce material products to a wide range of services, including the professions such as law, accounting, and health and even psychological therapy. The recession of 2007–2009 may have sped up the destruction of many relatively well-paid jobs requiring repetitive tasks that can be automated. These so-called routine jobs “fell off a cliff in the recession,” says Henry Siu, an economist at the University of British Columbia, “and there’s been no large rebound.” This type of work, which includes white-collar jobs in sales and administration as well as blue-collar jobs in assembly work and machine operation, makes up about 50 percent of employment in the United States.

Siu’s research also shows that the disappearance of these jobs has most harshly affected people in their 20s, many of whom seem to have simply stopped looking for work. Middle-income jobs are disappearing for a wide range of jobs. For example, the number of financial counselors and loan officers ages 25 to 34 has dropped 40 percent since 2007, outpacing the 30 percent drop in total jobs for the profession, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the investment business we are seeing the replacement of financial analysts with quantitative analytic systems, and floor traders with trading algorithms. Mutual funds and traditional portfolio managers now compete against ETFs (exchange-traded funds), many of which offer completely automated strategies.

The expansion of contingency work for large numbers of people, and continuing development of the “gig” economy.

One in three U.S. workers—53 million people—are now “contingent,” already contending with the changed structure of work, perhaps juggling multiple jobs and serving as temporary, “gig,” or self-employed workers. An increasing number of corporations, government institutions and even colleges and universities have replaced full-time workers with part-time and contract or piecemeal workers, any without any security or benefits. During the recent recession, large numbers of Americans who lost their jobs scrambled to make a living. Simultaneously, Internet commerce was expanding providing the most specialized consumer wants to be met with great efficiency and speed. This provided some enterprising individuals the unprecedented ability to capitalize on their own hands, minds, things, and hours.

Thus, says Jacob Morgan, author of Future of Work: Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders and Create a Competitive Organization, the gig economy was born: Americans were able to use a craft expertise to an Etsy side job, or a car into a job for Sidecar, Lyft, and Uber for a little extra money. Benefit-less, contractor jobs that fill the gig economy include low barriers to entry and flexibility of schedule.

Sara Horowitz, founder and CEO of Freelancers Union, argues that the jobless future is here. Many people are already combining part-time work just to get by, she notes. In an article in the magazine Atlantic, Horowitz writes that as of 2005, 30% of the workforce has participated in this “freelance economy,” and entrepreneurial activity has reached an all time high in 2010.

In the past decade cloud computing has radically altered the way we work. But it’s the growth of the “human cloud”—a vast global pool of freelancers who are available to work on demand from remote locations, that will shake up the world of work. More and more employers (“requesters”) are inviting freelancers (“taskers”) to bid for each task. Two of the biggest Internet sites are Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which lays claim to 500,000 “turkers” from 190 countries and Upwork, which estimates that it has 10 million freelancers from 180 countries. They compete for more than 3 million tasks or projects each year, which can range from tagging photos to writing code.

Management consultants McKinsey & Co. estimate that by 2025 some 540 million workers will have used one of these platforms to find work. The benefits to companies is obvious—instant access to a pool of cheap, willing talent without having to go through the lengthy recruitment process, and costly benefits. For the taskers, the benefits are not so good. However, the champions of crowdsourcing argue that it provides a powerful force for the redistribution of wealth by providing a fresh stream of income into the economy. In balance, it’s more likely to increase income inequality and depress wages. The big challenge for governments will be how to codify, and provide ethical, legal standards for this kind of work, to prevent abuses by employers.

What Happens to Education?

The disappearance of work for many people will have a dramatic impact on the nature of post-secondary education. For some time now, the purpose for, and offerings in colleges and universities in North America, have become increasingly skewed towards the preparation for jobs. If that purpose becomes questionable or even redundant, post-secondary institutions will either shrink or possibly repurpose themselves back to classical views of education, emphasizing the enlightenment of democratic citizens. According to Bethany Moreton of Dartmouth College, the 10 fastest growing job categories require less than a college degree. Over 40% of the college graduates are now working in low-wage jobs.

In policy debates, technology is presented as an uncontrollable force for which societies and workers must prepare. While education can allow individuals to improve their well-being by moving to a more lucrative profession, the overwhelming majority of jobs—in developed and developing countries alike —will not improve through more education. Of the current top 10 occupations in the U.S., only one is a highly skilled—a registered nurse. Retail salespersons and cashiers, fast-food workers, general office clerks, customer service representatives, waiters and waitresses, laborers, and janitors are the other top occupations, accounting for more than one of every five jobs in the U.S. in 2014, and not predicted to disappear anytime soon. The average annual earnings in most of these jobs in the U.S. is just under $20,000. More education may help a fast-food worker to leave the sector, but it will do little for the person remaining in that job. In Denmark and France, countries which embrace socialism, retail and fast-food workers are protected by collective agreements, these jobs provide living wages and other social benefits including paid annual and sick leave.

As Jaison Abel, senior economist at the New York Federal Reserve, argues, “A significant challenge is that a large swath of people will be displaced as technology continues to advance, and some kind of retraining will likely be required. And we really have very little understanding about the kinds of retraining programs that are beneficial and would potentially pass a cost-benefit test.”

John Seely Brown, former chief scientist at Xerox, argues that given this era of accelerating change, one in which the half-life of many skills can be as short as five years, corporate training centers no longer work; returning to community colleges every five years is not viable. He argues we must re-invent the workplace as a “learningscape.” He says we can create “Cities of Learning’’—a new movement in which employers, libraries, and museums are wired together to help kids find their interests outside school and pick up new skills—or networks of partners in the corporate world.

A powerful example of this kind of learning is the use of GitHub; another example is being developed by a conservative company, SAP, which has created an extended open source network that has a couple million participants who are learning with and from each other. Another example is Hacker DoJo, a community in Silicon Valley where people share digital technical skills, or the guild networks around massively multi-player online games where thousands of new ideas are created, shared, and tested each night. And the rapid development of MOOCs, and other sources of free education and training through the Internet may make brick-and-mortar educational institutions obsolete.

The traditional answer has been to invest in developing skills that machines can’t replicate—creativity, problem solving, ingenuity, and other higher-order functions. Interestingly, embracing these skills means taking a step back from the idea of the human being that emerged during the Industrial Revolution—cog in a machine, interchangeable, and reproducible—towards the older Renaissance humanism, more prone to seeing people as possessed with unique gifts to create and innovate.

The problem is that public education in the U.S. and much of the world is, in many ways, a by-product of the Industrial Revolution. Education came to be standardized just like production, with students lined up in neat rows of desks and taught a uniform curriculum. An emphasis on memorization and rote learning helped produce a uniform citizenry— literate, compliant, interchangeable—to fill standardized roles in industry, offices, and government.

None of that cuts it in an age when intelligent machines can do anything rote or repetitive far better than we can. Cultivating some of our last uniquely human abilities—namely creativity and social intelligence—requires reimagining education as a means not of reproducing uniformity but of nurturing exceptionalism–in other words, the ability to do things that can’t be codified or systematized.

The Disappearance of Jobs, Income Inequality and the Consumer Economy

Martin Ford in his book, The Rise of Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future, asks the question: “What happens to the consumer economy when you take away the consumers who are not working?” And what will happen to much of the infrastructure that supports the world of work as we know it—from the building of suburban communities supported by a commuter working force to the endless rows of office buildings?

It also means, says Richard Freeman, a leading labor economist at Harvard University, that far more people need to “own the robots” inclusive of other kinds of automation and digital technologies in general. Some mechanisms already exist in profit-sharing programs and employee stock-ownership plans. Other practical investment programs can be envisioned, he says.

Whoever owns the capital will benefit as robots and AI inevitably replace many jobs. If the rewards of new technologies go largely to the very richest, as has been the trend in recent decades, then dystopian visions could become reality. But the machines are tools, and if their ownership is more widely shared, the majority of people could use them to boost their productivity and increase both their earnings and their leisure. If that happens, an increasingly wealthy society could restore the middle-class dream that has long driven technological ambition and economic growth.

The concept of a “living income” also allows us to keep the wheels of the economy and innovation turning. “A fundamental insight of economics is that an entrepreneur will only supply goods or services if there is a demand, and those who demand the good can pay,” writes the Center for Internet and Society expert Andew Rens.

Progress depends, in no small way, on people buying stuff, and that depends on them having an income. A living income isn’t completely without precedent. In the 1970s, a five-year basic income program in the Canadian province of Manitoba called Mincome showed promising results. Parents spent more time raising children. Students showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. Hospital visits, mental illness, car accidents, and domestic abuse cases all declined. And in the end, total working hours only slipped by a few percentage points. In other words, having a basic income didn’t lead to sloth or indolence. It let people spend time on the things that mattered: family, education, health, personal fulfillment.

Whatever the reasons for the disconnect between productivity and wage growth, it’s a problem for everyone, not just workers. Rich people like their money, but who wants to live in a world where the haves hide in cloistered communities defended by private armies, while starving haves-not work for peanuts, if at all? To date, we have chosen to distribute society’s resources largely based on our ability and willingness to work. We appear to be rapidly evolving to a world where assets, not labor, are the primary driver of prosperity. So the question is: How can we move toward an economy that equitably distributes benefits in an asset-based economy?

Jerry Kaplan, author of Humans Need Not Apply: A Guide to Wealth and Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, says the problem of the lack of connection between increased productivity and stagnant wage growth is a serious problem for the economy, a trend that feeds income inequality. Do we want to see our society as portrayed in the movie Solyent Green, in which the haves hide in clustered communities defended by private armies, while starving have-nots work for peanuts, if at all?

Will Government’s Role Become More Substantial?

New technologies created by AI and robotics will be fed with capital, so it can be assumed under the current free-market capital system the profits from these industries will accrue to the same wealthy individuals and corporations, and not find their way into the hands of the rest of the population. What then becomes the role of government, one purpose for, is to ensure the well being of all its citizens? One proposal to address this issue is for government to provide a guaranteed income to all adults (who are also consumers).

The concept of a universal income without universal work will be terrifying to many political conservatives. A modified solution could be for government to pay people to do something,–including education– rather than nothing, which again raises the fear of socialism in America. In both the U.S. and Canada, recent debate has raged about the minimum wage. But while the debate on whether or not workers should be paid a minimum wage, Finland is considering giving every citizen, regardless of income or employment status, around $850 a month. The idea behind the plan — called “basic income” — is that it would replace all other welfare and would serve as a replacement for all other government benefits.

Governments will have to deal with the reality of the end of retirement. Forget quitting at age 65. As life expectancy lengthens, people will be expected to work longer. Governments are already struggling to afford pensions for longer living population and people find it harder to make their retirement savings stretch. It’s likely first that retirement will become gradual, and then extended to 67 or 70 within 20 years. This also presents challenges for employers in initiatives to ensure older workers are productive. And there is a myth that older workers are less capable or productive, which is not born out by research.

How Then Do We Define Work and Its Value?

Prior to the 20th century, in English the term “job” connoted fragmented, low-quality piece-work. But through time we elevated some of these to the status of “real jobs” and rewarding the minority who performed them as job-holders.

Peter Frase, author of Four Futures: Life After Capitalism, describes how automation will change North America, based on his argument that human labor will end, along with our belief and commitment to “work for work’s sake.” Many experts would argue that for some time now, jobs have not been motivating or rewarding for most people, as evidenced by studies that how as many as 70% of workers are not engaged in their jobs. The modern quest for meaningful work underpins a paradox—we are both disengaged from our jobs and terrified of losing them.

For decades, psychologists and other experts have demonstrated intrinsic factors—purpose, meaning, creativity, fulfillment and autonomy—are actually absent in the typical job today. Several studies have shown that North Americans place a higher value on work and work more hours than Europeans, and feel guilty when they are not productive. This emphasis will exacerbate the problem of the disappearance of jobs from the lives of many. Will the vacuum be replaced—as has often been forecasted—by leisure time? One such possibility would be the development of creative communities such as “maker spaces” or industrial shops of artisans in small communities.

One theory of work proposes that people see themselves in jobs, careers or callings. People who say their work is “just a job” emphasize that they are working for money rather than aligning themselves with any higher purpose. People who pursue a calling don’t do it for status or pay but for the intrinsic fulfillment of the work itself.

There was a time when work and home were distinct realms. The old industrial clock regulated our lives into discrete blocks of time, and a separation between public and private life. No longer. The constant connectivity of mobile, digital technologies erases the boundaries of the week and weekend, and their characteristic social relations. How will we maintain the line between “my time” and “employers’ time?”

In his Harvard Business Review article, “Create a Meaningful Life Through Meaningful Work,” author Umair Haque writes, “Maybe the real depression we’ve got to contend with isn’t merely one of how much economic output we’re generating – but what we’re putting out there and why. Call it a depression of human potential, a tale of human insignificance being willfully squandered.”

Recent studies from research at McKinsey conclude that providing meaningful work to employees was the most important contributing factor to a high level of engagement. In her book, The Progress Principle, author Teresa Amabile reports that of all the events that can deeply engage people in their work, the single most important factor was meaningful work. According to Amabile, “Beyond affecting the well-being of employees, research shows that the ‘inner work life’ affects the bottom line.”

A Dystopian or Utopian Future?

Concepts of utopia and dystopia represent imaginary societies in which people live their life either in a perfect environment, governed by the laws that provide happiness to everyone, or in an oppressive society that is ruled by repressive and controlled state. Origin of these concepts can be traced to the year of 380BC, when Greek philosopher Plato released his influential political dialogue called “Republic”. In it, he first postulated the main themes of utopian society and his visions of the perfect Greek city-state that provided stable life for all of its citizens.

The modern world “Utopia” came to life during early years of 16th century, in the work of the famous English philosopher Thomas Moore. His description of utopian society gave birth to enormous wave of utopian thought that influenced the life and works of many future philosophers and novelist, and helped in the creation of several important political movements (most notably socialism).

Utopias that were envisioned by the minds of those authors can most easily be divided in several distinct categories, all based on the means of their creation – Ecology utopia, Economic utopia, Political utopia, Religious utopia, Feminists utopia and Science and technological utopia. 19th century gave the birth of the largest wave of utopian thought the world has ever seen. Numerous novelist and philosophers focused their careers on the exploration of those themes, and result of their work influenced the audiences across the entire world. Most notable utopian novel from that period was without a doubt Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy.

Not all examples of utopian life were set in the theory. Some people tried to realize the dreams postulated in the work of several philosophers, and so the age of utopian societies came to life. During the 19th century, over a dozen utopian societies were established in the United States, and few of them managed to survive even to today.

End of 19th century brought the rise of Dystopian thought. Numerous philosophers and authors imagined the dark visions of the future where totalitarian rulers governed the life of ordinary citizens. Their works explored many themes of dystopian societies – repressive social control systems, government coercion of citizens, influence of technology on human mind, coping mechanisms, individuality, freedom of life and speech, censorship, sexual repression, class distinctions, artificial life and human interaction with the nature (and often the consequences of its destruction).

Some of the earliest and influential works of dystopian fiction can be contributed to the authors H.G. Wells (Time Machine), Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and George Orwell (Nineteen Eighty-Four). Their works paved the way to the numerous other authors, who even today manage to envision some new aspect of life in dystopian societies. In addition to literature, dystopian themes found life in many other types of mediums, such as comic books (most notably V for Vendetta, Transmetropoliten, Y: The Last Man and Akira), music, video games (Fallout, Deus Ex and BioShock ) television series (The Prisoner, Dark Angel, Doctor Who and Twilight Zone) and movies (Metropolis, Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange and The Matrix).

It is difficult to predict with accuracy how technology will shape our future, to what extent it will be used in favor of the citizen and the public good. What has become clear is that it has fallen upon society to assume responsibility for the way technology is used—including to protect individual identity and privacy from governments and corporations.

Technology is not the solution to hunger, war and poverty, but merely a tool. Society can no longer meekly adopt it without thinking of the repercussions of particular advances. Rather, we must actively ensure that it enhances our quality of life the way we had hoped it would. If not, technology will keep advancing but society will lag behind.

Questions to Consider

“The central question of 2025,” insists GigaOM lead researcher Stowe Boyd, “ What are people going to do in a world that does not need their labor, and where only a minority are needed to guide the robot-based economy?”
How do we keep the economy humming when jobs themselves have grown obsolete?
How do people support themselves?
What does it mean to be productive member of society in a post-job world?
How do we define work?

The End of Jobs As We Have Known Them

Posted September 9th, 2012 in Articles, Blogs by admin

You can’t pick up a newspaper these days, or watch a news media broadcast that is not mentioning the problem of unemployment and job loss in the economy. For most observers, the problem is often oversimplified as a result of the recession, and we only need policies to return those jobs. The reality is that we are witnessing the end of jobs as we have known them.

Mike Dorning, in his article in Bloomberg Businessweek cites U.S. employment data that is frightening. The portion of all men holding any kind of job in the U.S. is 63.5%, the lowest figure since 1948. Among prime working-age men between 25 and 54, 81% hold jobs. In comparison in 1969, 95% of men in the prime working years had a job. The temporary placement company in the U.S., Adecco, predicts that the rate of growth in contingent workers will be 3-4 times the growth rate of traditional jobs and will soon comprise at least 30% or more of the global workforce.

Sara Horowitz, founder and CEO of Freelancers Union, argues that the jobless future is already here. She points out that many people are already combining part-time work just to get by. In an article in Atlantic magazine, Horowitz says that as of 2005, a full 30% of the workforce has participated in this “freelance economy,” and entrepreneurial activity has reached an all time high in 2010. Dana Shaw, former senior Vice-President for Staffing Industry Analysts, reported that in the Fortune 100 companies, contingent workers make up 20-30% of the workforce, but predicts it will soon be 50%. Statistics Canada reported that by 2009, 52% of all temporary jobs were contract jobs, 25% of them were professionals. The permanent full time jobs that were jettisoned during the recession are not likely to return. McKinsey &Co. reported that 65% of U.S. corporations have restructured their workforce and have no plans to return to pre-recession employment, but rather are opting for contingent and contract work when the need for expansion takes place.

Marshall Brain, writing in his informative blog, cites the explosive growth in the use of robotics–not on the assembly line but in ordinary retail businesses, including McDonalds, Home Depot, and others. Brain cites the principle of Moore’s Law–that CPU power in microprocessor chips doubles every 18 to 24 months–to support his argument that a massive number of jobs will be replaced by technology and never return. He forecasts that almost all construction, manufacturing, transportation, wholesale, retail, and hotel and restaurant jobs will be lost to automation by the year 2050. This would create unemployment levels of up to 50%.

Besides the negative impact of increased unemployment, the expansion of temporary work has other downsides. One of the biggest hurdles that will have to be overcome for contingent work to be dominant is the predominant attitude in organizations that contract workers are less important or less competent, and less committed than “permanent” workers. Contingent work also is accompanied by a lack of benefits such as health, life and disability insurance. Some experts would argue that the growth of contingent and contract jobs contributes to the growing problem of income gap between the wealthy and the rest of society, as contract workers tend to be paid less and earn less than permanent workers. People who don’t earn as much money or have less economic security tend to spend less as consumers, which has a general negative impact on the economy.  A second argument, which is reflected in an OECD report, is that contingent and part-time work produces more stress for these workers, who may be continually fearful of loss of employment. This in turn, has potential health cost implications for the organizations.

Many economists argue that the current economic problem is lack of consumer demand—the lack of money to spend on stuff. But with the increasing decline of the middle class who spends most of that money, the problem won’t be solved any time soon. So while politicians and business leaders chant for more jobs, the real issue is economic inequality to support sustained growth. It’s not likely that the 45 million people at the poverty level in the U.S. will drive its economy to new prosperity.

Is there an upside to the movement toward contingent and contract work?

Daniel Pink, author of Free Agent Nation, prepared us for this scenario in 2001. Pink described the emergence of “Supertemps,”—top managers and professionals, trained at the top schools, who have chosen to pursue contract work over regular employment.

While the recession and global economic conditions may be a reason for contingent workers, increasingly more people are choosing contract work for the following reasons:

  • The desire for better life-work balance;
  • The opportunity to create and manage their careers;
  • The opportunity to learn and master new skills continually.

Derek Sankey, reporting for the Calgary Herald, cites a Strategic Council survey, which shows 62% of Baby Boomers making more than $80,000/yr. chose contract work versus 37% who chose full time regular employment. New types of talent brokers such as Your Encore, an online network of retired and veteran scientists and engineers, or Innocentive, which offers crowdsourcing services to companies with innovation challenges, connects free agents with project-based work in the virtual marketplace or Guru.com and Freelancer.com which provides opportunities to buy and sell professional contract work.

The growth of contingent and contract work is also related to how work is viewed conceptually. The fast-moving, technologically dynamic global economy has forced leaders to think about work in modular, every shifting ways. Organizations that can adapt, change and innovate quickly have an advantage today. Contingent and contract workers can facilitate this change.

Josh Bersin, President and CEO of Bersin & Associates, a talent management company, wrote a insightful article on the issue, arguing, “jobs are turning into roles, roles are becoming more specialized and the new currency of value is expertise, not simply experience.” How we have envisioned what a job is history. It was a functional role defined by a set of skills, or competencies that carried out a specific function, and along with it came a title and career path that was clearly defined. Job descriptions were written and people were hired to them and the HR function was created to manage the process. Bersin has coined the term “the borderless workplace,” which means workers work seamlessly inside and outside organizations, adapting to change in world conditions.

Penelope Trunk, writing in her popular blog on the workplace, contends that we will see the end of what we conceive of as “office life,” within a short time and that employers will increasingly view all their employees as “consultants” to facilitate flexible hours and project based work; and we will see the end of the traditional career path and organizational hierarchies.

Douglas Rushkoff, author of Life Inc: How the World Became a Corporation and How To Take It Back, was interviewed by CNN.com. He proposed the notion that jobs are obsolete. He argues that it’s not a bad thing that technology is replacing jobs. Part of the public discourse has focused on employment as the solution to economic growth, but countries have in fact focused on productivity through technology not human labor, Rushkoff contends. The U.S. and Canada is productive enough to provide everyone sufficient shelter, food, education and health care without increased employment. The problem is the proceeds of productivity–economic wealth–are not equitably distributed. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that there is enough food produced in the world to provide the entire world’s population with 2,720 calories per day. Yet every 6 seconds a child dies from malnutrition.

So is the problem that we don’t have enough “stuff” for everyone or that we don’t have enough ways for people to work and prove they deserve the stuff?

Let’s remember that the concept of jobs is a relatively new idea. People may have always worked, but until the advent of corporate business in the Renaissance, most people worked for themselves. The advent of the Industrial Age made most jobs as menial and unskilled as possible. As technology in factories was used to increase production and use less labor, so too has digital technology supplanted jobs. One of the biggest problems we face today is how to create full employment while pursuing technology that is intended to replace it.

Most work today is knowledge work, not making stuff. Knowledge work is a creative activity. Part of the issue of resolving the job-work issue is accepting basic human rights about essential stuff–food, shelter and health–and focusing work on the value we create that makes life meaningful, purposeful and fun.

One thing is for sure, the problem of unemployment and our view of work and jobs is undergoing a revolution, not just a minor hiccup or temporary recession.


Comments Off on Is hating your job worse than losing it?

Is hating your job worse than losing it?

Posted June 26th, 2011 in Articles, Blogs by admin

Losing your job can be a traumatic experience for many people. Indeed, recent research shows that job loss for men is more stressful than divorce. But new insights show that people may be more resilient than previously thought. Also a job you hate may cause more stress than unemployment.

A new study, conducted by Kate Strully, a Robert Wood Johnson Health and Society Scholar at Harvard School of Public Health, has found that losing your job can make you sick. She found that “job churning,” defined as high rates of job loss but low unemployment, has negative health consequences for workers who are not already sick, indicating the odds of reporting poor health increased by 54%. In addition, Strully commented that unlike the results of job loss due to an establishment closure, when health effects were analyzed based on workers who were fired or laid off, significant differences were found based on the workers’ occupations. While being fired or laid off or leaving a job voluntarily more than doubles the odds of a fair or poor health report among blue-collar workers, whereas such job displacements have no significant association with the health reports of white-collar workers.

“As we consider ways to improve health in American during a time of economic recession and rising unemployment, it is critical that we look beyond health care reform to understand the tremendous impact that factors like job loss have on our health,” says David R. Williams, Norman Professor of Public Health at Harvard University.

Yet, while losing your job is a profoundly distressing experience, the unemployed may be more resilient than previously believed, according to Issaac Galatzer-Levy of the New York University School of Medicine, who published his research in the Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics. The research examined people who had lost their job over a long period–from 3 years before job loss to 4 years after job loss. The largest group (69%) who had high and stable levels of life satisfaction before losing their jobs, within a year of losing their jobs had regained their level of life satisfaction, whether or not they were employed. The lowest well being group (4%) were those who had low levels of life satisfaction before job loss and it continued for up to 3 years after job loss.

George Bonanno, a psychology professor at Columbia University and part of he research team says, “We’ve looked at other traumatic events such as the death of a loved one, terrorist attack, traumatic injury, and we generally see high proportions of resilience…This suggests that people are more stressed out when they fear losing their jobs than they are when they actually get laid off.”

According to research conducted in Australia and reported in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine journal, the impact on mental health of a badly paid, poorly supported or short term job can be as harmful as no job at all.

Because being in work is associated with better mental health than unemployment, government policies have tended to focus on the risks posed by joblessness, without necessarily considering the impact the quality of a job may have. The researchers base their findings on seven separate studies of more than 7000 people. Not unexpectedly, those who were unemployed had poorer mental health, overall, than those in work. But after taking into account a range of factors such as educational attainment and marital status, the mental health of those who were jobless was comparable to, or often better than, that of people in work, but in poor quality jobs.

Those in the poorest quality jobs experienced the sharpest decline in mental health over time. There was a direct linear association between the number of unfavorable working conditions experienced and mental health, with each additional adverse condition lowering the mental health score. And the health benefits of finding a job after a period of worklessness depended on the quality of the job. Job quality in fact predicted the mental health score.

“Work first policies are based on the notion that any job is better than none as work promotes economic as well as personal well being,” the researchers concluded, “but psychosocial job quality is a pivotal factor that needs to be considered in the design and delivery of employment and welfare policy.”