Slashdot Mirror


The Brave New World of Work

In the The Brave New World of Work, Ulrich Beck argues that the work society as we've known it is coming to an end. More and more people are ousted from their jobs by smart technologies. In the United States, all the but the highest-level workers are now unsure of their jobs and incomes. The idea of middle-class security is eroding, and so -- Beck believes they are related -- is worker enthusiasm for democratic practices like voting. Work here and in much of the West is increasingly resembling labor patterns in the Third World -- fluid, part-time, entrepeneurial, free-lance, self-directed. The idea of the "job for life" has disappeared, temporarily creating a political economy of insecurity. Down the road, he argues, this new kind of work society may actually be good for the world, creating a new kind of civil transnationalism, and enhancing our freedom and our civic lives. The Brave New World of Work author Ulrich Beck pages 202 publisher Polity Press rating 8/10 reviewer Jon Katz ISBN 0-7456-2398-0 summary The end of the work society

Beck has written a surprising and provocative book about how working is changing radically under our very noses with little serious discussion in our media or political communities. We see stories all the time about employment rates, but most people have little or no sense of the radical changes affecting the nature of work.

Work has become unstable throughout the modern world, writes Beck, a professor of sociology at the Ludwig Maximillian University of Munich. Skills can be suddenly devalued, jobs obliterated, social and welfare safety nets eroded. Companies merge, collapse, form and reform, often at the expense of their workers.

Fear and economic insecurity prevail among the middle-class majority as well as the underclass, writes Beck. "The United States is the only advanced country where productivity has constantly risen over the past twenty years, while the income of most of its citizens (eight out of ten) has either stagnated or declined. The average weekly earnings of 80 per cent of Americans in gainful employment dropped by roughly 18 per cent between l973 and l995, he reports, from $315 to $258 a week. At the same time, the real income of top managers soared by 19 per cent in just ten years between 1979 and 1989.

As entire industries rise or fall, as firms expand, shrink, separate, "downsize" and restructure, employees at all but the highest levels must go to work each day without knowing whether they will have their jobs or for how long. The newly unstable work society leads to the erosion of the middle-class and in our collective interest in civics. According to Beck, decline in civic participation and voting is directly tied to the decline of work society, which he says is closely linked to worker attitudes about democracy.

Is this all bleak? No, according to Beck. Although the loss of work security creates a temporary loss of security and social capital, he believes that down the road, this individuality and freedom -- much of it empowered by the same technology that has eroded work security -- will create a new kind of global citizen, one who is better informed, more communicative and civically-involved than before. He foresees a more inclusive kind of transnational society, with less nationalism and provincialism. The alternative facing the world is either collapse or political self-renewal, and he foresees the latter.

It's an interesting look at a subject that will affect almost every single American whose lives are being shaped by powerful technological forces they sense but don't quite understand. Work is a critical subject, and technology is changing it. In Brave New World of Work Beck helps us understand how and gives us some sense of how the new workplace might affect our futures.

You can purchase Brave New World of Work at Fatbrain.

31 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. technology by perdida · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Technology has enabled me to write things that thousands of people read on the Internet. People actually go to the site to read what I and others have wrote. In the old days I'd have had to build a huge marketing and advertising and distribution enterprise to do this.

    I think that if our schools trained people in how to work for themselves in the world of information, the new tech would support more people than it limits.

    If it was "natural" for people to use self-published informational websites for much of their research, and to pay those people, then there would be lots more useful information on the Net and many more knowledgeable people supported by the Net.

    It is our culture that trains us to use technologies in conservative ways -- as consumers or in support of traditional workplace methods-- rather than to create completely new information-centered industries.

    1. Re:technology by Rocketboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technology has enabled me to write things that thousands of people read on the Internet.

      How much are you paid to perform this service? How does it contribute to the economic welfare of your household? In broader terms, while it may be quite satisfying to you as an individual, how does it increase the welfare or economic wealth of whatever society in which you participate?

      Just doing it isn't the issue; what we too often don't ask is why and what are the consequences? Ultimately, if no one adds material value to society then, regardless of the spiritual or cultural value of that society, it can not survive. There's a reason for the stereotype of the 'starving artist'. American society in particular and Western society in general is dependant upon the continual creation of new wealth. If the rewards of creating that new wealth are not seen as being reasonably fairly distributed but perhaps hoarded by an elite few, the wealth creation engine will slow or stop as unrewarded participants drop out. In the past the distibution mechanism was the periodic paycheck, along with important sundries such as affordable health care, education, markets in which to spend the wealth, and perhaps most importantly, managed expectations (a new car, a home of one's own, a chicken in every pot, college for the kids and an opportunity for one's offspring to do better for themselves.) That seems to be changing and, like all changes to fundamental societal mechanisms, the change will bring with it disruption, anger, resentment, and possibly violence. One would think that after a few thousand years of recorded history we'd have learned to manage our way through these periodic upheavals but no, here we go again.

  2. The "NEW" Economy by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was one of the 75,000 or so laid of by Lucent Technologies. I have witnessed first hand the processes described above, and let me tell you, it isn't pretty at all. I consider it a slap in the face the way things are occuring in this economy. Gone forever (it seems) are the days when people were respected for the work that was done, as opposed to the bottom line, cut-throat corporate world we are living in now. Looking out for number 1 used to not be my highest priority, being able to go home at night knowing I did a damned good job was. Boy how that has changed. I work for myself now, as an independant contractor, and life is much better. I have been burned once, and you will never see me burned again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:The "NEW" Economy by alister667 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Personally I'm looking forward to the day the majority of people (and me specifically) don't have to work. I wonder what the Government will think up to keep us all busy then?
      Work, who needs it. Mind you it is near the end of the week, and I am a little pissed off.

      --
      We ARE the peat bog soldiers.
    2. Re:The "NEW" Economy by jthill · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But there's one thing missing from the process here: the historical justification for the owner taking the lion's share of the profit has been that he took a similar share of the risk. Now the profits are concentrating on the wealthy, and the risks on the working class -- i.e. everybody who can't live on dividends, interest and capital gains.

      That's the political change that has to take place: capitalism has to distribute profit and risk equitably; as Jon says the book points out, nobody wants to play the role of pre-appointed loser.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    3. Re:The "NEW" Economy by cgleba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Technology now changes too fast for someone to spend 40 years fastening rivets or programming personal computers that run Windows."

      Changing technology and the need for changing worker skill does not necessitate laying off workers as you imply. From what I have read in Japan large firms hire workers based mostly on thier ability to learn and adapt and then shuffle them around. Two years they'll work in sales next two years they'll work in engineering. You don't have "programmers" and "salespeople", you have an employees for company X.

      This, along with the massive diversification of keiretsus (sp?) allow companies to have a very mobile work force that can fill in the needs of technology very quickly. That way they can give jobs for life in light of changing technology. You have to remember that the same keiretsu makes everything from canned tuna to cars to stereos to construction equipment (Mistubishi, etc) and handles it's own banking. It is the keiretsus that compete.

    4. Re:The "NEW" Economy by delcielo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact is, you can still learn a trade, work 40 hours, and provide for your family. We've just begun to see the world through the filtered lenses of our own subculture. Not everybody is (or wants to be) associated with the tech world. I know ranchers who still ride fences by horseback on land their great-grandfathers ranched. They're as bright and intelligent as any IT geek I've met; and have about as much use for a computer as a hole in the head. Tech isn't suited for everything. The fact is, they seem to be much happier than you and I are.

      I know 3rd generation utility linemen whose job security has increased in linear fashion with the rise in the tech culture. That's still a trade in the old sense; and you can certainly provide for your family that way. There are myriad other examples.

      The book, if Katz characterized it properly, is probably an example of overanalysis. The world is simply too complex to say that "tech is causing societal insecurity, and that's why we're losing our jobs right and left, and we all need to be able to do all things to survive. etc."

      Just look at a few of the other things that have happened in the same time frame as the tech boom of the last 50 years. The Cold War ended. Many /. readers probably have no real appreciation for what that means. They've never in their lives worried about being killed by anything, much less by a missile launched half-way across the world by cajoling, angry dictator. It all may seem like so much idiocy now; but it was a constant and real threat back then. Read Michael Beschloss' "The Crisis Years" to understand just how close we came to doing it. It will give you nightmares.

      The political landscape is about as different from 1952 as night and day. Eisenhower would be chewed to bits these days, as would Kennedy for that matter. We used to be interested in helping our presidents run the country. We used to accept that he couldn't solve every problem, or always agree with us.

      The religious landscape is different as well, with some sects returning to more fundamentalist views, and other becoming more... well, I hate to use the word, but... liberal.

      Again, there are myriad other examples. Tech is only one little piece of our society. It's not even the most important, necessarily.

      We (meaning us tech workers) need to show a bit more humility in the world. If the farmers quit, and the coal miners give up, the truck drivers decide to pack it in, we'll be useless and meaningless.

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    5. Re:The "NEW" Economy by battjt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So work for a US "keiretsus", like IBM, CTG, EDS, SIAC, etc.

      Similarly, unions are essentially large contract firms added a bit of stability to the lives of the worker in trade for a slice of the pie.

      Personally, I'd rather take the risk and for reward for job instability. I manage the risk personally, instead of trusting someone else.

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
  3. Robert Anton Wilson talked about this by revscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More and more people are ousted from their jobs by smart technologies.

    Although I am no longer the fan of Robert Anton Wilson that I once was (despite the fact that I killed him), he spoke about this phenomenon in (IIRC) "Prometheus Rising". He felt that the increased automization of menial tasks would lead to a more educated society. Since all the "dumb jobs" would be taken over by computers, robots, etc., in order to survive people would have to educate themselves on tasks that cannot be performed by automatons.

    This seems to be happening, at least to a degree, although there is another factor at work as well: cheap (nonunionized) international labor. There seems to be a point at which exploiting overseas workers is about as cheap as building a robot, sometimes cheaper.

    1. Re:Robert Anton Wilson talked about this by vandelais · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work in the financial services industry and it's not the 'dumb jobs' (i.e. manufacturing) jobs that go overseas.
      India has a billion people, many of whom speak English. Many call center jobs are going over there (in my division, 1/2 of the jobs in my field are going over there and other countries in the Far East in the next 6 months). These are not menial jobs. They are complex jobs that require good English and awareness of America's financial industry laws and practices.
      Whether they are union for us is irrelevant.

      What is relevant is the ability to staff phone lines and processing workloads for major corporations on a 24 hour basis. Technology helps make this happen. They will process scanned in account applications, take instructions from clients, and research archives that are based on scanned paperwork. The workers there are not robots, they are intelligent human beings that are operating under wage circumstances that are so far below the United States/rest of Western World that a global economic reality regression to the mean will mean empowerment for those workers and a declining work climate for us.

      I do not have advanced work skills. I am a very intelligent person who made some occupational and educational choices (music) that do not benefit my current or future employement. I am not at an entry level job in the financial industry, although it is not very far from it; it is somewhere in between. I stand to lose my job to these very talented people and it is empowering for them to do this work; it is hard to argue that they are being exploited. That is my view from the inside although it is very much a view that I would like not to have because it obviously is a detriment to my personal future.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  4. For a few, perhaps by sphealey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Although the loss of work security creates a temporary loss of security and social capital, he believes that down the road, this individuality and freedom -- much of it empowered by the same technology that has eroded work security -- will create a new kind of global citizen, one who is better informed, more communicative and civically-involved than before.
    People at the very top of the income, education, and internal self-direction scales tend to make claims of this nature. Sure, if you have a degree from Oxford/MIT/Tokyo, or rank very high in ambition or self-motivation, this type of world is a great place to live. Lose your job in New York? No problem - lots of openings in Sydney. I'll just call my college roommate in the AU Foreign Office and get the ball rolling.

    The fact is (just as with Lake Woebegon), the vast majority of humans are average. They prefer stability and order to chaos and "opportunity". And the other fact is that in North America these orderly, stable, average people have built the civil society that we have today (Kabul anyone? Bagota? Jo'burg?) So now the cultural and economic elite is going to destroy any hope of economic stability to "improve opportunity".

    Isn't there an old proverb that goes, "Be careful of what you wish for - you may receive it"?

    sPh

    1. Re:For a few, perhaps by sphealey · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Okay, frankly, those are the only people I really care about progressing in the world anyways. I'm not sure what your point is. I couldn't give two flying shits for those with no ambition or self-motivation.
      First, I wasn't talking about those with no education or self-motivation. If we assume that these traits are (like most things) distributed 20-60-20, I am talking about the 60% in the middle, not the 20% at the bottom. The bottom 20% is an entirely different discussion.

      But the overall point of my post, which you seem to have missed, is this: If you are in the top 20%, great. Go to it. Earn a billion USD. But if in the process of doing so you take away the opportunity for the middle 60% to have a rasonable stable, satisfying, productive life (e.g. the archtypical "Joe Sixpack" in his 3 bedroom ranch), then you will most likely reap the whirlwind in the form of the destruction of the stable social order. Remember that the middle 60 outnumbers you at least 3-1.

      A pretty high price to pay to provide extra "opportunity" for a few at the top, I would say.

      sPh

    2. Re:For a few, perhaps by Ldir · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I couldn't give two flying shits for those with no ambition or self-motivation. If you can't get yourself to spend the time to improve, screw you, those that wish to improve will survive,and you'll starve.

      In other words, "Let them eat cake"? Sounds pretty elitist to me.

      If too many of the "elite" start thinking like this, we may all get a hard lesson in class warfare. Thanks mostly to the unconstrained greed of the "elite," the gap between the haves and the have-nots is bigger than ever, and it continues to grow. There ratio of haves to have-nots is also decreasing, i.e., the number of "elites" is shrinking while the ranks of the rabble swell. If you rub their noses in your success, show them your scorn, publically declare that you don't give "two flying shits" for them, sooner or later, a bunch of them will mill together and hand you your head.

      The masses are a sleeping giant. Most people may not be very ambitious by your standards, but if you push too hard, if you make them angry, they may just get up off their collective butts and decide they've had enough. No matter how superior you may think you are, when you're outnumbered 1000 to 1, you're toast.

      Look at the history of the world. How many regimes have been toppled because arrogant rulers thought the peasants were powerless?

      Leave room in your brave new world for the well-being of the rest of humanity, or you too may become a lesson for future generations.

  5. Enhancing our freedom and civic lives? by sofar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Down the road, he argues, this new kind of work society may actually be good for the world, creating a new kind of civil transnationalism, and enhancing our freedom and our civic lives.

    Well, this looks very promising, but statistics and experience in Europe show people actually do less back to society in the form of volunteer work, societies and non profit organisations. My guess is the free work base we have laid out actually means we like our work better, but have less time and enthousiasm to do something back.

    More and more people need day care for their children, health care jobs (the typical jobs-for-life) are very unattractive at the moment in the netherlands and shortages of personell are high, and costs for non-profit organisations are rising with prices so they cannot keep up with it anymore.

    My point is there is also a down-side. We haven't explored the effects of this since we are in the middle of it (at least, in Europe and the US). The good thing is the typical work-80h-a-week-til-death stereotype in the US is fading, just as it has done in Europe, although it was less present there IMO. The down side of all this future will certainly surprise us.

  6. Re:Tech workers in for rude surprises by 2015 by Turgon33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    by 2015 computers will be fast enough that point-and-drool paint-by-numbers tools will be available to rapidly and idiotically autogenerate most of the code you write today with no discernable performance loss

    so... who writes the "point-and-drool" tools?

  7. Technology making us more civic minded! by bjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ha! The technology that Beck so cheerfully says will create a 'global citizen' is being increasingly (and has always been used) to further, not erode oppression.

    Instant communication?

    Witness the WTO meetings: All Joe and Jane Average ever saw were images of raging anarchists bent on destruction of all that is good, followed by 15 minutes of commercials for gas-guzzling SUV's they don't need, hamburgers they shouldn't be eating and diet schemes they wouldn't need if they didn't eat those hamburgers and actually got their lazy asses out of the SUV's once in a while and got some excercize.

    This technology has been advancing at a dizzying rate, as has the dehumanization of the lower and middle classes has accellerated.

    But so long as the tevee drones on soothing crap about Rachel and Raymond, they don't care that things are really going to hell around them.

    Not 'till it knocks on _their_ front doors, and it's too late then.

  8. U wuz outsourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There still is plenty of "job for life," it's government work at any level, including those stupid schoolteachers.


    What unionized gov't workers have done is outsourced all unionized manufacturing jobs through their hero Bill Clinton, NAFTA and GATT, anyone. That's why total union membership has stabilized, gov't workers are now the primary union members.


    But gov't is being downsized, one level will be wiped out. The federal level will always be with us, but in each state, the local levels are being squeezed. In Michigan, even property taxes are collected at the state level, the county road repair is being taken over by the state, and the local elected school boards no longer decide any policy, they just implement state policy. You're not even allowed to run for the school board unless you're state certified.

  9. Mercenaries by under_score · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm 30. I was one of the first people I know among my cohort to embrace the idea of becoming a mercenary for work. But over the last two years, more and more people my age, and younger are also taking that attitude: if the work doesn't suit me, I don't do it, ... and ... I decide the value of my work and my attitude and work ethic reflect that. Basically, salaried employees are slacking in response to perceived slights or injustices, or even based on what they think they are worth. Many of these things have existed among the "lazy" for many years, but they are becoming acceptable among the rank and file. That said, I am very sad about this. To me, ideally work should be a way of serving humanity, not serving myself. I think that any job, position, industry, etc. can be looked at and done with an attitude of serving humanity. The problem seems to be that corporations are going in the exact opposite direction and the response is therefore mercenary. Corporations (stockholders) always, always end up winning as compared to their employees. The stockholders are perfect mercenaries of capital, and to me it was only a matter of time before that attitude was learned and reflected in the employees. I haven't read this book, but I have read other similar works (e.g. Jeremy Rifkin has some stuff about this). It seems inevitable to me that in a capitalist environment this would happen. It also seems inevitable in a communist envionrment tho for different reasons. I personally think that we have to change the nature of our approach to education so that children grow up learning to serve humanity. Mind you, I'm sure lots of other people think that everyone becoming mercenary is a great thing...

  10. Re:Sadly, it's all about IQ - not! by prisonernumber7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This just goes to show the overwhelming importance of intelligence - people with low IQs can't compete in a high-tech economy. While this is a tragedy in our lifetime, in the near future, all children will be genetically engineered to be what we would consider to be geniuses [although, to their peers, the will be simply average], and the playing field will be level again.

    Absolutely not in my opinion. The emphasis once more is being geared on education - good education, that you pay for. In my country they just introduced study-taxes which apply to attendees of universities.

    The result of that is that people from the lower class not seldom can not afford to attend an university anymore. Hence they will be suffering from a lesser education in the future. In turn, this means that their kids will not be able to attend an university.. *draws a circle*

    --
    && aemula C. ab stirpe interiit
  11. Agreed, and the masses will be more mollified by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I agree with you and don't believe Katz's Utopian notion of the vibrant global citizen. More likely we'll be seeing a world where the middle class is solidly mollified by an international community that values security and observation, and a captive audience of consumers.

    I don't see any reason why the unwashed masses who sit and drool in front of the TV now won't be sitting and drooling in front of the web.

  12. Acrobatics! by Paolomania · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The newly unstable work society leads to the erosion of the middle-class and in our collective interest in civics. [snip]... will create a new kind of global citizen, one who is better informed, more communicative and civically-involved than before.

    I'd buy the book just to see how he manages this acrobatic leap of logic. I always thought that erosion of participation in civics lead to governmental corruption and that the erosion of the middle class leads to a capitalism-based aristocracy - both of which, IMO, would tend to make joe my-wealth-does-not-grow-exponentially less interested in being a good global citizen, and more interested in kicking the crap out of those that have usurped his freedom.

  13. This is not new by garoush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The idea of middle-class security is eroding" and "fluid, part-time, entrepeneurial, free-lance, self-directed"

    Let me see now, wasn't this how work used to be before the era of big corporation and manufacturing -- i.e.: The Industry Revolution?

    --

    Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
  14. Education is never 'over' by jlower · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keep learning and diversify as much as you can. Be interested in the type of business you work for, even if it doesn't seem to apply to your job.

    My employer (an insurance company) would rather have competent programmers who have a deep understanding of the insurance industry than brilliant programmers who aren't interested in the business.

    There's no particular need for programmers here to have insurance certifications but the bosses take notice when you do.

  15. One day we'll all be out of work... by Saeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One day our technology (nanotech, AI, robotics, etc.) will free us from having to do any real work ourselves.

    But what happens to a society in which no individual NEEDS to work anymore in order to ensure his survival?

    (and what will we do with the landlords? :)

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  16. The future was supposed to be great by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Machines would do all the work, and we'd lead pampered lives of luxury with a standard of living unimagined by previous generations.

    Then, someone realized that if people aren't needed to do the work, rather than taking care of them and letting them live comfortable, fulfilling lives, we can just leave them out of the equation entirely. More profits to the few who are still needed to keep the machines running, and to those who actually own the machines.

    The result? Mass unemployment, mass poverty, mass misery.

    Human beings are becoming obsolete parts of that machine we call The Economy. Those who are still useful only serve to keep fueling the Economy to further render homo sapiens obsolete.

    Once the obsolescence process is complete, there will be an extinction. But don't be too sad about it. The machines which will have replaced us will be a far superior race than we.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:The future was supposed to be great by andrews · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that they still need consumers, and people with no jobs and no money are not consumers.

      Why the interest in China? Consumers.

      No one wants a nation of poor unemployed people, they want people that can affort to buy stuff.

    2. Re:The future was supposed to be great by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the short term consumers are necessary, but even consumerism can be automated. And what's more, it will be far more efficient once it is.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  17. programmers per computer declining? by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The mainframe computers throught 1960s had ten or more programmers per computer. 1970s minicomputers require a couple. Then came the personal computer and the mass software industry. There are now 100 million personal computers (home and business) now in the US at least, plus ten billion embedded computers in cars, appliances, traffic lights, etc. Maybe a million programmers now at the most. So we've seen a steady a drop of programmers per computer from 10 to .0001 in the past 40 years, a factor of 100,000 or a bit slower than moores law.

  18. Bad logic by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sure hand-made code will always have its panache, just like hand-made cars do. How many manufacturers still make cars by hand?

    This is a bad analogy. Making cars is equivalent to burning CDs--it doesn't take much expertise, just follow the template, pop the rivet, answer the wizard.

    The creation of a car starts and ends short of the manufacturing line with the expert manipulations of engineers and designers. Nothing has dumbed down these guys work, if anything, it's gotten more and more complex, and more in demand, as have the tools (CAD/CAM/CAE). Saying that the phase-out of assembly programming will eventually progress to 'easy' programming is like saying the phase-out of drawing boards by CAD will someday make for 'easy' car/skyscraper/cell phone design. I don't see mechanical engineers becoming paint-by-numbers morons by 2015, so how can you apply this idea to an equally complex engineering discipline?

  19. Re:American puritanism and long hours of work by cgleba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "with the except of Japan and Korea".

    Your correct, and to add to your argument I don't know about Kroea but I know in Japan that their "workplace" is not like ours. They spend a lot more hours then we do "at work", but they do not labor the entire time. From what I observed when I was in Japan they look at the workplace as almost a second family. When there's big news they all gather and watch the TV. They excercise in the morning together, etc. "At work" for them does not necessarily mean "working" as we think of it.

    They have a 30 hour work week in France.

    Why, then, do Americans work so damn much? Why do we have pressure to work more even though we are working so much? The only answer I can think of is Marxian with the good old "exploitation of labor", etc.

  20. What is holding the "peasants" down? by roystgnr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll grant you, the difference between someone making $60K and someone making $600K is often an accident of birth... but the difference between $16K and $60K is rarely more than motivation. The "peasants" won't revolt against their economic leaders for the same reason they won't revolt against their political leaders: because democracy and capitalism allow those people who are dissatisfied with their place in the system to change it peacefully. During what other "toppled regime" has that been true?