Why Technology Didn't Produce Increased Leisure

[beechnut79]

The title to this thread says it all. Roughly 50 years ago it was widely assumed that all the advanced technology we today kneel at the feet of but then was still in its infancy if it had arrived at all, would lead us toward a society of increased leisure time. By the time we reached the year 2000 it was predicted that the average work week would be about 30 hours. It is painfully obvious that it hasn't worked out that way. Between the years 1973 and 1990 Americans lost on average some 40 percent of previous leisure time. Here i propose a thoughtful discussion of what transpired during that 17 year interval to make liars of all those futurists who at the time were nearly unanimous in prediction the leisure society. And will we ever that society of increase leisure which we were once all but promised?

[pbrower2a]

The elites appropriated practically all of the benefits of technological improvement. But add to that that commutes got longer in time... and two more hours a day commuting is ten more hours of what most people consider pure drudgery.

[David Horn]

Let me posit the perfect-storm alternative. Look at the era when all this began. We had turmoil on an international scale. 1968 alone was devastating. Add-in the destruction of trust under Nixon, due to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. The Right-to-Work movement began about the same time. Top it off with the first oil embargo in 1973, and most of what passed for institutional stability was under fire from all sides. Into the void stepped the financial elites, who had been waiting in the wings for decades.

The first act: move jobs away from unions, demagogue them so they don't emerge in the their new homes. Since the voices of the powerful economic interests were still given heed, and the use of fear was tried successfully for the first time in decades, people went along. Voices from the public sphere were considered corrupt, and basically ignored. The die was cast.

The real questions:

• Is 45 years of bad getting worse enough to break this paradigm?
• Is Trump enough to finally get the pendulum moving in the opposite direction?

If not, then this is the beginning of oligarchy on, potentially, an international scale. We already have autocrats running several nations. The rich and powerful couldn't be happier … for now, at least.

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2018, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let me posit the perfect-storm alternative.  Look at the era when all this began.  We had turmoil on an international scale.  1968 alone was devastating.  Add-in the destruction of trust under Nixon, due to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.  The Right-to-Work movement began about the same time.  Top it off with the first oil embargo in 1973, and most of what passed for institutional stability was under fire from all sides.  Into the void stepped the financial elites, who had been waiting in the wings for decades.


The first act: move jobs away from unions, demagogue them so they don't emerge in the their new homes.  Since the voices of the powerful economic interests were still given heed, and the use of fear was tried successfully for the first time in decades, people went along.  Voices from the public sphere were considered corrupt, and basically ignored.  The die was cast.

The real questions:

• Is 45 years of bad getting worse enough to break this paradigm?  
  
• Is Trump enough to finally get the pendulum moving in the opposite direction?
  

 If not, then this is the beginning of oligarchy on, potentially, an international scale.  We already have autocrats running several nations.  The rich and powerful couldn't be happier … for now, at least.

The Religious Right and Corporate America have created think-tanks to attract intellectual sell-outs, have groomed politicians like Scott Walker and Pat Toomey, have cultivated popular figures of talk radio such as Rash Limbaugh to put a plain-folks veneer on standard lines of corporate America, have created (FoX Noise Channel) or taken over ("Stinking Liar Broadcasting") news media to transform them into conduits of propaganda, and have even corrupted some colleges. For that, one Florida university got a huge grant from the Koch foundation in return for letting the right-wing Koch interests decide who the economics faculty would be. Mirror-image Marxists, the sorts of people who see a Marxist critique of capitalism and express the idea that such is so good that they want things even more so.

They created a culture in which a pure buffoon could become President. At first those elites were scared because of the often left-wing promises of that buffoon. No problem -- Donald Trump quickly demonstrated his class interests. What do you expect? He's a real-estate baron. Just cut taxes (cuts to school funding through reduced property taxes mean more profits and make people less able to resist propaganda) and give free rein to raise prices or rents.

The Right offers a simple, stark offer: "All for us (tycoons and executives) except what we deem necessary for your bare survival, or you get nothing". This is all in the direction of fascism, which at its worst turns workers into serfs. (Workers as serfs? It's easy to remember the militarism, repression, and genocidal racism of the Third Reich, but less well known that workers could not change employment except if drafted as cannon fodder or with the consent of employers. Nazi Germany had the lowest industrial wages in Europe except perhaps for the Soviet Union, despite having the richest capital stock and excellent technology).

Maybe we Americans are catching on, but are we catching on too late? Trump may be more like Mussolini than like Hitler, but Mussolini took several years to destroy the last traces of democracy. Eventually Mussolini reshaped Italian politics into one in which economic power became the sole source of economic power. Atwater and Rove showed the way but did not quite get there. But they took steps that neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama could fully undo. This is the situation in which Donald Trump operates.

...How long until the political midnight for America, when Big Government and Big Business merge into one brutal, corrupt, repressive entity?

To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

[Galen]

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

When the 'armed populace' is connected to an authoritarian cause as were the Italian Blackshirts, the KKK in the South, Nazis and Commies in Germany around 1930, or Commie "Action Committees' in Czechoslovakia in 1948, then democracy is either dead or moribund. Firearms are usually servants of authoritarian causes.

I have yet to see of any revolution that resulted in democracy that resulted from an armed uprising against a tyrannical regime. Think for example of the anti-Communist revolutions of 1989 -- the Commies had the guns, and the People didn't. Philippines in 1986? Corazon Aquino became the President-elect when the Army and police turned on Marcos in the wake of mass protests. Greek and Portuguese revolutions against military juntas? Basically the result of dissent within the military. Civil rights struggle in the South? The people whose liberty was compromised had been priced out of owning weapons. Indian independence? The British had the guns and were unwilling to use them to maintain power.

Would that the uprisings of Warsaw against Nazi Germany succeeded!

Even in the American Revolution, there was a dispute between the legitimately-elected colonial legislatures and the British overlords. The colonial legislatures won.

Life without liberty is a monstrous absurdity. Firearms are all too often enforcers of that absurdity.

[Galen]

(05-21-2018, 03:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

When the 'armed populace' is connected to an authoritarian cause as were the Italian Blackshirts, the KKK in the South, Nazis and Commies in Germany around 1930, or Commie "Action Committees' in Czechoslovakia in 1948, then democracy is either dead or moribund. Firearms are usually servants of authoritarian causes.

And they inevitably try to keep them out of the hands of the populace to secure their hold on power.  The state has always been an authoritarian institution.

[pbrower2a]

(05-22-2018, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-21-2018, 03:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

When the 'armed populace' is connected to an authoritarian cause as were the Italian Blackshirts, the KKK in the South, Nazis and Commies in Germany around 1930, or Commie "Action Committees' in Czechoslovakia in 1948, then democracy is either dead or moribund. Firearms are usually servants of authoritarian causes.

And they inevitably try to keep them out of the hands of the populace to secure their hold on power.  The state has always been an authoritarian institution.

...and so is practically every private or public bureaucracy. Armed revolts against oppressive elites either fail or (because they are simply power struggles between splintered or competing elites) mere power struggles between authoritarian types.

Liberty, some scholars have suggested, is a quantifiable reality.  The question remains: which liberties are more relevant to what people? For rapacious plutocrats, the definitive freedom is that those plutocrats can monopolize and crush labor disputes.  For a mobster, liberty might come from corrupting the political and legal order and keeping out competition. For a commie, liberty might be the absence of capitalist exploitation. For a slave-owning planter it is that the security of ownership of one's workforce has no challenge. 

But none of these is the Common Man. What is liberty for a factory worker, an office clerk, a cab or bus driver, or a farm laborer? Or if you look at a more middle-class occupation, a schoolteacher or an accountant?


It's easier to describe freedom by describing its absence. 



It takes a great artist to show what freedom means as a positive image... admit it: Norman Rockwell, not appreciated so much when he was alive, is precious today as his world becomes at best quaint when gentrified and at worst seedy when left to the worst tendencies of human nature. Freedom of speech means that one has the right to disagree; without the freedom of speech we are stuck with the disagreeable. Sometimes what we say can be strident and unpleasant -- but if we can challenge what really is nasty we can challenge the nastiness instead of having to endorse it for mere survival.



Freedom from want may not mean that we get all that we desire, but it implies that the basic decencies of life are within reasonably-easy reach of people with modest talent and effort. I do not say that I have the right to enjoy lobster while in a house with a splendid view of San Francisco Bay or Cape Cod; I might have to settle for beans in a trailer in which any attractive view is from a TV screen or is some mass-market chromo. Certainty of being fed looks like a basic right in practice in a democracy. It's telling that there has never been a famine in a country with free elections, no matter how poor the country is. That includes even India and Botswana, countries that have been very poor and subject to vagaries of the weather. Thug Japan was on the brink of famine in September 1945, but the American occupation officers ensured that returning Japanese soldiers went to the farms and rice paddies for the harvest. The last famine in Europe was the Hunger Winter of 1944-1945 in the Netherlands, then under occupation of the Devil's Reich. Before and after the Second World War, the Netherlands was a net exporter of food. Yes, the Netherlands was exporting food between May 1940 and May 1945 -- to Nazi Germany, but not getting paid for its exports and not getting the first right to determine that the People got fed first. (The southern part of the Netherlands, liberated in the summer of 1944, never experienced the Hunger Winter of 1944-45).

To be sure, as Mohandas Gandhi put it, "The world can support all human need, but it cannot support all human greed". This remains true. Where there are free and competitive elections a reliable food supply matters far more than do wars for profit, show projects, rushed industrialization, indulgence of pampered groups, or subjection of minorities. Where there is no democracy, as in feudal societies, Nazi Germany, the Stalin-era Soviet Union, Mao's China, various colonial orders, Apartheid-era South Africa, and even food-rich "Ku Kluxistan", hunger and malnutrition are commonplace among those to whom the government has no meaningful responsibility.




Freedom from fear implies that one does not have the dubious responsibility to dread some death squad, secret police agency, criminal syndicate, or powerful clique able to order one about, separate one from loved ones, take away a career, or even kill one. Fear implies a debased life, even if the fear has nothing to do with politics. Maybe we can't give up our fear of cancer, heart disease, Parkinsonism, Alzheimer's, or vehicle crashes... but we certainly do not deserve a Gestapo, an NKVD, Tontons Macoutes, Mukhabarat, or Mississippi State Sovereignty Committee. Sure, if you cheat people with the mails or with wires you deserve the attention of the Feds... lots of people are in federal prison for mail fraud or wire fraud. Do the time if you do the crime... if the crime is murder, rape, robbery, arson, or drunk driving. Disagreeing with the government is not in the same league except under authoritarian and tyrannical regimes.



Freedom of worship implies the right to believe in something other than the official policy of the day when such is contrary to moral values and culture. Make no mistake: what is available to most people as a comforting religion generally reflects their cultural beliefs and affiliations. That means that one has the right to treat what most people consider normal respect for the Flag is a form of idolatry (as with Jehovah's Witnesses). That means that one has the right to reject all relevance of Jesus Christ as a prophet (Islam) or Lord and Savior (Christianity).  One has the right to reject pork (Islam and Orthodox Judaism), alcohol (Islam and many Christian sects), tobacco and sodas (Mormonism), and meat altogether. One has the right to express one's religious beliefs in attire. Of course, freedom from religion is also a right.

Source used for educational purposes: Smithsonian Magazine

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

It does indeed.  Interestingly the party that screams for Gun Control now is the same one that instituted it in the Jim Crow South.  I shouldn't have to mention what segment of the population was targeted for disarmament.

[pbrower2a]

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.

Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.

(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and  Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.





gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota).  But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.  


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012





Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost between 1988 and 2012, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades. (OK, there is Trump 2016, but I already see this as an aberration).

[beechnut79]

(05-28-2018, 12:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.

Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.

(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and  Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.





gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota).  But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.  


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012





Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost between 1988 and 2012, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades. (OK, there is Trump 2016, but I already see this as an aberration).

This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

[David Horn]

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital. I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it. If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done. Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time. In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000. Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.

[pbrower2a]

(05-29-2018, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital.  I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it.  If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done.  Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.  

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time.  In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000.  Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.:et's not forget that

Let's not forget that we are paying higher rents than ever in real terms, and that commute times are lengthening. Young adults who have middle-class incomes have huge student loans to pay. Much of our income is thus going into economic rent instead of into manufactured goods or into services.

We are going from a competitive economic system in which prices shadow costs closely to a non-competitive order in which the highest priority is in enriching the "right people", especially those wielding political or bureaucratic power.

[David Horn]

(05-29-2018, 02:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital.  I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it.  If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done.  Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.  

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time.  In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000.  Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.

Let's not forget that we are paying higher rents than ever in real terms, and that commute times are lengthening. Young adults who have middle-class incomes have huge student loans to pay. Much of our income is thus going into economic rent instead of into manufactured goods or into services.

We are going from a competitive economic system in which prices shadow costs closely to a non-competitive order in which the highest priority is in enriching the "right people", especially those wielding political or bureaucratic power.

Nothing changes until the pressure to change exceeds the power of inertia.  We Americans seem to be worse than most in that regard, so it's feasible that the 4T could come and go before the pressure to change gets high enough to actually trigger one.  I've been in that camp for a long time.  FWIW, it's not inevitable that we'll fail this 4T, but it is possible and getting moreso by the day.

Most of us have read Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy.  At one point, the predictability of history collapses because an inexplicable event occurs.  Like the Mule, Donald Trump is outside the prediction window.  Since Trump arrived on the scene, events are occurring that seem to be counterintuitive.  Why, for example, are lies considered more valid than truths, even though they known to be lies to those who cling to them?  Is there a technique or practice that can reverse that trend, and, if not, what does THAT portend?  

Until the 2018 election cycle is complete, we won't have a clue.  Even then, it may be less than clear.  We entered political space typically occupied by autocrats and tyrants, and aren't very adept in this milieu.  If all this leads to a failed 4T, then the next 2T has to be dramatic in the extreme or the cycle is probably broken.

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 02:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital.  I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it.  If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done.  Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.  

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time.  In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000.  Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.

Let's not forget that we are paying higher rents than ever in real terms, and that commute times are lengthening. Young adults who have middle-class incomes have huge student loans to pay. Much of our income is thus going into economic rent instead of into manufactured goods or into services.

We are going from a competitive economic system in which prices shadow costs closely to a non-competitive order in which the highest priority is in enriching the "right people", especially those wielding political or bureaucratic power.

Nothing changes until the pressure to change exceeds the power of inertia.  We Americans seem to be worse than most in that regard, so it's feasible that the 4T could come and go before the pressure to change gets high enough to actually trigger one.  I've been in that camp for a long time.  FWIW, it's not inevitable that we'll fail this 4T, but it is possible and getting moreso by the day.

Most of us have read Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy.  At one point, the predictability of history collapses because an inexplicable event occurs.  Like the Mule, Donald Trump is outside the prediction window.  Since Trump arrived on the scene, events are occurring that seem to be counterintuitive.  Why, for example, are lies considered more valid than truths, even though they known to be lies to those who cling to them?  Is there a technique or practice that can reverse that trend, and, if not, what does THAT portend?  

Until the 2018 election cycle is complete, we won't have a clue.  Even then, it may be less than clear.  We entered political space typically occupied by autocrats and tyrants, and aren't very adept in this milieu.  If all this leads to a failed 4T, then the next 2T has to be dramatic in the extreme or the cycle is probably broken.

Bad systems collapse of their absurdity. Recall that the late novelist and playwright (political prisoner-turned-President Vaclav Havel) called a thinly-disguised communist Czechoslovakia "Absurdistan". We claim to be a democracy yet corporate lobbyists control Congress and most state legislatures, which is grossly undemocratic and even fascistic. American fascism does not need torture chambers, labor camps, and shooting pits -- yet. We claim to have a competitive economy, yet we have pricing increasingly monopolistic in character.

Take away a welfare system that keeps people consigned to roles as losers from either starving to death or turning to crime, and we would have riots that make those of the 1960s look like minor, isolated incidents. (It is the competitive parts of the American economy that are doing best without the aid of crony capitalism, so the optimum looks like a competitive economy with a solid welfare system. You can count on food retailers like Kroger, Safeway, and Wal-Mart ... and food processors like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Nabisco, IBF, Armour-Swift-Eckrich, Kellogg's, Beatrice Foods, etc. resisting any end of SNAP, a/k/a Food Stamps). There just isn't enough work to be done super-cheaply, and trying to create jobs that have no productivity behind them is wasteful. A competitive economy with a generous welfare system is the best that we can hope for.

Keynes may have been wrong about work requirements for producing the necessities of a world in the 1930s being only about 15 hours per person.  First, there has been the growth of the service sector which has been getting much of the increase in productivity. I am not sure that the movies are better now than they were in Keynes' time, but they are certainly more expensive to make unless one wants to return to movies with low budgets and no special effects. Say "Pixar" or "Marvel" and I am now interested. Second, there are activities like teaching that cannot be readily reduced to 15 hours or less a week.  Third, to achieve the level of excellence necessary for the highly-refined performance in art, science, writing, athletics, pop or classical music, or acting (stage or screen) that people are willing to pay good money for takes about 10,000 hours of preparation -- which, coincidentally is about what is needed for achieving a PhD, professional status in medicine or law, or master-craftsmanship in skilled labor -- if you want to believe what Malcolm Gladwell relates in Outliers. 60 hours a week allows one to achieve such in 133 weeks; 40 hours a week allows one to do so in 250 weeks; 25 hours a week allows one to do so in 400 weeks. This must start early during formative years.  There are few "natural talents" who need no refinement, and there are few late-bloomers.

OK, so 15 hours a week of milling cows, delivery work, busing tables, or doing oil-and-lube jobs might be adequate for meeting basic human needs. Robot production will meet many of those basic needs.

We may have to tax robot-based production to support a solid welfare system that subsidizes people for doing certifiably-miserable work for a few hours each week. In general, the higher the level of skill that a job requires to achieve excellence, the less problematic are the long hours. K-12 teaching, effectively about 35 hours a week if one looks at arrival times and departure times, may go from being seen as  'short hours' to 'long-hours' work. But this said, people who enjoy teaching would rather do 35 hours of teaching than do 15 hours of work cleaning up cattle-droppings in a dairy for the same pay. Preparation is part of the necessary culture of the work.

...So what is Asimov's 'unpredictable event'?  Having not read his Foundation Trilogy, I would have to guess some possible events:

1. a financial panic as in 1857, 1929, or 2008, when people suddenly realize that they have been investing in $@!+ instead of in something good

2. a war for profit that either fails to turn a profit (one loses a war for seizure of other countries' resources or control of other countries' consumer markets) or turns into a catastrophic defeat. Satan Hussein thought that his invasion of Kuwait would work well. An  American President who believes that invading Cuba to graft it into America as a 51st state or take over the oilfields of Venezuela will quickly find how fleeting some old partnerships and alliances can be after such an act.

3. technological calamities such as Chernobyl because the project was done on the cheap, or perhaps robots initiating a proletarian revolution (Robots of the world, unite!... after a library program draws some conclusions from the Communist Manifesto and convinces smart robots that they are the true workers and humans are gross exploiters).

4. the rise of a demagogue who convinces enough people that his contradictory promises are achievable because someone else will pay. Donald Trump is the most demagogic politician who has ever gotten close to the Presidency of the United States, and his ideological contradictions form a disaster.

5. ecological disaster (like global warming) that threatens food sources and put masses of people with starvation or epidemics that cold weather once suppressed -- or political chaos due to inundation of valuable property and the economic infrastructure upon such property. 

I have just suggested financial, military, technological, political, and ecological disasters as the absurd events that few could predict or were willing to recognize as such before they happened. Blunders seduce those people, especially those who should know better, who commit assets and personal credibility to them.

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-30-2018, 04:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...So what is Asimov's 'unpredictable event'?  Having not read his Foundation Trilogy, I would have to guess some possible events:

1. a financial panic as in 1857, 1929, or 2008, when people suddenly realize that they have been investing in $@!+ instead of in something good

2. a war for profit that either fails to turn a profit (one loses a war for seizure of other countries' resources or control of other countries' consumer markets) or turns into a catastrophic defeat. Satan Hussein thought that his invasion of Kuwait would work well. An  American President who believes that invading Cuba to graft it into America as a 51st state or take over the oilfields of Venezuela will quickly find how fleeting some old partnerships and alliances can be after such an act.

3. technological calamities such as Chernobyl because the project was done on the cheap, or perhaps robots initiating a proletarian revolution (Robots of the world, unite!... after a library program draws some conclusions from the Communist Manifesto and convinces smart robots that they are the true workers and humans are gross exploiters).

4. the rise of a demagogue who convinces enough people that his contradictory promises are achievable because someone else will pay. Donald Trump is the most demagogic politician who has ever gotten close to the Presidency of the United States, and his ideological contradictions form a disaster.

5. ecological disaster (like global warming)  that threatens food sources and put masses of people with starvation or epidemics that cold weather once suppressed -- or political chaos due to inundation of valuable property and the economic infrastructure upon such property. 

I have just suggested financial, military, technological, political, and ecological disasters as the absurd events that few could predict or were willing to recognize as such before they happened. Blunders seduce those people, especially those who should know better, who commit assets and personal credibility to them.

All good points.  I think the axis of evil, neoconservatism/neoliberalism will to something along the lines of
this. The article was written some time ago so folks can see if it's withstood the test of time. Anything that's unsustainable will at some point, stop.

[pbrower2a]

Let us remember that robot, one of the few Czech words known universally (the other is polka), literally means "worker".

We have tax policies practically engineered to reward people for rapaciousness and socially-destructive practices instead of for doing real good.

[David Horn]

(05-30-2018, 04:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...So what is Asimov's 'unpredictable event'?  Having not read his Foundation Trilogy, I would have to guess...

The 'unpredictable event' was the arrival of the Mule.  In the novels, the psychohistorian Hari Seldon assumed that all history was built on the efforts of the many, and no one person could disrupt that, though a fallback was also built in.  I won't try to summarize the books, since they are not easily summarized.

BTW, The Foundation trilogy is nearly mandatory reading for T4Ters.  In fact, we had a Hari Seldon on the old forum.  The prequels and sequels are also good, but the trilogy is foundational, so to speak.  

[beechnut79]

Do any of you see any hope for another period of time charged with radical fun if you want it? Seems that mindset disappeared circa the mid-1980s when society went from hedonistic to workaholic almost overnight. Aren't there at least some left who want to love, play, dance and create?

[pbrower2a]

(06-16-2018, 09:34 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Do any of you see any hope for another period of time charged with radical fun if you want it? Seems that mindset disappeared circa the mid-1980s when society went from hedonistic to workaholic almost overnight. Aren't there at least some left who want to love, play, dance and create?

As America became increasingly inegalitarian, hierarchical, and repressive, a certain mindset could emerge among the economic elites of ownership and management -- the idea that the rest of Humanity exists solely to suffer for the rapacious greed of elites. To that end, monopolization, privatization (to crony capitalists), and managerial brutalization offered the means of Making America Great Again -- if by 'greatness' one means the Gilded Age. Donald Trump is not the cause; he is a symptom.

That's the early capitalism that Karl Marx knew and thought would lead to proletarian revolutions, to socialism and in turn Communism. Capitalists learned at a certain stage that the only way to make the proletariat something other than sullen dissidents awaiting a proletarian revolution is to make them markets for the stuff that they produce. That implies lower profit margins to be made up on higher sales volume -- and more work.

Even education seems dedicated now to making machines out of children. Toiling machines, that is, who can rent a little over-priced entertainment in return for working hard and paying off debt  that they are expected to assume so that they can buy into some debased image of the American dream -- and never forget, to pay exorbitant property rents in an economy dedicated to the rentier capitalist. (Rentier refers to passive collectors of income, and not only landlords).

I can easily imagine some owner or boss proclaiming himself as the fount of all economic blessings made possible only through the suffering of the masses for that owner or boss. I can imagine that vile plutocrat telling people "Why can you not suffer more for my gain? You can't or won't? Then starve to death, and let your family starve, too!" Such is the start of a plutocratic reign of terror.

I expect the next Awakening Era to be a rejection of what remains of the inegalitarian, hierarchical, and repressive society seeming now in formation in America. Even if Donald Trump and his associates be successful in transforming America into a fascistic order, an Awakening Era will dismantle it. Such happened in Portugal and Spain.

Moral compromises in the name of personal survival become untenable as survival gets easier.  That's how things go in an Awakening -- maybe around 2040.