In Athens, slaves did most of the real work. Citizens had ample leisure to socialize, philosophize, engage in politics, and participate in their city-state's direct democracy. That, at least, is our romantic picture of the ancient Greeks, based at least in part on what we know of their history.
Twenty-five centuries or so later, we seem to be approaching the point where all the real work may be done by machines. Machines (including computers) -- our new slaves. We aren't there yet, but the handwriting is on the wall. We'll still need human doctors and scientists and computer experts. But not so much factory workers -- "real workers" -- the sort of labor that the Labor Movement was developed to protect.
I'm no economist. But it's always seemed to me that ultimately our economy will largely run itself on a day to day basis, and that our Gross Domestic Product will be divorced from human labor. I would think that this development would be considered a boon to mankind. A New Athens. But even broaching the subject for theoretical discussion with friends seems to arouse anger -- an anger emanating from fear.
A fear of what? I'm not sure, but I suspect a fear flowing from a belief that humans depend on daily work to give their lives meaning. A religious few may rely on the declaration in Genesis:
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.
But most, I think, harbor a concern that for modern men (and many women), getting up in the morning and going to work, and returning home at night, provides a needed structure to their lives. And I sympathize. Not only doctors and lawyers and engineers are proud of their work. While in college, I worked summers in mills where men were proud of their ability to support their families, and to do so by hard physical labor.
My feeling -- not systematically worked out, I admit -- is that when our country's GDP no longer depends on human labor, all citizens, rather than only the large corporations which own the factories, should benefit. I've often suggested that the government should guarantee that every citizen receive, in one way or another, basic food, housing, and clothing. Not because of his skill or his hard work, but because he is a human being, because he is a citizen, and because our technology will be able to provide those benefits.
This goal may not yet be attainable. But when the machines take over day to day production, it will be. The alternative would be a tiny, wealthy minority of capitalists (i.e., owners of the machines) and specialists (i.e., tweakers of the machines, developers of new machines, and other highly educated professionals), and a vast majority of homeless, starving peons. A national society ultimately satisfying to no one, including the tiny rich minority.
But what about my friends' fears for the emotional well-being of "the masses." Will their days be miserable and boring, an endless grayness such as many have felt during the pandemic?
Will they be happy? Will they feel fulfilled? Will the idle life of an Athenian citizen satisfy the average guy today?
My mind returns to this issue because of a short opinion piece in this week's Economist magazine. The anonymous business columnist "Bartleby" suggests that total unemployment is bad for mental health, leading to depression, anxiety, and reduced self-esteem. I think of the demoralized unemployed in England, especially a few decades ago, living in featureless "projects." But if total unemployment is bad, will we need to find forty hours of paid occupation for every adult? How much work is needed to avoid mental health problems? Bartleby cites a Cambridge University study that concludes that just one eight-hour day of work per week is sufficient to give workers a normal sense of well-being.
The threshold for good mental health was just one day a week -- after that, it seemed to make little difference to individuals' well-being if they worked eight hours or 48 hours a week. The boost from working clearly comes from the feeling of purpose, from the social status it creates and from the camaraderie of colleagues engaged in the same tasks.
I think my plan for universal minimal housing, nutrition, and clothing for every citizen, regardless of employment or unemployment, is flexible enough to adapt to these findings. Our nation has tasks that need accomplishing that are unattractive to private enterprise. I look around and immediately think of litter to be picked up. We could re-activate the C.C.C. and the W.P.A. of the New Deal, making work in these organizations a condition for receiving the normal benefits to which all citizens will be entitled.
Eight hours a week of required work would not be a burden on citizens of any age. On the contrary, if Bartleby is to be believed, it would provide citizens with a sense of purpose, and a sense of fellowship with fellow workers. Maybe like Boy Scouts for adults, minus the merit badges.
A sense of purpose and pride from picking up litter? Yes, I think so. I point to author David Sedaris who -- if his books are to be believed -- spends hours each day voluntarily picking up litter along the roadside in his adopted English county of West Sussex.
Granted, Sedaris is a comic writer as well as obsessive-compulsive, but I think those of us who are neither can at least contemplate feeling pride in seeing our efforts result in a clean roadside near our home. Even an Athenian supported by slave labor might have found satisfaction in getting his hands dirty for a few hours a week, knowing that he was working to improve the polis.
My thoughts may be incoherent and rambling (even ludicrous?), but the underlying problem of an excessive number of unneeded laborers -- a problem even now, but one that will be greater in the future -- is a problem we need to think about. And better earlier than later..
No comments:
Post a Comment