There are those who would say that a revolution of sorts is inexorably transforming our domestic and global economies. And, when the whirlwind of new technologies fully integrates itself, little will remain unchanged.
Like the widespread industrialization of the 1850s, this shift into a new era, the so-dubbed age of information, will allow us to produce more goods than ever, market them in more innovative ways and reach more customers than ever possible -- but at what costs?
Just as the productivity gains of the industrial revolution came with exorbitant social costs to the average worker, so too, perhaps, will the gains from information technology affect the average Joe trying to make ends meet.
As a student of economics, I've always been told growth in productivity means a general upward surge in living standards. And for many reasons, this economic pillar -- productivity as a purely beneficial development -- still holds fast.
Productivity growth decreases per-unit costs and increases a worker's output, thereby achieving the best of all worlds: anti-inflationary growth. Supply curves in all but the most remote markets shift to the right, enabling the production of more goods and the setting of lower prices -- perhaps the best of all benefits to the consumer. As a result, workers can buy bigger houses, smoother cars, and a heck of a lot nicer clothes.
Clearly, this productivity growth is what the nations of the world experienced in the 1850s and what the U.S. economy is experiencing now. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the second quarter of 2000, productivity in the non-farm business sector increased at an astonishing rate of 5.7 percent. Many argue that this growth is unquestionably beneficial, but I have a feeling this is not the entire story.
Remember what happened in the 1850s? Social catastrophe. Crowded, smog-filled slums. The smell of fecal matter in the streets, lining the way to factories. Anemic-looking children eating rotten, sawdust-covered apples on their 10-minute lunch breaks. Breadcrumbs for supper hand-fed to an amputee father still trying to make ends meet. The stuff that inspired Charles Dickens and Sinclair Lewis.
Now, the 21st century is not going to afford modern society such dismal living conditions. You'd be hard pressed to find a starving computer programmer munching on a rotten sandwich as he spends his nights in a cardboard box. But, according to the results of some newly released surveys, you would find today's average worker sleepless and stressed to the max.
In fact, a recent study by Circadian Information revealed that an astonishing 88 percent of employees across the United States recognize worker fatigue as a problem. To some degree it's not hard to see why.
Take an early morning stroll down Wall Street, or any old street for that matter, and check out the zombie investment bankers, worn-out postal clerks, and tired supermarket employees as they amble to work, trying to fulfill obligations to their families. Notice their eye-sockets, lined in a perpetually thick, dark haze. Hear the resounding yawns, as people across the country, from all walks of life, wake up and realize they are working harder and longer than they ever have.
Sure, the numbers might not show it, but with the advent of new technologies, it's becoming harder and harder for people to keep their work away from home. Cellular phones, beepers and laptops have become the leash of the workplace, keeping employees across the service sector on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
As new technologies enable workers to become more efficient, managers are insisting that their employees work more hours so that machines don't stand idle. In the 1850s, shift-scheduled work enabled factories to stay operational in perpetuity, and employees always had to be there to supervise and keep things rolling.
Now, it seems, we've encountered the new shift work of information, requiring workers to utilize new technologies whenever possible just so their business can compete.
But, while productivity may increase real wages, if people don't have the time to spend those wages and bask in their prosperity, what good is that?
In the end, perhaps the real question we must ask is whether or not pushing ourselves to the limits of sleeplessness is truly enhancing our standards of living. Because measuring living standards is such a normative, subjective process, there is no correct answer. Some would probably rather push themselves to the boundaries of insomnia, in an attempt to achieve all that is humanly possible. Others would rather raise produce on a subsistence farm and live out their days working hard enough to endure.
Sometimes, I just don't know, and probably never will. But I do think
writing productivity off as a purely beneficial development in one's economy
is not necessarily the best answer. There's always more to the story when a generalization occurs, and in this case, I think there's much more.
Read More
New School of Data Science building opens with remarks and ceremony
By Cecilia Mould | 22 hours agoThe four-story, 61,000 square-foot building includes four classrooms and two seminar rooms, as well as a two-story central hub for hosting events.
Democratic Futures Project fellow Félix Maradiaga announces campaign to end arbitrary detention
By Caroline Hagood | 22 hours agoA public website for the campaign launched Friday, which Maradiaga says is the first step towards raising awareness.
HRL preassigns 25 percent of returning resident advisors for 2024-25 academic year
By Cecilia Mould | YesterdaySome SRs are upset with this change, with two SRs saying that it has somewhat reduced the relative autonomy they have had when choosing their staff in past years.
