2012-11-21

"What Work Is Really For " By GARY GUTTING

By GARY GUTTING

Is work good or bad? A fatuous question, it may seem, with unemployment such a pressing national concern. (Apart from the names of the two candidates, "jobs" was the politically relevant word most used by speakers at the Republican and Democratic conventions.) Even apart from current worries, the goodness of work is deep in our culture. We applaud people for their work ethic, judge our economy by its productivity and even honor work with a national holiday.

But there's an underlying ambivalence: we celebrate Labor Day by not working, the Book of Genesis says work is punishment for Adam's sin, and many of us count the days to the next vacation and see a contented retirement as the only reason for working.

We're ambivalent about work because in our capitalist system it means work-for-pay (wage-labor), not for its own sake. It is what philosophers call an instrumental good, something valuable not in itself but for what we can use it to achieve. For most of us, a paying job is still utterly essential - as masses of unemployed people know all too well. But in our economic system, most of us inevitably see our work as a means to something else: it makes a living, but it doesn't make a life.

What, then, is work for? Aristotle has a striking answer: "we work to have leisure, on which happiness depends." This may at first seem absurd. How can we be happy just doing nothing, however sweetly (dolce far niente)? Doesn't idleness lead to boredom, the life-destroying ennui portrayed in so many novels, at least since "Madame Bovary"?

Everything depends on how we understand leisure. Is it mere idleness, simply doing nothing? Then a life of leisure is at best boring (a lesson of Voltaire's "Candide"), and at worst terrifying (leaving us, as Pascal says, with nothing to distract from the thought of death). No, the leisure Aristotle has in mind is productive activity enjoyed for its own sake, while work is done for something else.

We can pass by for now the question of just what activities are truly enjoyable for their own sake - perhaps eating and drinking, sports, love, adventure, art, contemplation? The point is that engaging in such activities - and sharing them with others - is what makes a good life. Leisure, not work, should be our primary goal.

Bertrand Russell, in his classic essay "In Praise of Idleness," agrees. "A great deal of harm," he says, "is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work." Instead, "the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work." Before the technological breakthroughs of the last two centuries, leisure could be only "the prerogative of small privileged classes," supported by slave labor or a near equivalent. But this is no longer necessary: "The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery."

Using Adam Smith's famous example of pins, Russell makes the solution seem utterly simple:

Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before.

We are, Russell thinks, kept from a world of leisure only by a perversely lingering prejudice in favor of work for its own sake.

But isn't Russell making an obvious mistake? He assumes that the only reason to continue working eight hours a day would be to make more pins, which we don't need. In modern capitalism, however, the idea would be to make better pins (or perhaps something even better than pins), in that way improving the quality of our lives. Suppose that in 1932, when Russell wrote his essay, we had followed his advice and converted all gains in productivity into increased leisure. Antibiotics, jet airplanes and digital computers, then just glimmers on the horizon, would likely never have become integral parts of our lives. We can argue about just what constitutes real progress, but it's clear that Russell's simple proposal would sometimes mean trading quality of life for more leisure.

But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better. If products sell because they improve the quality of our life, well and good, but it doesn't in the end matter why they sell. The system works at least as well if a product sells not because it is a genuine contribution to human well-being but because people are falsely persuaded that they should have it. Often, in fact, it's easier to persuade people to buy something that's inferior than it is to make something that's superior. This is why stores are filled with products that cater to fads and insecurities but no real human need.

It would seem, then, that we should increase leisure - and make life more worthwhile - by producing only what makes for better lives. In turn, workers would have the satisfaction of producing things of real value. (For a recent informed and vigorous defense of this view, see Robert and Edward Skidelsky, How Much Is Enough?)

But this raises the essential question: who decides what is of real value? The capitalist system's own answer is consumers , free to buy whatever they want in an open market. I call this capitalism's own answer because it is the one that keeps the system operating autonomously, a law unto itself. It especially appeals to owners, managers and others with a vested interest in the system.

But the answer is disingenuous. From our infancy the market itself has worked to make us consumers, primed to buy whatever it is selling regardless of its relevance to human flourishing. True freedom requires that we take part in the market as fully formed agents, with life goals determined not by advertising campaigns but by our own experience of and reflection on the various possibilities of human fulfillment. Such freedom in turn requires a liberating education, one centered not on indoctrination, social conditioning or technical training but on developing persons capable of informed and intelligent commitments to the values that guide their lives.

This is why, especially in our capitalist society, education must not be primarily for training workers or consumers (both tools of capitalism, as Marxists might say). Rather, schools should aim to produce self-determining agents who can see through the blandishments of the market and insist that the market provide what they themselves have decided they need to lead fulfilling lives. Capitalism, with its devotion to profit, is not in itself evil. But it becomes evil when it controls our choices for the sake of profit.

Capitalism works for the good only when our independent choices determine what the market must produce to make a profit. These choices - of liberally educated free agents - will set the standards of capitalist production and lead to a world in which, as Aristotle said, work is for the sake of leisure. We are, unfortunately, far from this ideal, but it is one worth working toward.

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, "Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960" and writes regularly for The Stone.

2012-11-21

"New Rules" By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I JUST arrived in Shanghai, but I’m thinking about Estonia and wondering about something Presidents Clinton and Obama have been saying.

Wired magazine reported last week that public schools in Estonia are establishing a program for teaching first graders — and kids in all other grades — how to do computer programming. Wired said that the curriculum was created “because of the difficulty Estonian companies face in hiring programmers. Estonia has a burgeoning tech industry thanks in part to the success of Skype, which was developed in Estonia in 2003.”

The news from Estonia prompted The Guardian newspaper of London to publish an online poll asking its readers: “Children aged 7 to 16 are being given the opportunity to learn how to code in schools in Estonia, should U.K. school children be taught programming as part of their school day?” It’s fascinating to read about all this while visiting Shanghai, whose public school system in 2010 beat the rest of the world in math, science and reading in the global PISA exam of 15-year-olds. Will the Chinese respond by teaching programming to preschoolers?

All of this made me think Obama should stop using the phrase — first minted by Bill Clinton in 1992 — that if you just “work hard and play by the rules” you should expect that the American system will deliver you a decent life and a chance for your children to have a better one. That mantra really resonates with me and, I am sure, with many voters. There is just one problem: It’s out of date.

The truth is, if you want a decent job that will lead to a decent life today you have to work harder, regularly reinvent yourself, obtain at least some form of postsecondary education, make sure that you’re engaged in lifelong learning and play by the rules. That’s not a bumper sticker, but we terribly mislead people by saying otherwise.

Why? Because when Clinton first employed his phrase in 1992, the Internet was just emerging, virtually no one had e-mail and the cold war was just ending. In other words, we were still living in a closed system, a world of walls, which were just starting to come down. It was a world before Nafta and the full merger of globalization and the information technology revolution, a world in which unions and blue-collar manufacturing were still relatively strong, and where America could still write a lot of the rules that people played by.

That world is gone. It is now a more open system. Technology and globalization are wiping out lower-skilled jobs faster, while steadily raising the skill level required for new jobs. More than ever now, lifelong learning is the key to getting into, and staying in, the middle class.

There is a quote attributed to the futurist Alvin Toffler that captures this new reality: In the future “illiteracy will not be defined by those who cannot read and write, but by those who cannot learn and relearn.” Any form of standing still is deadly.

I covered the Republican convention, and I was impressed in watching my Times colleagues at how much their jobs have changed. Here’s what a reporter does in a typical day: report, file for the Web edition, file for The International Herald Tribune, tweet, update for the Web edition, report more, track other people’s tweets, do a Web-video spot and then write the story for the print paper. You want to be a Times reporter today? That’s your day. You have to work harder and smarter and develop new skills faster.

Van Ton-Quinlivan, the vice chancellor for work force and economic development at the California Community Colleges System, explained to me the four basic skill sets out there today. The first are people who are “ready now.” That’s people with exactly the right skills an employer is looking for at the right time. Employers will give the local labor market and schools the first chance at providing those people, but if they are not available they’ll go the “shortest distance to find them,” she said, and today that could be anywhere in the world. Companies who can’t find “ready now” will look for “ready soon,” people who, with limited training and on-the-job experience, can fit right in. If they can’t find those, some will hire “work ready.” These are people with two or four years of postsecondary education who can be trained, but companies have shrinking budgets for that now and want public schools to do it. Last are the growing legions of the “far from ready,” people who dropped out or have only a high school diploma. Their prospects for a decent job are small, even if they are ready to “work hard and play by the rules.”

Which is why if we ever get another stimulus it has to focus, in part, on getting more people more education. The unemployment rate today is 4.1 percent for people with four years of college, 6.6 percent for those with two years, 8.8 percent for high school graduates, and 12.0 percent for dropouts.

That’s why I prefer the new mantra floated by Clinton at the Democratic convention, (which Obama has tried to fund): “We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are being created in a world fueled by new technology. That’s why investments in our people” — in more community colleges, Pell grants and vocational-training classes — “are more important than ever.”

2012-10-22

Hillary Clinton watches Bill Clinton’s speech

Spe 6, 2012

Traveling through Asia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found some time to watch the speech her husband delivered at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night.

The State Department distributed a photograph of Secretary Clinton watching the address from East Timor. Former president Clinton’s speech began when Secretary Clinton was taking part a press conference with the prime minister of East Timor. Afterward, she watched the speech on the U.S. ambassador to East Timor’s home computer, according to an aide travelling with Secretary Clinton.

“It’s safe to say that she loved every single minute of it,” said the aide.

(Nick Merrill/Department Of State)

The graphics identifying the network that the secretary watched were removed from the photo by the State Department. The State Department said it did not want to endorse one network over another.

2012-10-22

America and the World: The Power to Share Power

Oct 04, 2012

A new world is rising, in which growing disorder looms on every continent and in which global anarchy prevails.

In the Middle East, where tens of thousands of Syrians are dying in a civil war, we are reminded every day a bit more of the horrors of Lebanon in the eighties.

In the Far East, a nationalist "hysteria" in Japan and China, as Haruki Murakami put it recently, is creating the conditions of a large-scale conflict.

In Africa, the Eastern Congo is becoming hell on earth again, after it already was the death-place of 3 million victims since 1997.

All my experience in world affairs and in crisis management -- all the differences and debates of the past -- tell me that the key to this disorderly and complex world is in the need for every country to find its right place. It's not an easy task. For this, we need perspectives from outside, we need to make the effort to see ourselves through the eyes of others. I'm convinced that the presidential race will be decisive. I don't wish to interfere in the political debate of another nation. I have too much friendship, respect and sense of independence for that. But I'd like to give a few ideas on my vision of America's role in the coming world, because peace is at stake.

What is the temptation today for America ? It's to imagine a simple world, it's to revive the world of yesterday, it's to summon up a "new American century" based on strength. It's, in a nutshell, to imagine a future in which there's one bottom line, the opposition between China and the U.S. How reassuring it would be to have a foe again, a foe to whom you could in a way feel close. That's the best way to forget about everything else. What happened during the Cold War? The strategy against the Soviet Union paid in the end. But everywhere else? In Latin America, in Africa, in Southeast Asia, it was certainly not the case. Let's not make that mistake again.

Because, in fact, the new world is very different from the one policy makers in America imagine.

This world will be a world without friends or foes, a world dominated by the coexistence of "froes" that can be, depending on the circumstances, partners, rivals, adversaries. That's unavoidable in a world dominated by the scarcity of resources and by the emergence of new powers. The time of superheroes and their nemesis is gone. But it can become a world of wolves, where each great power is preying on the smaller countries, or it can become a world of elephants in which each superpower needs some space of its own for peaceful coexistence.

This world will be a world of checks and balances, because globalization creates more interdependencies than ever before and that's why domination or anarchy will be equally unbearable. America must accept outside its borders what it was able to create within, a lasting and balanced system that guarantees stability and diversity. In the last decades, the U.S. have been acting on the world scene in the same way as a president would have within the country if he had said: never mind Congress, they never agree; never mind the Supreme Court, they are always blocking action. The United Nations are imperfect. The International Penal Court is too. But are the domestic institutions really infallible?

This world will be a world of compromises and not a world of strength. No single state, not even the U.S., not even China in twenty years, will be able to tackle the global challenges on their own, neither financial and monetary stability, nor climate change, nor collective security. That's why we'll need a new governance and a new international architecture.

Are the United States adapted to this new world? In no way. And the political debate won't help because the media know only black and white, because bipartisan rule can't differentiate domestic policy and foreign policy. That's true in all modern democracies and we experienced it in Europe and France in the last months.

But America has it in its guts to accomplish this inner transformation, to become the seed of a global evolution of our common world, to become a second generation power, an evolved power capable of doing what no other power has done before, sharing power after having reached the peak of its power. Its destiny and its universal message of freedom are still needed. The promise still needs to be fulfilled, but by other means. Our new world has become as interdependent and connected as an organism.

A central power is a connected power, and not a power in free fall, a power whose existence and stability is the guarantee of all common rules and institutions. This means accepting the sometimes annoying entanglement in collective regulations and institutions, the only source of legitimacy.

A central power is a collective power, and not a lone rider, a power who is strong only because at its side there are other countries that hold together. This means finding balanced, allied powers in all regions so as to prevent the apparition of dangerous voids. This also means redefining the role of NATO to be more than a simple passive instrument. There's always the temptation to think you would do things better by yourself than by depending on others. That's a mistake for managers and entrepreneurs but also for states and policy-makers. Let's face it, the excess of American power has created a gap of power and in some regions a dangerous void of power. That's one of the keys in the Middle East and that's a role Egypt should become able to play. That's a role Iran should have been allowed to play a long time ago, before it erred. And the United States also need a strong Europe at their side.

A central power, in the end, is a building power, creating a stable architecture for the world and taking initiatives to keep this architecture alive, because the complexity of the world asks for a stronger architecture and cannot rely on the initiative of single powers. This needs to be done on three levels today.

The world needs go-betweens and fosterers of dialogue. That's the traditional role of countries like Sweden or France. That's today also the role of Turkey, Qatar or Brazil. They are the synapses that can make the world evolve, get smarter, get more in touch with itself.

On the second level, crisis solving can be achieved only through collective regional organizations that should be put in charge of all mediations, in the Middle East with the Arab League or in Sahel with the African CEDEAO. For many of these organizations, the European Union, despite its difficulties, is still a historical role model. Too often, the United States tend to prefer bilateral dialogue with each state to a discussion with collective entities they don't understand very well.

On the third level, the world needs global responsibility through a renovated Security Council based on common principles and on the capacity of concrete initiative. This Security Council needs to be more representative of today's world. We also need the G20 and G8 to be more efficient, through the creation of a permanent secretariat.

More power, less domination, in a way that's the mantra for the transformation of America in the coming decade. That's what needs to be organized in the Middle East, in the transatlantic relationship, in regard to China and the Far East, when it comes to North-South exchanges. Yes, as a French citizen, as a citizen of the world, I believe for America to be faithful to its mission and its destiny is to learn the power to share power. After the time of "nation-building" has come the time of "world-building".

The alternative, fleeing to the past, staying prisoner of a choice between weakness or strength, would have dire consequences: more domination, less power.

It's a time of choices. For America. For the world.

2012-10-22

■

Sep 16, 2012

There is no shortage of dramatic news this week – what with a disappearing Chinese leader, a murdered ambassador in Benghazi, riots in Cairo and protests in Madrid and Moscow. But I wonder whether less obviously world-shaking events in India may end up having a greater historical significance.

Admittedly, I am biased since I’ve just spent the last week in Delhi. (In fact, I’m still here.) But the economic future of a country of 1.2bn people – about a sixth of mankind – will shape this century. And reforms announced this week by the much-abused government of Manmohan Singh, give some hope that India may be about to rediscover its mojo.

When I arrived here, I was struck by how morose the mood was among politicians and businessmen in Delhi. One entrepreneur said that India is at its lowest point for a decade. This is partly because economic growth – which hit 10 per cent in 2007 – is now down to a little more than 6 per cent. But the depressed mood is also created by a sense that the political system is paralysed. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister and the hero of India’s economic reforms in 1991, is now widely seen as ineffective. The two-day power cut that affected almost 600m people last month was also a blow to national morale. It seemed to mock all the PR about “amazing India” that is pumped out by the India-boosters.

By the end of the week, however, the mood among business-people had been transformed. That is because on Thursday and Friday, the government announced some much-demanded, long-deferred, economic reforms. On Thursday, it was a decision to start cutting fuel subsidies. That, in turn, sends a signal that the government is serious about trying to rein in the budget deficit – so warding off the threat of a credit-downgrade. Business people are already hoping for lower interest-rates, in the near future.

The next day came the announcement that retailing is to be liberalised – allowing large foreign supermarkets, such as Walmart, to expand in India. The measure should boost foreign investment, lower prices for consumers, improve the distribution chain and provide employment. Naturally enough, it is bitterly opposed by a wide variety of interest groups and political parties.

Perhaps the most bizarre meeting I had in Delhi this week was with one politician, who will be prominent in the fight against the multi-brand retailers. Brinda Karat has a rather aristocratic bearing. But, as well as being a member of parliament, she is also on the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) . (The phrase Marxist in brackets is to distinguish her branch of the party from the Maoist and Marxist-Leninist factions.) The Communists have recently lost power in the state of West Bengal, after decades running the state government. But they are still well represented in the Indian parliament. And they are not backing down from the old faith. There is a large bust of Lenin, just by the entrance to party HQ in Delhi.

Ms Karat was adamantly opposed to any suggest of retail liberalisation, arguing that it will destroy the livings of small shopkeepers all over India. Indeed, that very day, she was working on a critical article on Walmart, for a publication back in West Bengal.

The disputatious nature of Indian politics is both inspiring and sometimes infuriating. The Communists are all part of the rich tapestry. But, I hope that – when it comes to the latest round of economic liberalisation in India – the Communist Party (Marxist) once again finds itself on the wrong side of history.

2012-10-22

Obama fires up crowd in Virginia with ‘Romnesia’ speech

October 20, 2012

President Obama introduced a new word into the American political lexicon Friday, accusing his GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, of “Romnesia” for changing positions and trying to pivot to the political center.

Before nearly 10,000 supporters at a Virginia rally, Obama smiled, joked and wagged his finger as he mocked Romney’s earlier declaration that he was a “severely conservative” governor of Massachusetts.

“Now that we’re 18 days out from the election, ‘Mr. Severely Conservative’ wants you to think he was severely kidding about everything he said over the last year,’’ Obama said in a speech devoted almost entirely to attacking Romney, and during which he gave little indication of what he would do in a second term if reelected.

Building in intensity, Obama continued: “He’s forgetting what his own positions are, and he’s betting that you will, too. I mean, he’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to — we’ve got to — we’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think — I think it’s called ‘Romnesia.’ ”

The crowd roared.

The Romney campaign was not amused. “America doesn’t need a comedy routine; it needs a serious plan to fix the economy,’’ Romney senior adviser Danny Diaz wrote on Twitter.

Added Amanda Henneberg, a Romney spokeswoman: “Women haven’t forgotten how we’ve suffered over the last four years in the Obama economy with higher taxes, higher unemployment, and record levels of poverty. President Obama has failed to put forward a second-term agenda — and when you don’t have a plan to run on, you stoop to scare tactics.’’

The renewed skirmishing came as the other candidates converged on the key swing state of Florida ahead of Monday’s final presidential debate in Boca Raton, which is shaping up as critical in a race that polls show is tight nationally and in battleground states.

Vice President Biden and Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), spent their Friday rallying supporters in the Sunshine State, whose 29 electoral votes make it the biggest swing state prize. At one point, Ryan’s campaign jet rolled across the tarmac in Tampa past Biden’s Air Force Two.

Ann Romney and Michelle Obama, both important surrogates as the campaigns battle for an edge among women voters, have events scheduled for South Florida in the coming days. Female voters are a critical bloc that could determine who is elected on Nov. 6, and recent polls have shown Romney cutting into Obama’s lead among them.

With the economy still the key issue in the race, Obama got some potentially good news on Friday: New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the unemployment rate dropped in 41 states last month, including many of the top swing states. Those included Florida, Colorado and Iowa. Yet Florida’s rate, at 8.7 percent, remains higher than the national average, and unemployment is still high across the country.

Romney prepared for the debate Friday morning in New York before flying to Florida. where he appeared with Ryan at a rally in Daytona Beach in the evening.

They spoke to a crowd of thousands of supporters who were warmed up to the singing of country music star John Rich of the group Big and Rich.

Romney said that Obama’s reelection effort has become the “incredibly shrinking campaign.”

“Have you been watching the Obama campaign lately. It’s absolutely remarkable,” Romney said. “They have no agenda.”

But speaking to the tightness of this race, even as Ryan and Romney spoke, a crowd of Obama supporters gathered and shouted “Obama. Four More Years,” drowning out parts of Romney’s 20-minute speech.

Romney’s debate partner, Sen. Rob Portman, as well as top advisers Stuart Stevens, Beth Myers and Dan Senor joined him on the flight to Florida.

It was Romney’s commanding performance in the first presidential debate two weeks ago — along with Obama’s widely panned showing — that reconfigured a race in which the president had been ahead.

Romney on Friday released a new television ad titled “Bringing People Together.” It emphasized his bipartisan credentials, though some Democrats in Massachusetts say Romney worked only sporadically with them during his governorship. But the Romney campaign also apparently senses vulnerability on the subject for Obama, whose political brand in his 2008 campaign was built around his ability to transcend partisan divides.

Yet it was a highly partisan president who spoke on Friday in an open field at George Mason University in the critical battleground state of Virginia. Obama drew chants of “Four more years!” as he bounded onto a podium draped with two blue signs reading “Women’s Health Security.’’

Obama portrayed Romney as a “throwback to the 1950s” who would restrict women’s rights, favor the wealthy and squeeze the middle class.

During his riff on what he called “Romnesia,’’ Obama said: “I’m not a medical doctor, but I — but I do want to go over some of the symptoms with you because I want to make sure nobody else catches it.’’

The crowd hooted.

Obama then listed a series of what he called position changes by Romney, focusing on women’s issues. “You know, if you say you’re for equal pay for equal work, but you keep refusing to say whether or not you’d sign a bill that protects equal pay for equal work, you might have ‘Romnesia,’ ’’ Obama said. “If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let your employer deny you contraceptive care, you might have a case of ‘Romnesia.’ ”

The president drew his loudest applause by bringing up the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Chuckling, he said: “If you come down with a case of ‘Romnesia’ and you can’t seem to remember the policies that are still on your Web site, or the promises that you’ve made over the six years you’ve been running for president, here’s the good news: Obamacare covers preexisting conditions.’’

“We can fix you up. We’ve got a cure. We can make you well, Virginia. This is a curable disease.’’

Nia-Malika Henderson, Felicia Sonmez and Philip Rucker contributed to this report

2012-10-08

America and the World: The Power to Share Power

A new world is rising, in which growing disorder looms on every continent and in which global anarchy prevails.

In the Middle East, where tens of thousands of Syrians are dying in a civil war, we are reminded every day a bit more of the horrors of Lebanon in the eighties.

In the Far East, a nationalist "hysteria" in Japan and China, as Haruki Murakami put it recently, is creating the conditions of a large-scale conflict.

In Africa, the Eastern Congo is becoming hell on earth again, after it already was the death-place of 3 million victims since 1997.

Because, in fact, the new world is very different from the one policy makers in America imagine.

The alternative, fleeing to the past, staying prisoner of a choice between weakness or strength, would have dire consequences: more domination, less power.

It's a time of choices. For America. For the world.