The rise of precarious white-collar jobs

[ronin]

This morning in the FT, I read that white collar job security may be facing terminal decline:

UK faces white-collar crisis as pandemic ends decades of job security
]https://www.ft.com/content/596e49d9-1283-47b3-a771-1c0beebd7df5

Having graduated in 1998, this surprised me. In the last 22 years I've never become familiar with anything that might reasonably be termed white-collar job security.

My first job out of university was teaching English in Japan and I resigned from it voluntarily after 15 months, substantially because I wasn't happy about the remote region of Japan I was living in.

My next job, in London, was working as a German, French and Russian speaking newspaper reporter - which was more promising - but after 18 months there were massive staff cuts (not unrelated to aftershock of the dot-com-crash) and I was made redundant.

Since then, everything I've done:

starting my own business from home in London

mostly prioritising investing over spending

then, after the 2008 crash, leaving London for a less expensive city in the North

then, after another half-decade of Austerity, leaving that city for an even less expensive town in the North

... all of this has been prompted by my experience that there isn't any white-collar job security and hasn't been for a couple of decades now. Certainly the decade between 2010 and 2020 has been more insecure than any I've known.

I wonder if the piece in the FT was written by a boomer for a boomer readership and that it's the case that if an individual already had white collar job security at the start of the century, they've probably continued to enjoy it until now,..

... whereas if they were experiencing choppy waters back in 2000, those waters have never become noticeably calmer at any point in the last 20 years (and for many, arguably, they've been considerably rougher since 2008)?

Does anyone else regard the notion of white-collar job security as something of a myth?

Where do things go from here?

[iamlost]

There has never been job security. What there has been is levels of security. Labour aka blue collar historically has had the least except for limited instances of union protection, management aka white collar tended to be a self preservation society except in extremis when upper management would cut away lower to save themselves.

What is new, to white collar, is that automation, the tech that has increasingly impacted number and type of blue collar jobs has, for a decade or so, been working its way up into lower management (and lesser qualified professionals).

Add in offshoring (blue and lower white collar) and contracting (expert and professional white collar) and white collar employees are increasingly facing what blue collar have since the 70s.
With fewer bodies to manage...

Add in M&A rather than investment as common corporate growth strategy debt load increasingly fells behemoths impacting even senior management although they tend to line their pockets on the way out...

[tangor]

A re-state:

If it can be done on a computer it will be replaced by a computer.

If a shovel or strong back is required computers are not required.

Different kinds of labor.

As for the economics of "why", I'll leave that to others to figure out (I already know the answer).

[ronin]

My concern is less that work can and is being automated. Of course it is and of course it should be.

It really shouldn't be controversial to want to question the value of a human spending part of their lifetime manually carrying out processes that a circuit-board can execute far more quickly, accurately, tirelessly and economically.

My concern regarding the FT piece is the disconnect (which may be generational or may be something else) between those who apparently think that white collar job insecurity is emerging now, when in the experience of some of my generation (and certainly in the experience of many of the generation after) there is nothing novel about this phenomenon and that it has been around for (at least) the last twenty years.

Perhaps the scales are now falling from the eyes of those who have long been (perhaps even willfully?) blind to the precarious state of work and there will now be a recognition in the public narrative that things have progressed to such a point that we cannot even pretend that it is still the 1980s?

If so, where do we go from here? This feels like uncharted territory - as uncharted as when the rural cottage-based manufacturing of wool, linen, lace collapsed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, eclipsed by the growth of factory spinning and power-loom weaving.

I genuinely feel that this is welcome progress - not least if we are leaving the limbo where white collar work is precarious, but the public narrative refuses to acknowledge as much - but the question remains: where do - or where might - we go from here?

[ronin]

For instance: in societies where so much is mechanised or automated that universal employment becomes an impossible aspiration, might the universal enablement of self-actualisation (ie. the top of Maslow's hierarchy) represent a credible aspiration for post-Work societies in the second half of the 21st century?

There needs to be an alternative vision to morlocks and eloi, surely?

[tangor]

My past work history indicates one can change jobs, talents, education, hours and stay gainfully employed. Held both blue and white collar jobs and all were gratifying in work done---and generally paid well.

In mechanized societies the top dollar is in handmade, specialty stuff. Just another fork in the road---all one needs do is take it.

[ronin]

Just another fork in the road---all one needs do is take it.

Fair enough. That's a positive, proactive attitude.

But I think this is a good example of what I term "1980s thinking".

(I am a child of the 1980s so this isn't meant perjoratively, but rather as a tribute to the innovation and entrepreneurialism of the 1980s.)

The perspective might be summarised as:

"whenever there's a new paradigm, we'll adapt to it and capitalise on it"

But this paradigm may be different from any we've seen since factories replaced handcrafting in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and it may even be different from that.

That is to say, this new paradigm bites back - it adapts to you, faster than you can adapt to it.

Who buys the handmade, specialty stuff? Other people who also make handmade, specialty stuff? Really? Who buys their stuff?

What of the person in the next town over who uses a 3D printer to produce (cheaper and more rapidly) units that are perceptually indistinguishable from your own handmade, specialty stuff?

Now you've got no-one to pay you and your neighbour is out-competing you.

And there's no-one to pay your neighbour either.

I used to imagine that the second half of the 21st century could be characterised as post-work.

I'm now wondering if it won't be entirely post-economy.

[Monicaxxa]

Good evening guys. Personally, I believe that the current situation in the jobs market became much better. Any kind of work you can find on the different job platforms? Now it is easy to change a profession and start a new career. You can work almost wherever you want. Try to search for job offers on several platforms. You can also try to look for them on different freelance websites. Good luck with this! I hope that my advice will be useful for you now.

[Marshall]

The only job security is what you create for yourself, and I do not mean being self employed. Security in anything is a myth, whether it be job, housing, health, etc. Security is derived from the ability to a) be prepared and b) the ability to adapt, which is becoming more and more important. For the most part, the days of being with one company for, essentially, a life time, is all but nonexistent, unless you are the owner, and even that is no guarantee. Automation and the population explosion has put an end to what was once a somewhat secure life.

[ronin]

For the most part, the days of being with one company for, essentially, a life time, is all but nonexistent

This won't be everyone's experience, but what you describe was almost certainly establishing roots by the early 1990s - and that's more than half my lifetime ago.

I am - and I think the FT is, to some extent - suggesting something much more radical: that from 2020 onwards, by the time you have trained for any white collar position which requires more than a couple of years' training, you may, with increasing likelihood, find yourself already obsolete.

[zulu_dude]

And then throw in the potential of Universal Basic Income and it's looking like a very interesting century indeed!

[ronin]

Universal Basic Income (UBI) certainly seems to crop up in conversation much more now than it did half a decade ago,

I was initially disappointed by the underwhelming results of Finland's experiment ( [weforum.org...] ).

Lately, I find much more compelling the arguments of those who advocate Job Guarantees instead of UBI.

The latter may be less heard of and less discussed but I can see how it caters to many more human needs than simply delivering a no-strings, no-work paycheque every month.

Most importantly, a Job Guarantee creates the opposite supply vs. demand dynamic when it comes to labour and employment.

[businessinsider.com...]

[zulu_dude]

I've not heard of that before... thanks, will do some more reading, looks very interesting!

[graeme_p]

I actually find the result of the Finnish experiment quite encouraging.

60% vs 52% doing OK or comfortable, and nearly one third less likely to feed depressed, and slightly likelier to be employed.

Also, they had to waive other benefits, which makes it cheap to do. It might also mean that for many people the change was relatively small.

Guaranteed employment is a lot harder to implement and would probably result in creating non-jobs to keep people nominally employed

[lammert]

The benefits for the individuals are obvious, but what is the benefit for the society and economy? If I would receive a basic income, I would strongly think about working less and relaxing more. That is positive for my personal well-being, but can end in a disaster for the economy.

As conventional slavery has been outlawed for a century or more in most parts of the world, the economic stability is only maintained by its financial counterpart called debt. One is no longer forced to work for their human owners, but by the need to work to pay off debt, and prevent being kicked out of our house or starve without food.

[ronin]

working less and relaxing more [...] can end in a disaster for the economy.

A century ago Henry Ford introduced the two-day weekend for his production line workers.

I don't doubt there would have been detractors at the time who would have claimed that this move would negatively impact the economy, but I suspect that most people would agree now that it didn't.

Ten decades after the five-day work-week became widespread, we are now seeing the emergence of the four-day work-week:

Tell Your Boss the Four-Day Week Is Coming Soon
[bloomberg.com...]

'We see huge benefits': firms adopt four-day week in Covid crisis
[theguardian.com...]

To Save the Economy, We Need a Four-Day Week
[tribunemag.co.uk...]

[ronin]

More below on how the four-day work-week is currently being trialled from 2019 to 2022 in the Danish town of Odsherred.

And how Spain is preparing for a nationwide trial:

TIME: Spain Is Going to Trial a 4-Day Work Week.
[time.com...]

[graeme_p]

@lammert the trials done so far indicate that UBI has very little impact on people's inclination to work.

It will also have the benefit of encouraging business risk taking and make it easier to start businesses as people will be assured of at least a minimal income until the business tarts going.

[lammert]

Here in the Netherlands we have many decades of experience with a good functioning social system which provides a basic level of income for nearly everyone. This has created a layer in society though, which is effectively not taking part in the active economy anymore. As the size of this inactive layer grew out of hand, the government is now trying to reduce the number of people in this layer by imposing minimum requirements for age or education for eligibility, and increasing the pension age.

The problem is, the longer people have managed to live at a basic level, the less personal incentive they have to leave their comfort zone, and the less companies are eager to provide them with a job.

Many countries are now trying to go where the Netherlands was 30 years ago. The idea is not bad and in the short time it may be beneficial, but as a long term solution it has many side effects.

[ronin]

a good functioning social system which provides a basic level of income for nearly everyone [... creates...] a layer in society [...] which is effectively not taking part in the active economy

I wonder if this might be to conflate the kind of socio-economic approach which seeks to promote near-universal civic inclusivity in an economy in which most people work for a living with...

... a new array of initiatives, entirely different in purpose, which aim to create a softer landing for the "working-age" population of the kind of society where a significant majority of profitable work is increasingly drafted, analysed, optimised, automated and recursively improved by machines.

In the former socio-economy, an individual may not be working, but there is certainly still profitable work to be done.

In the latter socio-economy, an individual is not working because for them - and for the vast majority of their peers - there is no profitable work out there left to do.

I suspect it's as difficult for us to imagine a socio-economy with almost no profitable work as it is for members of a subsistence socio-economy to imagine an alternative in which substantial amounts of work may render profit.

[ronin]

More predictions:

The Future Of Work Will Be Five-Hour Days, A Four-Day Workweek And Flexible Staggered Schedules
[forbes.com...]

[iamlost]

There is a common misunderstanding of the purpose of a universal basic income: that it is a more modern take on the idea of ‘welfare’ stopgap assistance for people in need. And those programs, especially in the US, have a broadly perceived negative connotation of loser, of lazy.

I’m not about to get into a debate on the history, use and abuse, of welfare in various jurisdictions. I’m just noting the connection many draw between welfare, it’s popular perception, and UBI.

Universal basic income is NOT welfare. However, it may replace welfare as a side effect.

Looking back at the history of industrialisation we can see a switch from crafts labour to commodity labour and with the beginnings of automation the switch from commodity labour to service labour. With step decreases in both social and economic standing.

With computerisation we see automation increasingly replacing not only commodity and service labour but recently cutting into lower management and lesser qualified professionals.

Economists and futurists have been predicting ‘work’ to be increasingly divergent in availability and skill, in value and remuneration. Put simply the fewer haves with more, the more have nots with less.

In the past such has caused bl**dy revolution.

What is new is the amount of value, of revenue, created by the few and automation. GDP is just fine, thank you.

And so, to keep the masses from rebelling as the economic social dichotomy widens, which it is and will continue... universal basic income.

Basically, the haves will pay the have nots sufficient to remain comfortable and so not pull down the status quo with guillotines in the public squares. And the route to additional prosperity will still beckon those who want to put in the effort.

This, not some short term stopgap until employment, but a cradle to grave generational social safety net to keep civilization, as we know it, from collapsing.

Oh, and here comes the stressor of climate change... and the rise of the populous extremes... while education, functional literacy, life expectancy plummet; willful ignorance and fanatic fundamentalism rise.

Avast, ye idjits and blivets, avast.

Ah, bah, humbug.

[NickMNS]

Universal basic income is NOT welfare. However, it may replace welfare as a side effect.

The problem with UBI is that if everyone gets some amount every month then it is as if no one got that money because of inflation. Prices are a function of supply and demand, with added income, demand increases for goods that were previously unaffordable to some. The increased demand for these goods then cause them to go into short supply and prices move up. Leaving those with less available income to buy lesser products, essentially the same products from before receiving the UBI, but now at an inflated price. Once the economy adjusts you will return to the same people paying more for the same goods, thus there will have been no benefit, except to the producers pricing stickers.

Furthermore high price benefit the business owners. These people will likely not benefit from UBI directly due to tax* clawbacks**, but they will benefit from the higher prices. At best this attempt at redistributing of wealth will have no effect other than devaluation of the currency. This will be the equivalent of adding a constant to both sides of the equation, the nominal value of each side of the equation will increase by the value of the constant but the equality will remain.

So the only solution is then to take money from those that can afford to pay more tax and give it to those that can't afford to live. Welfare? Note that **clawbacks that are proposed with most UBI systems essentially make the UBI into a welfare payment regardless, thus it becomes a game of semantics. You only pay poor people $1000 a month, or you pay everyone $1000/mo but tax those not-poor people an additional $1000/mo.

*tax and the rich. It would appear based on leaked IRS documents that the uber-rich don't pay any personal taxes, and it was even reported that despite paying no tax Jeff Bezos benefited from a child care tax credit. So in the end the only really benefactors of UBI will be the rich.
[propublica.org...]

[ronin]

Before defending UBI below, I should re-state that at present I'm not massively in favour of UBI, because I think Job Guarantees represent a much smarter, more human, more holistic solution - and I'm disappointed that, currently at least, Job Guarantees aren't generating half the conversation that UBI is.

The problem with UBI is that if everyone gets some amount every month then it is as if no one got that money because of inflation.

That absolutely makes sense when the median weekly income is (say) USD 900.

If you then give everyone USD 100 per week, universally, to take the median weekly income up to USD 1000, then things which used to cost USD 450 (ie. half a median week's wages) will now cost USD 500 (ie. half a median week's wages + half the weekly UBI). The price of that thing is still: what the median earner brings in over half a week.

But we're looking at a very different situation when the median weekly income is USD 0.

At this point, nobody will be buying things that even sell for USD 50, never mind USD 450. If you now give everyone USD 100 per week, universally, some people will now buy things that sell for USD 50.

Conclusion: It's correct to say that showering people with extra money on top of their income in a society where paid employment is normal will lead to inflation. However, maintaining an income for people who otherwise have zero (or near-zero income) in a society where paid employment is vanishingly rare (bordering on non-existent) will not lead to inflation in the same way. Instead, it will make commerce possible where, otherwise, it would remain impossible.

[ronin]

Yet more advocacy for a Four Day Work Week:

[ideas.ted.com...]

[ideas.ted.com...]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Why it's being called a crisis or the pandemic is being blamed is odd, it's part of the "great reset" plan and phase one just finished.. [weforum.org...]

White-colar jobs have been deemed unsustainable suposedly to protect the dignity of people who don't have one..New global "social contracts" are being implemented instead to make everyone the same. Big companies are being called "global stakeholders" and they are complying, which is probably why it's happening.

[ronin]

In the neo-liberal economies that have evolved - and, increasingly, Automated themselves - over the last forty years, imagining we can create traditional (read: 20th century style) white-collar jobs in the numbers needed is an increasingly unsustainable expectation.

We can agree that 2020 is an irregular year by any measure, but in the UK in 2020, every white collar job went from having 100 applicants in January to over 250 applicants by July.

Source: [ft.com...]

Having to compete against 99 other people again and again just to be lucky enough to be in a position (and for how long?) to pay for the roof over one's head is ridiculous. Having to compete against 249 other people every time is preposterous.

This was all coming anyway, but SARS 2 has ended up pouring kerosene on the bonfire.

[ronin]

Augury is fraught with peril, isn't it?

In 2020, there was a trend towards ever-increasing numbers of applicants for ever-diminishing numbers of positions.

In 2021, on both sides of the Atlantic, following an extended period during which a significant part of the workforce was required to work from home, we've experienced The Great Resignation... which appears to have been followed by The Great Mismatch.

In 2020, tech recruiter Sophie Power was one of the few people hiring, and had a big pool of candidates applying for roles. A year later, she’s dealing with the exact opposite problem: although there are roles, there are no candidates to fill them.

With regard to people's preferences on working in the office or from home, I note with interest, that:

A survey of jobseekers on tech jobs portal Otta found that 18 per cent of office workers want jobs that are fully remote, while 25 per cent prefer fully office-based. However the vast majority (56 per cent) are open to both, or are looking for a flexible arrangement.

See: [wired.co.uk...]

See also: [vox.com...]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

People resigned to work from home, yes, but many did it with gov funding which has now dried up. The fact remains that many businesses have been permanently shuttered because of lockdowns and so the jobs are also gone. Tough times ahead.

Our industry will absolutely feel it. Sites being launched today will compete in 9 months but without a similar surge in ad spend or buying power.

Much of China is moving to a 3 day work week and electricity is being turned off during the off days, and one of its largest banks is failing... truly tough times are coming for anyone who doesn't want to require gov cheese to survive..

[ronin]

Much of China is moving to a 3 day work week

Is it? I am (genuinely) startled to read this. Really? Do you have a reference for this - I'd be very grateful, thanks.

Ironically I also aspire to working a three day week, but I'm coming from the other direction. From 2011-2018 (ie. for the duration of the Austere Period), I mostly worked a "zero-day" week which was utterly miserable. (Most of the time I found myself self-employed, without inspiration, motivation, or obligation, with near-zero compensation, and trying and failing repeatedly to find a way to generate a sustainable income.) I generally referred to this as "self-unemployment". In 2018, I got a break and started working a one-day week, which felt like a huge relief after the .previous long seven years. Since 2020 I've been working a two-day week, which has transformed everything, because it has enabled me to cover my cost of living, start paying off debts (including the overdraft I was permanently living on) and get my finances back into the black. If I can make the final leap from a two-day week to a three-day week, I've no doubt it's going to feel like the high life.