![[monumentum]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrZ35Jk04DOExa4SYKxFysEeLnDhRMoPecY-CUwBqjyvQX0NBLlYUljq47hmRNyt_z4DWYjMhXqC8AfRZNpgjDmoqlDuUrMT_SoJGXcGoYBZ151nCN9A2b8XBjQ126wRjU-T0K8XUzT1qR/w950-h400-no/IMGP3970%2528v02+-+cropped21%2529.jpg)
Today I joined in a Skype "conversation" organised by the Singapore Humanist Society titled Skype Party #4 - The Future of Work, hence the title of this post. Although the call was almost 2 hours long, it had been really enlightening and I was humbled by the amount of knowledge that was shared both by the organisers and the audience on the floor.
As COVID-19 has drastically changed the way we work, our susceptibility to technological "prowess" (if I'm permitted to clarify this later on) becomes rather apparent. Technology has become too inevitable for us to do without. Our productivity is at the mercy of how fast our internet works, whether our company's VPN system is stable enough to host everyone; our relevance determined by whether our work can be "telecommuted"; this ultimately converts into how secure our jobs will be. If we're unable to continue contributing as we would during peaceful times, is there then a need for us to be kept around?
Of course, this is on top of all the other factors contributing to a company's decision to lay off its staff as a direct result of COVID-19.On the other hand, on the part of workers, our individual ability to keep up with technology goes without saying, and often determines whether our livelihood is secured against the ever-younger generations who are born into a technological age.
An extremely well-versed participant pointed out that Industry 4.0 is happening at a rate that is many times faster than Industrial Revolution had kicked in to replace human labour—a process that took decades for its effect to be truly felt. COVID-19 is going to accelerate this process in our era, and by many more times.
Perhaps, I'm thinking, in such times of crisis, when sickness and mortality become so prevalent, and our fear shrill and ever-present, human weakness sticks out so blatantly. All these while, thriving on technological advancement and predominantly capitalist economies, we have stopped allowing such primal human weakness to surface. Whenever it does, we suppress or conceal.
In the face of stark contrast, between the technology that never has to be on sick/compassionate leave, and the humans who are subject to frequent toilet breaks and lunch time, who wins? Technology trumps human labour hands-down.
As some would proudly declare, "I can't afford to take medical leave, my company needs me." Yes, except that when he is truly down, no longer able to contribute or becomes too expensive to maintain, he is—as millions of others, easily dispensible. Such is the working of a capitalist system. For the want of money, there would easily be a replacement and a lower cost one would be greatly preferred.
Last night, I listened to Michele Wucker, who spoke of the "Gray Rhino" effect. She calls Climate Change one of them.
Reflecting after the call, I have been thinking about the extent to which different nations would be hit. Those hardest hit might very well be the ones who have all along been placing higher stakes on technology and banging on smooth-running economies. Hardest hit, in this sense, does not refer solely to monetary losses, but also to human misery.
All these call to mind a certain book which I had been reading some time back, titled Bullshit Jobs: The Rise of Pointless Work and What We Can Do About It by David Graeber.
Some would call this book an anarchist's rant, but the whole COVID-19 situation, through my observation so far, seems to amplify the bullshitness of many (especially corporate) jobs in society. I was not surprised when I read on the newspaper some time back that "human resource managers" and "business analysts" were examples of jobs that were considered non-essential.
Perhaps "non-essential" resonates beyond the need of going to office at all. That fact that how many man-years have been wasted until 2020, commuting between the home and workplace, can so easily be called into question, simply spells the necessity of this whole fiasco.
Of course, one might say that it wasn't until recently that technology has been able to support working from home. However, if the developed world can commit a folly so huge as to send a good proportion of time (which could've been otherwise dedicated to more constructive human affairs e.g. interpersonal relationships with loved ones etc.) down the drain, what makes one deny that job creation on so many levels can never be an equally major mistake?
Anyway, perhaps this is just scraping the surface for now, until I'm able to go in-depth into this issue at some point. For the bulk of corporate job holders who are working from home in this period, whether admissible or not, the rule of thumb goes like 'How to appear busy whilst doing nothing'.
As COVID-19 has drastically changed the way we work, our susceptibility to technological "prowess" (if I'm permitted to clarify this later on) becomes rather apparent. Technology has become too inevitable for us to do without. Our productivity is at the mercy of how fast our internet works, whether our company's VPN system is stable enough to host everyone; our relevance determined by whether our work can be "telecommuted"; this ultimately converts into how secure our jobs will be. If we're unable to continue contributing as we would during peaceful times, is there then a need for us to be kept around?
Of course, this is on top of all the other factors contributing to a company's decision to lay off its staff as a direct result of COVID-19.On the other hand, on the part of workers, our individual ability to keep up with technology goes without saying, and often determines whether our livelihood is secured against the ever-younger generations who are born into a technological age.
An extremely well-versed participant pointed out that Industry 4.0 is happening at a rate that is many times faster than Industrial Revolution had kicked in to replace human labour—a process that took decades for its effect to be truly felt. COVID-19 is going to accelerate this process in our era, and by many more times.
Perhaps, I'm thinking, in such times of crisis, when sickness and mortality become so prevalent, and our fear shrill and ever-present, human weakness sticks out so blatantly. All these while, thriving on technological advancement and predominantly capitalist economies, we have stopped allowing such primal human weakness to surface. Whenever it does, we suppress or conceal.
In the face of stark contrast, between the technology that never has to be on sick/compassionate leave, and the humans who are subject to frequent toilet breaks and lunch time, who wins? Technology trumps human labour hands-down.
As some would proudly declare, "I can't afford to take medical leave, my company needs me." Yes, except that when he is truly down, no longer able to contribute or becomes too expensive to maintain, he is—as millions of others, easily dispensible. Such is the working of a capitalist system. For the want of money, there would easily be a replacement and a lower cost one would be greatly preferred.
Last night, I listened to Michele Wucker, who spoke of the "Gray Rhino" effect. She calls Climate Change one of them.
Reflecting after the call, I have been thinking about the extent to which different nations would be hit. Those hardest hit might very well be the ones who have all along been placing higher stakes on technology and banging on smooth-running economies. Hardest hit, in this sense, does not refer solely to monetary losses, but also to human misery.
All these call to mind a certain book which I had been reading some time back, titled Bullshit Jobs: The Rise of Pointless Work and What We Can Do About It by David Graeber.
Some would call this book an anarchist's rant, but the whole COVID-19 situation, through my observation so far, seems to amplify the bullshitness of many (especially corporate) jobs in society. I was not surprised when I read on the newspaper some time back that "human resource managers" and "business analysts" were examples of jobs that were considered non-essential.
Perhaps "non-essential" resonates beyond the need of going to office at all. That fact that how many man-years have been wasted until 2020, commuting between the home and workplace, can so easily be called into question, simply spells the necessity of this whole fiasco.
Of course, one might say that it wasn't until recently that technology has been able to support working from home. However, if the developed world can commit a folly so huge as to send a good proportion of time (which could've been otherwise dedicated to more constructive human affairs e.g. interpersonal relationships with loved ones etc.) down the drain, what makes one deny that job creation on so many levels can never be an equally major mistake?
Anyway, perhaps this is just scraping the surface for now, until I'm able to go in-depth into this issue at some point. For the bulk of corporate job holders who are working from home in this period, whether admissible or not, the rule of thumb goes like 'How to appear busy whilst doing nothing'.
