It is by now an all-too-common commentary on the state of the economy to emphasize the lack of "good" jobs. Many university students graduate only to continue their hourly shifts. There are many internship "opportunities," but these quickly reveal themselves to be convenient tactics for corporations to get their mechanical office work done at a low cost.
There are many anxieties and discontents to be expressed duly from the subjective point of view of the average university graduate, but for the time being, I will take a Copernican viewpoint.
What does it mean to say that "there are not enough well-paying jobs for university graduates?" Among many things, it means that there are not enough "under-educated" people for getting the more "basic" tasks done. The production and distribution of basic human needs - food, shelter, transportation, etc. - require "men of hand," and this workforce is the basis upon which so-called white collar workers are able to work. The relationship here is reciprocal: it is not simply the case that white-collar workers need to "legitimize" their otherwise empty "work" while manual laborers are exploited one-sidedly. It is rather more accurate to say that the latter group is able to get their jobs done effectively precisely because of the new knowledge and system which trickles down from the former group.
What does it mean to say that "there are not enough well-paying jobs for university graduates?" Among many things, it means that there are not enough "under-educated" people for getting the more "basic" tasks done. The production and distribution of basic human needs - food, shelter, transportation, etc. - require "men of hand," and this workforce is the basis upon which so-called white collar workers are able to work. The relationship here is reciprocal: it is not simply the case that white-collar workers need to "legitimize" their otherwise empty "work" while manual laborers are exploited one-sidedly. It is rather more accurate to say that the latter group is able to get their jobs done effectively precisely because of the new knowledge and system which trickles down from the former group.
But, it is precisely because the system and technology of labor is "given from above" that the manual laborers confront the risk of alienation. It is not up to them to decide how to work, at what pace, using what, and in what way. From a certain point of view, they become pawns, just another element in a system neatly designed to execute a grand plan which is accessible only to an elite few.
The other side of the coin, however, is that manual laborers are in a position to know and be certain that their work is essential, whereas the white-collars are in constant fear of losing their privileged position. The lack of experience in the latter means that it is extremely difficult and painful for the latter - both physically and existentially - to adapt to the possible position of a manual laborer. And this is precisely the fear which is being realized in the current situation.
How to confront this situation? By taking a close look at the dialectic of work. On the one hand, work is a response and self-subjection to the demands of another. On the other hand, work is an autonomous act. The worker is not free to act contrary to the demands and duties of his own work, but he is free to choose which duty/demand will be his calling. The latter freedom cannot be measured by income or prestige. Rather, this freedom is valuable in itself, and thus it is totally up to the worker to decide whether or not he is willing to renounce his capricious self for the particular opportunity which confronts him.
This insight complicates the idea of "improving the (economic) system." When politicians, corporations, and consultants use this phrase in public discourse, how are they able to take into account the gap between their point of view - i.e. what they believe they are offering - and the point of view of the workers - i.e. those who are meant to benefit in a certain way, yet experience a dimension wholly alien to the planners?
Even the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" test is not decisive enough for either side to bridge this gap. This is because it is up to the individual to either appropriate or alienate himself from the work on offer before him. It is not a question of: "are you willing to be in the position of the other?" - this is because the freedom which is required for the overcoming of alienation implies that one's position, qua the person who makes the absolute decision to identify fully with his own occupation, is not interchangeable.
The other side of the coin, however, is that manual laborers are in a position to know and be certain that their work is essential, whereas the white-collars are in constant fear of losing their privileged position. The lack of experience in the latter means that it is extremely difficult and painful for the latter - both physically and existentially - to adapt to the possible position of a manual laborer. And this is precisely the fear which is being realized in the current situation.
How to confront this situation? By taking a close look at the dialectic of work. On the one hand, work is a response and self-subjection to the demands of another. On the other hand, work is an autonomous act. The worker is not free to act contrary to the demands and duties of his own work, but he is free to choose which duty/demand will be his calling. The latter freedom cannot be measured by income or prestige. Rather, this freedom is valuable in itself, and thus it is totally up to the worker to decide whether or not he is willing to renounce his capricious self for the particular opportunity which confronts him.
This insight complicates the idea of "improving the (economic) system." When politicians, corporations, and consultants use this phrase in public discourse, how are they able to take into account the gap between their point of view - i.e. what they believe they are offering - and the point of view of the workers - i.e. those who are meant to benefit in a certain way, yet experience a dimension wholly alien to the planners?
Even the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" test is not decisive enough for either side to bridge this gap. This is because it is up to the individual to either appropriate or alienate himself from the work on offer before him. It is not a question of: "are you willing to be in the position of the other?" - this is because the freedom which is required for the overcoming of alienation implies that one's position, qua the person who makes the absolute decision to identify fully with his own occupation, is not interchangeable.
