I know. Me and my titles, right?
Before you delve into this post, please take a moment and read an article by a man named Gord entitled “Don’t Think Recession, Think Resetting.” Come back when you’re done and let’s have a chat.
I’ll wait.
Back already? Thanks for returning…
Interesting, wasn't it? And even, dare I say, hopeful--which is something that is only acceptable in these grim economic times when its tempered with a touch of the realistic and rational, which this is. As Gord states, “in the two most dramatic economic pull backs in the last two centuries, there was a corresponding seismic shift in how we worked and how and where lived. And after the pain of resetting, the world emerged and prospered for a significant period of time.” Indeed. Did that give you chills too?
Whether you want to call it intense optimism or crushing pessimism, I firmly believe that history is doomed to repeat itself. Perhaps the expression, which is always spoken using the word “doomed” is not being fair to the central idea though. Maybe the word “destined” is better, but even using such a relatively light word as that it opens up another can of metaphysical worms what with its close ties to fate and preordination. These questions aside, it is difficult to be unable to find at least some strong parallel between any given current event and a closely tied historical counterpart, whether in theme, action, or conclusion.
During this recession (or should I say complete economic meltdown) everyone is rushing to make parallels to the Great Depression and other times of severe economic crisis. What they look for are the ways in which the most dire elements of bad times are going to resurface in a similar, albeit more modern way. Everything you read about the issue is seeking to invoke a ghost of crisis past to warn of the horrors that lay around the corner. What is missing far too often, however, is a firm eye on what happened after the crisis—where are the commentaries about the new Reconstruction era?
To backtrack a little, the title of this blog is a rather unsubtle play on the historical consistencies between what is happening now and what happened during another significant shift in labor and social history—the mighty Industrial Revolution.
During said revolution, cottage industry, which had been the norm since the beginning of time, began to sink in the face wage labor. This (re)evolution created its own economy (the one we recognize) as an increasing number of workers left the home to seek formal wages in lieu of what previously consisted of a complex system local bartering arrangements over firm pay scales. And you’d better believe there was some serious growing pains. The period of adjustment following this drastic alteration in almost every aspect of work, home, and social life was long and arduous. Livelihoods were lost. Lives were even lost. It was a dirty, glorious, exhausting, unequal, humbling, bombastic clusterf**k.
But you know what? Once the growing pains ceased and people began to adjust, it righted itself. This is because w adapt. We evolve. We also devolve. But isn’t this what makes history compelling and so hard to wrench ourselves from when we think we’re in uncharted territories?
I am making the argument that the Remote Revolution will come with an incredible, migrane-inducing set of growing pains. These haven’t started since this movement is still technically in its infancy (and will be, in my opinion, until this becomes so mainstream Oprah does shows about it). More importantly, I am making the argument that the Remote Revolution will be similar to the Industrial Revolution, but in reverse. I do not mean we are going backwards when I say reverse, it is a forward-only action. What I mean is that workers will again return to their homes, that more flexible working scenarios will lead to better collaboration between workers (similar to the barter system with capital being knowledge and information rather than eggs and weaving) and that instead of focusing on industry and large-scale manufacturing, what I term as a “niche culture” will once again emerge—the same kind of niche culture that dominated the diverse cottage industries.
Thanks to @zirnhelt (no stranger to cottage industry himself) for the great recommendation to read that article.




1 comments:
"What I mean is that workers will again return to their homes, that more flexible working scenarios will lead to better collaboration between workers (similar to the barter system with capital being knowledge and information rather than eggs and weaving) and that instead of focusing on industry and large-scale manufacturing, what I term as a “niche culture” will once again emerge—the same kind of niche culture that dominated the diverse cottage industries."
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Are you saying that you expect a total decentralization of the workforce, essentially making everyone an independent contractor?
Contrary to your statement, one of the biggest hurdles for telework is how to engender meaningful collaboration when everyone is only virtually connected. In the short term, this will be difficult to overcome. Social networking tools can help but cannot completely fill the void of face time in the office.
In the longer term, we can hope ubiquitous high bandwidth will pave the way for more desktop video, removing the lack of face time from the equation. This brings us back to your prior entry...
Post a Comment
Thank you for contributing to the discussion...