Well, I have read chapter one of my new module textbook, (Microeconomics), entitled, "Are we living through a new industrial revolution. The evidence of the so called ,new economy, might at first suggest that we are. Since the mid 90s the global economy was given a huge boost by the advances in technology based industries and consumerism based around this. So much so that it fuelled separate share indices in the stock markets, leading to the dot com boom at the turn of the century, and subsequently, to the misplaced confidence which has led to the financial maelstrom affecting most of the global economy right now. That is a strand of the subject which I will doubtless cover as my studies progress, and will absolutely be devoting an entry too.
Back to the question in hand. We must compare previous instances of upheaval in working lives/practices to address the question. The Agrarian (or Agricultural) Revolution was driven by the study of efficiency of planting and soil use, leading to the still used practice of crop rotation. That would not have changed working lives, since a field being ploughed sown and harvested is the same process for the farm workers. The development of tools, such as the horse-drawn seed drill (among others) were the real technological change which led to farmers needing less labourers, and subsequently to huge unemployment. (Note to prog rock fans, a book , the horse-drawn seed-drill was written by a certain Jethro Tull, now you know where the name came from)
This unemployment was one of the few times in history that farm labourers were able, or in this case forced to migrate to find work. Soon after, there were jobs aplenty in the cities, as the Industrial Revolution kicked in. The factories springing up were mainly driven by harnessing the power of moving water, then steam power to drive textile production on a scale unimagined by the people who would have previously spun yarn, and loomed cloth in their cottages, whilst the men of the family were toiling in the farmer's fields. Although they would not be affluent, they would at least have steady work, and a clean environment in which to raise their families. Within a generation, the men women AND children of these families would be working in factories. Now, regular readers of my entries will at this point be able to tell which way the wind is blowing, and you are right, I am not about to praise up factory owners for supplying steady work to displaced country folks. There are exceptions, such as Robert Owen, who developed workers' co-operatives. For every Owen there were too many others, whose workers were not even paid money. Rather, they were paid in tokens, redeemable only at shops owned by the same people who owned their factories. people would be working 14 hour shifts 6 days per week, and often ended up in slums, again owned by people who were every bit as exploitative as their factory bosses. Factory conditions changed again with the advent of the harnessing of electricity as a power source for machinery. A similar process came about in the 1920s, when car manufacture changed from being a hand crafted industry, to the assembly line which anyone could be quickly trained to work on. Artisans and craftsmen suffered, but the ordinary worker could get a comparatively good wage, resulting in thousands of people travelling from all over the US to Detroit. Work was easy to find, but the factories were run by owners who were vehemently opposed to unions. There is also a migration similar to that of agrarian workers in the late 18th century.
To answer the question, it has to be determined whether or not people's lives have been affected by changes brought about by the 'new economy'. The rise of call centres has certainly changed peoples' work/life balance. People are working at all times of day and night in order to deal with the queries of people using the service. This will impact on the time people have to devote to social and family life, not only at home, but abroad where the employees may be cheaper. Many businesses working practices have changed, due to people being able to shop online, not just for goods, but services such as travel agency, so leading to companies needing less employees. Also, due to the relative cheapness of labour in some countries, a lot of manufacturing work has been moved, leading to people having to find not only a job, but a new skill set. Because of this, people are working many short term contracts, rather than having a career in one post. So, technology is still affecting people in the same ways in which it always has. People are still losing jobs. People are still having to move to find work, or accept work under reduced terms and conditions. I, and many people reading this, are probably able to quote their own experience(s) of any of these affects. As an example of how bosses will always try to get more out their employers, and usually by introducing new technologies and working conditions, I offer this recent example. See how the employee is at first worried for his job, then is delighted by the new machine, then resigned to the new working conditions imposed upon him. Some people may think that I read too much into things. I disagree. I am simply more willing than most to peel back the layers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PO793A3jI
Back to the question in hand. We must compare previous instances of upheaval in working lives/practices to address the question. The Agrarian (or Agricultural) Revolution was driven by the study of efficiency of planting and soil use, leading to the still used practice of crop rotation. That would not have changed working lives, since a field being ploughed sown and harvested is the same process for the farm workers. The development of tools, such as the horse-drawn seed drill (among others) were the real technological change which led to farmers needing less labourers, and subsequently to huge unemployment. (Note to prog rock fans, a book , the horse-drawn seed-drill was written by a certain Jethro Tull, now you know where the name came from)
This unemployment was one of the few times in history that farm labourers were able, or in this case forced to migrate to find work. Soon after, there were jobs aplenty in the cities, as the Industrial Revolution kicked in. The factories springing up were mainly driven by harnessing the power of moving water, then steam power to drive textile production on a scale unimagined by the people who would have previously spun yarn, and loomed cloth in their cottages, whilst the men of the family were toiling in the farmer's fields. Although they would not be affluent, they would at least have steady work, and a clean environment in which to raise their families. Within a generation, the men women AND children of these families would be working in factories. Now, regular readers of my entries will at this point be able to tell which way the wind is blowing, and you are right, I am not about to praise up factory owners for supplying steady work to displaced country folks. There are exceptions, such as Robert Owen, who developed workers' co-operatives. For every Owen there were too many others, whose workers were not even paid money. Rather, they were paid in tokens, redeemable only at shops owned by the same people who owned their factories. people would be working 14 hour shifts 6 days per week, and often ended up in slums, again owned by people who were every bit as exploitative as their factory bosses. Factory conditions changed again with the advent of the harnessing of electricity as a power source for machinery. A similar process came about in the 1920s, when car manufacture changed from being a hand crafted industry, to the assembly line which anyone could be quickly trained to work on. Artisans and craftsmen suffered, but the ordinary worker could get a comparatively good wage, resulting in thousands of people travelling from all over the US to Detroit. Work was easy to find, but the factories were run by owners who were vehemently opposed to unions. There is also a migration similar to that of agrarian workers in the late 18th century.
To answer the question, it has to be determined whether or not people's lives have been affected by changes brought about by the 'new economy'. The rise of call centres has certainly changed peoples' work/life balance. People are working at all times of day and night in order to deal with the queries of people using the service. This will impact on the time people have to devote to social and family life, not only at home, but abroad where the employees may be cheaper. Many businesses working practices have changed, due to people being able to shop online, not just for goods, but services such as travel agency, so leading to companies needing less employees. Also, due to the relative cheapness of labour in some countries, a lot of manufacturing work has been moved, leading to people having to find not only a job, but a new skill set. Because of this, people are working many short term contracts, rather than having a career in one post. So, technology is still affecting people in the same ways in which it always has. People are still losing jobs. People are still having to move to find work, or accept work under reduced terms and conditions. I, and many people reading this, are probably able to quote their own experience(s) of any of these affects. As an example of how bosses will always try to get more out their employers, and usually by introducing new technologies and working conditions, I offer this recent example. See how the employee is at first worried for his job, then is delighted by the new machine, then resigned to the new working conditions imposed upon him. Some people may think that I read too much into things. I disagree. I am simply more willing than most to peel back the layers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PO793A3jI
