Talk

Advanced search

Disturbing trend in future employment? Or something to 'free us all'?

(9 Posts)
Draylon Sun 29-Nov-15 10:58:43

from today's Sunday review, Observer

Personally I read this in a state of sadness - the 6 interviewees were either young enough to be able to afford to mess about in several jobs simultaneously, or old enough to recognise they have no financial future.

Surely this can't be the future? And if it is, what areas of study should our DC get into to avoid being the 'have nots' in all this?!

yeOldeTrout Sun 29-Nov-15 11:45:54

Gosh, glass half empty or what? I thought it was marvellous how resourceful & entrepeneurial they all are.

2 of the interviewees are located in LA, 3 are American-raised, 2 are continent-hoppers. My parents grew up in LA (roughly speaking). Intermittent & inconsistent types of employment was normal for their generation in the 1950s-60s. Actually, for some of their parents in the 1920s-30s. too. I'm not sure what the problem is the OP is worried about.

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett Sun 29-Nov-15 11:57:45

Agree with Trout - yep, this is the way of the world now and it's exciting! I want my DC to have the soft skills to be able to juggle and be agile, to accept the opportunities that come his way, to always say 'yes'.

There is one big issue though and that's changing the traditional models of housing and finance to mesh with the new models of working. Housing is fecked in this country and this is another force to put pressure on the old ways of doing things.

OurBlanche Sun 29-Nov-15 12:09:07

I am 50 and am just re-working my life so that I can do this. Self employed 2 totally different fields, 1 NHS based job for 4 hours per week, 1 volunteering job that includes chances of paid work running workshops with partner agencies.

Frankly I wish DH could do much the same, it is quite a liberating and exciting way to work.

Draylon Sun 29-Nov-15 12:14:50

There is one big issue, though.

Yes. Precisely

Draylon Sun 29-Nov-15 12:16:18

OurBlanche- may I ask if you're post-first career? A home owner? Financially able to take the risks? With a pension plan in place?

Genuine questions.

OurBlanche Sun 29-Nov-15 12:55:04

I am now, but did a similar range of jobs back in the 80s, for much the same reasons. Then got all traditional, married, university, career. I am just reverting to type, I think.

I know lots of people my age who have always had a handful of jobs, some are homeowners, some single, some more secure than others. It isn't a new thing. Just the 80s and 90s diverted many people from more ad hoc arrangements.

It also may be a class/geographical thing. I am Northern and WC, moved South as a teen and got all MC in my 30s/40s. But I know many people here, both rural and city based, who have always worked like that, so maybe not!

But, in my experience, it is just a return to more loose, less secure, working arrangements. Which will have lots of pros as well as cons.

NoTechnologicalBreakdown Mon 30-Nov-15 17:38:43

It is something that has been developing for a while, but it is getting more extreme. I think worse, personally. Or rather, it is all very well when you're a footloose fancy-free 20-something, but it is not something you can have a family with. You need some security with a family.

There are all sorts of questions about the future of work that need to be asked in the highest places. This is an older article from a blog I like that starts to ask them notesbrokensociety.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/hard-work-why-we-need-to-change-the-way-we-think-about-work-pay-and-benefits/

And here's a video (from a Belgian newssite) about basic income, which might be part of the solution deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/videozone_ENG/1.2253270

Technology is changing the way we work - stories about technology reducing the number of jobs available have hit the BBC more than once - and we need to match its development with social development. Contrary to popular belief, we do not need to have the 'have' and 'have nots' - that is a political decision. We could and should imo share resources out more fully, taking the environmental limits into consideration as well. Something as simple as more part-time work would be beneficial, why is it that as technology has evolved to make our lives easier, or so it has been argued, we have ended up working more and more and reducing a work-life balance? There are old archaeology / ethnographic articles about how hunter-gatherers work 10-15 hours or so (can't remember exact figures, this is old stuff), subsistence farmers 25 hours a week to maintain themselves - but modern society is insisting on 37 as standard for most of us, up to 60 for some? Crazy. Scandinavia is reducing its work hours, according to a recent BBC article I saw: Germany reduced its pensionable age. But in Britain we ask for more and more from the few people still in decent secure employment.

There are feminist angles as well, as women no longer see why they should be considered primarily responsible for home life and increasingly think that men should be working less hours and be available for their families more. If we have to balance the two, why shouldn't they.

As you can probably tell these sorts of issues interest me! Hope you can make some sort of sense out of the brain dump!

suzannecaravaggio Wed 02-Dec-15 18:00:35

but modern society is insisting on 37 as standard for most of us, up to 60 for some

the purpose is to keep us all too busy and stressed to think about the fact that 'We could and should imo share resources out more fully'

we are mere livestock herded about by those in power so that multinational corporations can milk us for profit

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now