Night Hawks Tapes

• Unprecedented social issues are beginning to arise, potentially causing massive trauma and conflict.
As we stand on the frontier of the new economy, we can also see the beginnings of a new political economy that will raise far-reaching questions about power, privacy, access, equity, quality of work life, quality of life in general, and the future of the democratic process itself. As tectonic shifts in most aspects of human existence clash with old cultures, significant social conflict will tear at the fabric of structures and institutions.
New social dialectics—the juxtaposition or interaction of conflicting ideas—are emerging.’6 Hegel developed the concept of conflicting forces leading to a synthesis of something new. Man applied the notion to a view of the evolution of societies called dialectical materialism, but history did not evolve as Man had planned. The new economy demands that the notion of dialectic forces be revisited. For example, there are strong pressures for the dispersion of economic and political power. These pressures conflict with old structures that seek to centralize economic and political power.
The nature of work and the requirements of the workforce in the digital economy are fundamentally different. The concept of labor is undergoing a radical redefinition. Just as the percentage of the workforce in agriculture has been declining since the turn of the century, the number of workers involved in the production of goods (the old economy) has been falling for a decade. The new economy is bringing high-paid, high-value jobs, but there is little job mobility between old and new. How will such a huge reorganization of the labor force and its skills occur?
There is a concurrent trend toward self-employment and the creation of small knowledge-based industries providing work on a contract basis. In the digital economy, as intellectual capital becomes the most valuable resource, the means of production shifts from the plant floor into the innovative minds of knowledge workers—those who create value. Compare their emerging power to that of the industrial worker, who could withhold labor by going on strike. Similarly, employers could lock out workers and deny them access to the means of production. Knowledge workers can exert their power in infinitely more complex and effective ways. Bosses can’t deny them access to their own brains. If they are unhappy or feel unwanted, they are likely to set up their own business, as millions have done in the last half decade. A good brain, a telephone, a modem, and a PC are all that’s required to produce. As Miller puts it, “Bosses can’t say I want x tonnes of innovative ideas out of this group, as he used to do with steel.” Knowledge workers require motivation and trusting team relationships to be effective. They have emerging power far beyond anything Marx ever imagined. These owners of the new means of production will be better positioned than ever to share in the bounty. Yet this growing power conflicts with traditional ownership and power structures, which are based on ownership of industrial age assets, specifically capital.
In the new economy, those workers with access to the new infrastructure can participate fully in social and commercial life. Those without access, knowledge, and motivation will tend to fall behind. If not managed properly, this will increase social stratification severely, creating a new underclass. The have-nots will become confronted with the contradiction between the magnificent potential of the new technology on the one hand and their declining quality of life on the other.
In the new economy, learning will more and more be provided by the private sector. This will come about not out of social responsibility but, rather, because working and learning are becoming the same activity for a majority of the workforce and because knowledge is becoming an important part of products. Moreover, the traditional educational institutions are failing to meet the needs of the economy, and there are huge and growing opportunities for learning products and services. This places a greater responsibility on individuals (those who can afford it) to achieve lifelong learning—potentially increasing social chasms. Furthermore, teachers and their unions need to participate and lead in the transformation of education if the old industrial-age type of schools are to have a hope of transforming themselves and surviving. But increasingly, learning can be done without formal institutions, and learning in schools can be done through technology, requiring fewer teachers. This leaves teachers in a Catch-22 situation—become irrelevant by resisting change or possibly become irrelevant by leading it.