Book Review: (page 2 of 2)

The Work of Nations
By Robert Reich
Vintage Press
New York City, 1992
340 Pages, $12 Paperback

Reviewed by Carl Davidson
Networking for Democracy

"America's 500 largest industrial companies," he explains, "failed to create a single net new job between 1975 and 1990, their share of the civilian labor force dropping from 17 percent to less than 10 percent. Meanwhile, after decades of decline, the number of people describing themselves as `self-employed' began to rise. And there has been an explosion in the number of new businesses."

High value businesses, according to Reich, are those which: 1) solve problems by putting things together in unique ways, 2) help customers understand their needs and how to meet them with customized solutions, and 3) have the ability to link problem-identifiers with problem-solvers. While these criteria span a wide range of enterprises, Reich mainly means the design and engineering, research and development, education and communication, and marketing and management industries

In this context, Reich introduces the best-known features of his book: his description of the "three jobs of the future"--routine production services, in-person services, and symbolic-analytic services.

The routine producers are a shrinking percentage of the work force: about 25% in 1990. Those working with metal products were mainly white and male; those working with fabric, circuit boards or information were mainly minority and female. This sector is in sharpest competition with workers in the third world.

The in-person servers are a growing sector; they comprised about 30 percent of the labor force in 1990. From fast food restaurants to nursing homes and janitorial service firms, they work alone or in small teams. The companies can be still be quite large: Beverly Enterprises, the nursing home giant, employs 115,000 workers, the same as Chrysler. Since they have to provide services "in person," they face little global competition. But since their work often requires a pleasant, nurturing demeanor, women predominate.

The symbolic analysts are a new and growing sector, but not nearly as large as the others. These are the university-trained "knowledge workers" who manipulate symbols for a living. They amounts to no than 20 percent at present; most are white males.

For reason he doesn't make clear, Reich intentional leaves out quite a few others types of work from this analysis. Excluded are all "resource extractors"--farmers, miners, forestry workers--and all government employees, including teachers. But the apples of his eye are the symbolic analysts, who he views as central to generating new wealth and new forms of wealth.

"In the high-value enterprise," Reich explains, "only one asset grows more valuable as it is used: the problem-solving, -identifying, and brokering skills of key people. Unlike machinery that gradually wears out, raw materials that become depleted, patents and copyrights that grow obsolete, and trademarks that lose their ability to comfort, the skills and insights that come from discovering new linkages between technologies and needs actually increase with practice.... Human capital operates according to a different principle. Because people learn through practice, the value of what they do usually increases as they gain experience."

The Secretary of Labor is quick to point out that these workers did not pop up out of nowhere. Rather, they were largely the product of an industrial policy of the military type:
"Through the postwar era, the Pentagon has quietly been in charge of helping American corporations move ahead with technologies like jet engines, airframes, transistors, integrated circuits, new materials, lasers, and optic fibers. This tactic, however benign, industrial policy accelerated under the Reagan administration, as America's military buildup proceeded apace."

Reich is suggesting that if the country could benefit, even if only from secondary spin-offs, from an industrial policy driven by the Pentagon, why couldn't it do even better with an industrial policy driven by, say, the Department of Education. He state his central thesis succinctly:
"Government policy makers should be less interested in helping American- owned companies earn hefty profits from new technologies than in helping Americans become technologically sophisticated."

Many trade unionists had reservations about Reich partly because he lacked any record of pro-labor advocacy or any direct experience with the problems of the working class. After all, he was a Harvard professor from a Republican, pro-business family. Yet another way to view Reich is as an emerging spokesman for the knowledge worker, whom he praises lavishly: "Never before in history has opulence on such a scale been gained by people who have earned it, and done so legally."

Reich claims that the country already knows how to create a new wave of symbolic analysts. He asserts that our major universities are among the best in the world, drawing students from all across the globe. As for our secondary schools, he makes the following observation:

"But some American children--no more than 15 to 20 percent--are being perfectly prepared for a lifetime of symbolic-analytic work...The formal education of an incipient symbolic analyst thus entails refining four basic skills: abstraction, system thinking, experimentation, and collaboration."

But there is at least one worm in this apple. While theoretically all Americans could become symbolic analysts in a new global division of labor, in practice they will not. First of all, the new jobs being created in this sector are small relative to the job stagnation or loss in other sectors. There aren't enough of these jobs to go around, at least not yet. Second, even if there were enough jobs waiting to be filled, could a large majority, if not all, of our present schools educate the workers to fill them?

Not with the savage inequalities in our current school system. Even Reich is not unaware on the problem. Lamenting the crisis in public education, he even offers a wish list of what would be needed for all of us to become symbolic analysts:

"It would require early intervention to ensure the nutrition and health of small children and enroll them in stimulating pre-school programs...excellent public schools in every city and region and ample financial help to young people who wanted to attend college...substantial additional investments in universities, research parks, airports and other facilities conducive to symbolic-analytic work.... Finally, sufficient on-the job training..."

Reich's tone here is one of "don't hold your breath," and towards the end of his book, he becomes pessimistic. He sees the main trend among the "fortunate fifth"-- his knowledge worker constituency--as one of being overwhelmed by a selfishness disconnected from any social responsibility beyond its own narrow circles. As for the other sectors of the labor force, he sees them primarily as passive victims or as resources to be mobilized for narrow, nationalistic and backward causes. He concludes simply with a moral appeal for everyone to become community spirited and do the right thing.

In the end, Reich's book reveals two things about the top policy makers of the Clinton administration. The first is that they are smart enough to realize the true depth of the crisis of latter-day capitalism. The second is that they lack the courage and the vision to mobilize the main victims of the established order. That task--carrying the required radical reconstruction of society through to the end--remains for more capable hands.