> That is to say the distinction between working and not working is no
> longer so much the kinds of activities people do but whether or not
> they are getting paid for doing them. And what they do is mostly talk.
> The job of teachers, lawyers, journalists, etc. is to talk. (and talk
> and talk and talk.)
Wasn't that always true of teachers, lawyers, and journalists? And isn't it still the case that plenty of workers still make things -- e.g., the computers, microphones, whiteboards, and other paraphernalia that teachers, etc., need for doing their work, as well as the food they eat, the buildings they work and live in, etc. Is the thesis that "talkers" are now more prominent in the economy than "makers"? How would this be measured? My completely unsupported opinion is that making is still the foundation of the economy.
> It isn't even so much the performance that the audience applauds as
> our reputation or our "personality". Success depends on projecting an
> image of our self that conforms with what the audience wants us to be.
> The precariousness of this operation means that we need to always be
> on the look out for new opportunities -- either better opportunities
> or else a fall back when the current gig runs its course. Cynicism and
> opportunism are thus the crucial ingredients for success at work.
Again, I wonder who the "we" here are. This certainly doesn't apply to my work. If I don't perform, I'm out of work. It's not my personality that my clients are paying for, it's the quality of my work. And I don't think I'm particularly unusual in this respect, even in this day and age.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________
From Translation all science had its offspring.
-Giordano Bruno (quoted by John Florio, 1603)