OPINION
Apparently, stuffing meat pies into your face hole at a pace that exceeds that of an average thoroughbred is not good for one’s health. Apparently, drinking alcohol to excess may result in drunkenness. Apparently, both overt and covert expressions of bigotry made the world a more stupid, unfriendly and depressing place.
This is a sample of study results I remember reading in popular press of recent years. I may have some of the details wrong, sure, but you surely know the unsurprising vibe I’m describing. You read with incredulity that one practice we all know is unhealthy leads to unhealthy results and you think, “Thanks, Centre For the Advanced Study of the Completely Obvious. I look forward to the results of your forthcoming study: Sexism. Turns Out Women Don’t Fancy it Much”.
Of course, in some instances, there is legitimate need for such study to be done. I understand that persons of the policy class do not necessarily understand, say, that the relentless bullying of school kids in particular “non-normative” categories might not end well for those bullied kids, so they need a big old document that declares, with graphs and projected economic losses etc, that a program to end such bullying might be useful.
Not all “study” appears to be created equal and it can, at times, be a great frustration to see a fact about which all reasonable persons agree turned into science. There’s a certain disappointment that enfolds me when I think, “Someone had to make that case? Don’t we already know that being awful to people will have awful results; that poor nutrition will have poor health outcomes? Can’t we get on with the job of forming a world in which all have access to such decent food, leisure, safety and labour that no one is mean to anybody else? WHY DID WE HAVE TO WRITE IT DOWN?”
So many of us have lived this way for so long, the study is as surprising as a report on meat pies.
Usually, such “Well I Already Knew That” research concerns cultural or health matters. The results of studies about poverty, however, have, in the past, tended to surprise many Australians. Since the time of World War II, most (white) Australians were beneficiaries of a government policy of full employment. This was called—just to bore you—Keynesian economics and the basic principle here was that every family should have one member providing a good wage and that all persons (again, largely white) had access to social services to assist them in times of personal emergency.
This was not a perfect system of market and social organisation. It did, however, permit several decades of economic growth which was shared by the many, and not, as is the case today, the very few. It gave rise to the very concept of the “middle class” and trade organisations, or unions, protected this form of life in which many (again, chiefly white) Australians shared.
All this began to change in the late 1970s and early 1980s. If you have ever heard the term “neoliberalism” and been confused by it, this is what it means: moving to a policy based on the idea that economic growth shared by only a few would eventually trickle down to the many. It also meant off-shoring jobs in wealthy countries like Australia, reducing the power of trade organisations and making private a lot of the social services that had once been efficiently managed by government.
Which brings us back to why I’m completely unsurprised by the good, but obvious, work of the which shows .
We are unable to plan for families, for the leisure that every human needs or the time and space to think about all the surveys that appear in the world that might help us to become a more peaceable, saner people.
So many of us have lived this way for so long, the study is as surprising as a report on meat pies. We may be kept as casuals by the careful scheduling of Human Resources departments, forced into “contracts” which last no longer than an hour or a day or pushed into “self-employment”, which requires that we not only fill out a while load of tedious forms we usually get wrong, but that we work for a range of firms. All of whom require us to fill out more forms so they can fill our bank accounts with whatever sort of non-salary they please.
This is life for a majority, now. Not only are so many of us denied the few rights the Fair Work people uphold, but we are unable to uphold that very human right of having some clue about what we might be doing next week.
And, no. We are not wondering, “will I be able to enjoy a twelve-course tasting menu next Thursday”. Take a look at the and then tell me if $662 permits us to dream of eating souffle.
We are unable to plan for families, for the leisure that every human needs or the time and space to think about all the surveys that appear in the world that might help us to become a more peaceable, saner people.
The neoliberal period of policy is over. Keynesianism was never perfect and, in any case, destined to fail. We need more than a survey in this era where a term like “underprivileged” now describes the mass.
I would, however, like to thank the Future Work people for stating the obvious. Perhaps this will assist some of us insecure workers in doing the obvious: demanding sustainable policy changes which deliver a decent life, and decent work, to all.
