Work / Meaning

Yesterday’s WSJ op-ed page had a long piece by Edmund Phelps, who just won the Nobel Prize in economics. The piece basically made the case for “dynamic” U.S.-style capitalism, over the “social market” or “social democracy” style capitalism of some Western European nations. In addition to all the arguments that you’d expect, he contends that U.S.-style capitalism affords more opportunities for “self-realization.”

The concept that people need problem-solving and intellectual development originates in Europe: There is the classical Aristotle, who writes of the “development of talents”; later the Renaissance figure Cellini, who jubilates in achievement; and Cervantes, who evokes vitality and challenge. … The American application of this Aristotelian perspective is the thesis that most, if not all, of such self-realization in modern societies can come only from a career. … If a challenging career is not the main hope for self-realization, what else could be? Even to be a good mother, it helps to have the experience of work outside the home.

Acknowledging that’s drawing “an idealized portrait of capitalism” that’s more important than reality, he adds:

But we can, nevertheless, ask whether there is any evidence in favor of these claims on behalf of dynamism. Do we find evidence of greater benefits of dynamism in the relatively capitalist economies than in the Continental economies as currently structured? In the Continent’s Big Three, hourly labor productivity is lower than in the U.S. Labor-force participation is also generally lower. And here is new evidence: The World Values Survey indicates that the Continent’s workers find less job satisfaction and derive less pride from the work they do in their job.

He concludes by saying that dynamic capitalism is better, among other reasons, because it proves “entrepreneurial types” with more “opportunities … for self-expression.”

I happen to be a big believer in the idea of work as a source of meaning — as a source of meaning superior to that which is likely to be achieved by consumption, for example. (Although I’m not sure that work trumps family as a source of “self realization” — and I’m hardly a family-guy type.) What I think is sort of dissonant here is that my general impression is that many, many, many of the jobs being created by the present economy are actually kind of meaningless. For every Knowledge Entrepreneur Blah-di-Blah, there are many Wal Mart cashiers, for every tech innovator, there are many tech-company customer service reps. Many, possibly most, of the new jobs being created today are not exactly opporunities for Aristotelian problem-sovling.
And I don’t find the evidence that he offers of U.S. capitalism as a self-realization machine particularly convincing. He seems to be saying higher productivity is evidence of higher work satisfaction, but I don’t buy that. The only other evidence he offers is this World Values Survey, which I’d never heard of, and on brief examination appears to be, basically, a global poll. I’ll look into that further later, when I have more time.

In any case, interesting arguments, and I agree with him about the goals, and actually I’m prepared to believe that “dynamic” capitalism is the best way to achieve them. But there’s nothing here that convinces me that we’re on that path now.