Every year, I see the job market is changing, and changing in ways society needs to better understand so that it can properly deal with the situation people find themselves in, both today, but also in the future. Many are losing their jobs; while there are several factors for this, one of the most important, and one which we really need to learn how to deal with, is the way technology is determining both the kinds of jobs which are available as well as the number of people are needed for those jobs. We see this happening with AI. We are only beginning to understand the impact AI (and other technologies like robotics) will have on employment. While some speculate many, if not most, jobs will eventually be replaced by technology, white collar jobs might be among those eliminated first. Even if these predictions are excessive, there will be people who have their jobs (and whole professions) eliminated by technology; once that happens, they will find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a new job which provides them living wage (especially if they are above the age of fifty). They will not have the training or experience to be hired in other fields. And this is not just going to happen in the future. Many are already are experiencing elements of this; they get fired, search for work, and don’t even get interviews. They find the situation to be dire, not only because they can’t find work, but also because society does not really have a place for them. It’s even worse as they find governmental authorities, like those in Congress, are doing what they can to eliminate the social safety net. They have are told they will get little to no held while job opportunities are vanishing. Many advocating such changes do not really understand the modern job situation, and how difficult it can be for people to find proper work, which is why they have no problem making it difficult for those without work to get aid, such as by advocating for “work requirements” to be fulfilled by anyone being given aid. Others understand what is going on and do not care; they just want to take advantage of the situation by having workers fight for the jobs which remaining, making it easier to pay less and make a greater profit off of their workers.
Even when confronted with these facts, some end up shrugging and saying it might be sad, but it is the best that can be expected in a capitalistic society like the United States. They might even suggest that it would be “unamerican” to promote a greater social safety net, as that would” be “socialistic, and socialism is unamerican, as the United States has been, and should always be, capitalistic. How can it be unamerican to think about justice and the rights people should have? The United States was founded upon basic notions of human rights; yes, it is true, those notions were not properly lived out, but they remained principles which slowly shaped society, making it better over time. As to those who say social justice and its expectations goes against the principles the United States historically represent, it might surprise them the opposite is true. We find social justice concerns lay behind the revolution that led to the independence of the United States. They argued everyone has basic rights, and government has the responsibility to protect those rights; when government does not do so, it can become tyrannical and loses its authority. Similarly, we find they would use this to argue for society to help those in need. For example Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, “Agrarian Justice” showed an awareness of the problems technology brings that is apropos for us today. He saw technological advances could and did leave many people without work, and this often contributed to the creation of poverty in the United States. He perceived that those who owned the land that technology improved, and the technology itself, became richer, and because of this, they owed society by using their wealth to make sure no one fell into poverty. Paine believed that society had to make sure technology was used, not for the benefits of a few, but everyone. This is because everyone in a civilization should benefit from whatever positive developments take place in it, especially when those developments came from technology:
In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period.
Thomas Paine was disappointed when he found the opposite was happening. Those who owned the land gained all the benefits of technological improvements; instead of sharing it with all, he found with technological progress there was a rise in poverty in society. He did not think this meant technological advances should be halted Instead, he suggested that when those who owned the land (and the means of production) gained something as a result of such technology, they should share it with all; he did think they had a right to a portion of what was produced, but that went side by side with the responsibility they had to take care of those who lost out as a result of those advances:
The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner. While, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his.
Justice, he believed, required the creation of a fund to help those who were displaced and hurt from advances in technology, with those who benefited the most from those advances being the ones who contributed to that fund so that no end ended up impoverished:
In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.
Thus, we find one of the “founding fathers” of the United States, Thomas Paine, advocating for social justice, pointing out how society must work for the benefit of all and not just the elite. I’m not generally a fan of Thomas Paine, but here, I am more than a little impressed with the farsighted vision he had. I believe it would similarly surprise him that he had much in common with the way Catholic thought would develop its own social consciousness. Indeed, what he promoted here relates to the Catholic teaching concerning the “universal destination of goods.” The goods of the earth are meant to be shared by all, and that includes the goods which humanity produces. What makes his argument invaluable is how he indicated society must deal with the way technology changes the way goods (and profits) are generated. With improvements in technology, society can and does sustain greater populations (even if there is a limit). It would be impossible to go backwards without suffering a great loss of life:
It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated.
Thomas Paine introduced a concept which is even more important for us today than when he lived. Now, more than ever, technology is able to generate great wealth, wealth which can be used to benefit everyone. What we see, however, is the opposite, and this is what he wanted to prevent. He did believe it would be a good thing to have the concentration of wealth we see today. Instead of being shared, instead of helping those who find their talents and abilities no longer enable them to find employment, those who run society are doing all they can to help those who have gotten rich, richer.
It is important, not only to recognize the dignity of work (which can be related to many kinds of work, not just employment, something which we need to consider as technology changes society even more), but the dignity of workers. We also have to recognize the dignity of those who do not have any work. This is because every human person has a dignity of their own. It should not be associated only with work. Society must work to protect everyone, even those who find themselves unable get employed. When human dignity is related only to work, and work becomes harder to obtain, the end result is that even those who work will find their dignity undermined: they will be fighting for less and less as those who are rich can continue to get richer. That is, those who possess the wealth (or positions of power) end up trampling the dignity of everyone, including workers, and not just those without work. This, as Pope Francis understood, is an injustice which must be resisted:
Every injustice inflicted on a person who works tramples on human dignity; and also the dignity of the one who does this injustice. It lowers the level and we end up with that tension that exists between a dictator and a slave. Instead, the vocation that God gives us is so good: to create, to re-create, to work. But this can be done when the conditions are right and the dignity of the person is respected.[1]
Human dignity is fundamental; we have it because we are made in the image and likeness of God; our work can be (and should be, in some way) a creative act, and in this way, a way of representing the image of God in us. This is why work can be seen as integral to human dignity, but again, we must not use this to suggest human dignity is tied exclusive to work so that those who do not work, for whatever reason, have no right to be treated with dignity, indeed, no right to life. This is why I am impressed with Thomas Paine; in this instance, his intuition was right. Society must protect the rights and dignity of everyone. Those who own and possess more have greater responsibility to the rest of society; they must use their resources to make sure no one is left behind in poverty. Thomas Paine is, in this way, in accord with the preferential option for the poor. And this is why, far from being the “unamerican” or “socialism” critics of social justice claim, social justice represents some of the best principles that lay behind the creation of the United States.
* This Is Another Post From My Personal (Informal) Reflections And Speculations Series
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.
[1] Pope Francis, “Work is the Vocation of Man. Homily May 1, 2020.” Vatican translation.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In