Work Times Work You

                David Cain’s article Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed, on his blog about being human, covers his observation on work hours in America compared to those abroad and how it affects society. Focused on why we have a 40 hour work week and its effects the article covers the economic benefits, social issues, and history of American work hours.

                One of the first aspects the author brings up is how differently he spent his time on vacation abroad in comparison to at home after work. He observed that with more free time in vacations abroad he was spending less than he normally did and enjoyed free activities like nature walks and beaches. From this he’s hypothesized that the 40 hour work week in America plays a large role in promoting consumerism because “Suddenly I have a lot more money and a lot less time,” (David.) While it would be nice to see some studies backing his observations up, the time versus cost of activities he mentioned definitely supports the logic behind his article.

                In his discussion of social issues he points out that, while he could live happily off of far less than he makes, he doesn’t have the option to only work a portion of the work day, despite how “the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours” (David.) While with no citation it’s hard to verify that ratio, it is common knowledge that typical workers don’t spend most of their work day being fully productive.

                One thing I didn’t know about the forty hour work week was the fact that it originated in Britain in the 19^th century to protect workers. He points out the increase of production due to technology as a valid reason to reduce work hours (as we can produce more in less time) that hasn’t been used by businesses because of their reliance on people spending during their free time.

                The article was definitely an interesting read for someone who hasn’t considered why we work the hours we do, although it’s lack of studies leaves its observations in question. While the article’s reasoning is logical, it would still be unsurprising to find that 40 hour work weeks are currently common for other reasons and it’s hard to judge how much of our consumer culture is maintained through limited free time.

Science, Society, and Some Super Sneaky Alliteration

Do Artifacts Have Politics by Langdon Winner is an article on the relationship between engineering, science, and society in America. It uses historical examples to show how individuals have used science to influence society and how scientific developments have, deliberately or otherwise, shaped society.

To show how science has been used to influence society, the author references the construction projects of Robert Moses. Robert had overpasses on roads in Long Island New York constructed low enough that the public buses, widely used by poorer racial minorities, would be unable to use them.

                In discussing the part of engineers and construction workers, I find it hard to blame them for not noticing a concealed reason for their instructions and even if individuals had noticed why that height was being used, it’s unlikely they could have done much more than inconveniencing Robert with finding a replacement. While I could accept this as an example of why we should promote awareness of workers on public projects in relation to the public, I find it unfair to blame engineers in particular for not noticing buses they didn’t use wouldn’t fit and to assign them some sort of guilt or punishment for their involvement would implicate numerous other employment fields for managements decisions they didn’t make.

                In his writing on how science has influenced society, he notes the current business structure and the status of workers as an example of science building authority and society. The article points out how modern society is currently dependent on factories, work, and businesses due to how large scale our population has become and how this takes precedence of typical social morals. While I would agree that we are currently reliant on businesses and factory work to maintain our daily lives, I feel that it is important to consider how humanity was similarly dependent on morally dubious authority figures long before present technologies. Compared to spending your entire life in debt to whoever owned the land you farmed I don’t view modern industry as a net loss for society. It’s not a pinnacle of social reform and equality but the improved life span and (to my knowledge) standards of living are definite pluses in my book.

                Overall I found some of the historical examples from the article interesting. Unfortunately it failed to point out solutions to prevent the issues it raised and wasn’t establishing why it is was unintended consequences of science where responsible for the continuation of inequality in society.

Daddy, where does stuff come from?

                The Secret Life of Everything: Where Your Stuff Comes From by Brandon Keim is an article detailing the difficulty of tracking down the sources of production and delivery of common household items. It covers the author’s compilation on others research regarding delivery, supply lines and product complexity.

                In its discussion of final destinations for products Brandon notes how much easier it is to find where something is delivered compared to where it came from. Sensibly this is because stores already communicate what they have in order to sell it, although whether the difficulties the author encountered in finding where it came from are because the businesses are striving to hide all sources or just the result of whoever he asked being unsure where their products come from. For all his detail on the process of delivery in regards to mathematically maximizing the efficiency of their box placement for when it’s unloaded the author doesn’t express whether the delivery services where separate from companies or more compliant in sharing where the stuff they moved came from.

                The supply lines aspect focused on the complexity and control of delivery of car parts. To illustrate the difficulty of tracking every part of a product to its source he cites how Pietra Rivoli spent years of research to make their book, The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy. Of greater interest however is his information regarding a coffee company whose president was able to link him to the source of the beans from which their coffee was made, without knowing where products they bought from other sources like cups came from. To me this paints the picture of multiple companies who can account for their own products while having little clue regarding how the products they buy from others are made.

                While not a focus of the article, the difficulty of tracing the production of a computer was noted by the author as so difficult that “Even focusing on one part, a single display or chip, would be a daunting.” (Brandon.) I find this particularly interesting given computer manufacturing taking place almost entirely after vastly improved information storage and communication.

                Ultimately I found the article to be a well-structured summary of its author’s venture into the world of modern supply lines and an eye opener to the amount of information that is and isn’t out there. The greatest concern I found was regarding the difficulty in finding the source of any error in a product when finding the sources behind a t-shirt take years without trying to research individual sources for problems.

Class Discussion With Our New Overlords, the Teacher's Assistants

                The in class TA discussion was a refreshing twist from regular lectures with multiple speakers, student interaction, and more in depth discussion of reforms and developments. While I found the emphasis on preventing unintended consequences somewhat overboard, I strongly support increased communication between researchers and those who would want to use their product.

                Unintended consequences are a regrettable occurrence, but when combating them it is important to have realistic goals and methods. While preventing accidents and hazardous circumstances is important, you need to include focus on what happens when problems occur. Focusing on preventing problems has the difficulty of some people trying to work around rules to make more money and leaves me skeptical on what level of accident prevention is enough. At some point the cost to prevent possible accidents or issues outweighs the statistical occurrence of said problems, much like attempts to further reduce bug content in food. While I can support increased regulation and precautionary steps, at this point preventing businesses from abusing loopholes and shirking responsibility for deliberate hazards seems more prudent.

                On the other hand, communication between researchers and the public in which they work and/or work for would be a great way to improve products and promote public knowledge. Seatbelts were developed long before their widespread use in large part because they weren’t comfortable and public knowledge of the seatbelts protective capabilities was sketchy. Increased focus on communication could help call attention to issues like this faster so that problems that go unnoticed or ignored by those unaffected can be handled. As an example of fields already implementing this feedback from test audiences plays a large role in movie production and more to allow developers an outside look at their product. Even when they don’t make significant changes they still serve as excellent sources of data. Communication and information are cornerstones to the use of intelligent trial and error and I fully support widespread use of interaction between researchers, developers, and the public.

                While I felt like the discussion could have used more details and facts to go along with topics, I definitely enjoyed having multiple speakers and hearing viewpoints from other groups. One point to add for future discussions is that students would probably feel somewhat on the spot to openly dissent from the class viewpoint so actually asking for criticisms could promote more discussion of pros and cons instead of primarily pros.