Is the Protestant Work Ethic dead?

[montyfowler]

Premise: (Based on a quote from another thread by rtwngAvngr) I fully believe the Protestant work ethic, which built up this country through history, is now becoming a liability to those who learn a trade, work hard, but then find their jobs disappearing. Being from middle america, I understand this all too well. Many midwesterners grow up being taught to work hard and that all will be well. Starting a business is still seen a little bit as something that greedy, bad, people who don't want to work do.

In a globalized environment, our dumb repetitive labor is too expensive. All we have left is our brains. We must work smarter, not harder. According to the Protestant work ethic, this is something a little bit shady, a shortcut, if you will. We must evolve past the limitations of christianity. Though christianity is still very valuable in many of it's pro social, profamily, pro-accountability messages.

What do you think?

 

[jon_forward]

excuse me...I didnt know my mid-western work ethic was based on the Protestant faith..it is too bad that ALL folks arent taught from a young age to work hard, we would have the mess we have now. since when was starting a business bad? far as I am concerned that is always the goal. Profit from the honest work of others isnt greedy, its smart. as for Christianity, I fail to see the link between working and worshiping. The only limits a person has on theirself are those that are self-imposed...

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by montyfowler
Starting a business is still seen a little bit as something that greedy, bad, people who don't want to work do.

That doesn't make sense. I have 2 family members who own their own business and I do business with mostly business owners and they all work their asses off.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't misunderstand me, I think the Protestant work ethic still applies; we need to work hard AND smarter. I know that's the reality. Maybe I'm just from a bitter family. Maybe that's the key to my hatred of liberals, it's a reaction against family negativity.



Wow. I've just evolved before everyone's eyes. You can all I say "I knew RWA when...". Lucky you.


But still I think there's something here about villainization of profit through trade. Maybe it's a lefty influence on christianity, something akin to "Liberation Theology".

 

[Bry]

I think you're right that the far left does tend to be suspicious of big business, profit motives, etc., though most will put it this way: profit should not be the only consideration. Things like the rights of the workers (to not be unfairly exploited), environmental impact, fair competition, among others, are all important. I think to a certain extent the stock exchange takes ethical considerations out of the hands of Corporations. When investors who have no contact with nor interest in the procedures of the corporation, but insist only on the maximization of their profits, problems start to occure. On the other hand, I think some corporation heads are just plain greedy. So, in short, while sometimes we use hyperbolic simplifications in presenting our arguments, the bottom line is that trade and economy are very important facets of the society as a whole.

As for the protestant work ethic, per se, I don't know. I think it's over rated. There are people everywhere who work hard, and not all are protestants, of course. In Europe, however, the American "live to work" is inverted to "work to live", and people are more interested in securing and enjoying their time outside of the workplace than accumulating for the sake of accumulation. In general and IMHO, of course.

 

[montyfowler]

A Historic Perspective

The "American Work Ethic" definitely has its roots in the Puritan movement of the late 16th century in Europe. As we all know, it was exported to the New World via the Puritan settlers of the Massachussetts colony in the early 17th century.

The American Work Ethic is a simple IF > THEN > ELSE proposition. IF you work hard, THEN you will reap the benefits of such work, ELSE you will go hungry and have an unhappy life. This was the foundation upon which the colonies were founded, and it was wildly successful, especially when slave labor entered the equation and allowed it to grow exponentially.

When the industrial revolution began workers had many more choices in where to spend their hours at labor. You did not necessarily have to be a farmer, a tradesman, or a merchant. Now you could work in a factory processing the raw materials from some other area of the economy, thus spurring even faster and greater economic potential for the individual.

Throughout the latter part of the 20th century, the American economy began another quantum shift. The Information Age has transformed the world economy and created further stratification, both depth and width, in the concentration of wealth throughout the world. The U.S still reigns supreme in every category of domestic production, whether it be agriculture, textiles, manufacturing, high technology, communications, or mining. But our historic death grip on some markets is being loosened by developing countries.

As the Third World becomes more and more democratic, their people will be better educated, their markets will develop, jobs will be created, and more wealth will be generated. This is all good.

The downside is that some industries will naturally gravitate toward those countries and their cheaper labor pools. But still, this can be a good thing if managed properly. Globalization is the term given to this natural shift in production and consumption. It is Keyensian economics at work!

Globalization has had a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy in the past 25 years. One would expect this as the greatest change would naturally be felt by the largest economy, since much of the initial shift in production has come from our economy. This has placed a new challenge before the American worker. Quite simply -- adapt or die.

Some areas of our economy have adapted brilliantly while others have lagged behind. A good example is argriculture. As the American farmer became more and more effecient in his methods for producing food, this caused the price of food (in general) to decline dramatically as a percentage of income. This meant the farmer produced more, but made less profit. Not good.

So instead of looking to the government to subsidize every sector of the agricultural economy, we began exporting the technology which allowed us to become so efficient. Now, what the agricultural economy lost in price on the world market for food, we gained on the world market in technology.

This analogy was applied to scores of industries over the past quarter century. Where before we were the biggest and best producer, now we are the biggest and best innovator.

The information age has also created entire new industries that employ millions of Americans -- computer hardware and software, telecommunications, and defense to name a few.

Over time manufacturing or processing of raw amterials into basic products or building blocks for products will eventually shift to the developing nations. Our economy will depend more and more on the innovation of technology, creation of new industries, new energy sources, and the financing of the developing countries.

Our workers will have to be the best educated and the smartest-working labor force on the planet for us to continue to be the dominant force in the global economy. So in summary, we will need to work smarter, not necessarily harder to meet the challenges of the future.

The Role of Religion

Religion and its place in our culture is a very complex topic. But with regard to this thread, I do not believe that any one faith perspective has a monopoly on the American Work Ethic. Clearly our work ethic is rooted in Puritanism, as mentioned earlier, but it has taken on a uniquely American cultural aspect over the intervening 400 years.

Likewise, a person's attitude toward "making money" or profiting has as much to do with his life experience as it does with his religious perspective, if any. Poor people who have always been poor and are likely to continue in that condition will generally have a negative attitude toward those who are perceived as rich or even comfortable. It is simply a function of a very basic human emotion -- envy. Envy has a very nasty cousin called greed that is many times assumed to be the mechanism by which the rich get richer.

Now any serious and thoughful person knows this to be completely without merit. But, it is the basic irrational battlefield upon which the Liberals conduct their class warfare. Year after year, the Libs decry the rich as being greedy as if all successful people somehow came to their wealth by unscrupulous means.

This belief rises almost to the status of doctrine in some populations in America. For example, most poor inner-city Blacks believe that a rich person must have cheated or been given some unfair advantage to reach his/her level of financial success. This poisonous doctrine has enslaved generations of African-Americans, and provided the Liberals with a built-in dependent class of voters. Sickening!

Most religious traditions are careful to separate the value of honest labor (in the spiritual sense) from the reward for labor (in the economic sense). There is nothing wrong with working hard and expecting to profit from that effort. But when the reward becomes the overarching reason for putting forth the effort (greed), most faith traditions would encourage one to carefully examine his motives.

 

[William Joyce]

The Protestant Work Ethic isn't dead, but Protestants are. Whatever happened to Jonathan Edwards and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Nowadays, Protestants are a bunch of watered-down-theology multiracial marxist mushheads driving around in Toyota Avalons and wearing cardigan sweaters and trying not to offend anyone and trying to find a liturgical place for "50 Cent." Why do you think Protestants are dropping off in membership?

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by William Joyce
The Protestant Work Ethic isn't dead, but Protestants are. Whatever happened to Jonathan Edwards and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Nowadays, Protestants are a bunch of watered-down-theology multiracial marxist mushheads driving around in Toyota Avalons and wearing cardigan sweaters and trying not to offend anyone and trying to find a liturgical place for "50 Cent." Why do you think Protestants are dropping off in membership?

Geez, Bill...Did ya have a bad experience at a Methodist church, or what?!

I will have to respectfully disagree with you as I a member of a Protestant Christian denomination that is by no means dead. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is very conservative both in doctrine and in practice. Although we do not discuss politics during the liturgy, the vast majority of our members would likely identify themselves as politically conservative. We are a growing, and vibrant church and would welcome you any day of the week.

 

[Avatar4321]

Obviously you dont understand the so called "Protestant" Work Ethic. (I say so called because i have the same work ethic and am not protestant). You see, someone who has a PWE, will not simply stop working because some aspects or maybe their entire job is outsourced elsewhere (of course this begs the question that if they are working so hard and doing their job masterfully why is it being outsourced in the first place but thats a topic more for the education threads). One who has a good work ethic will continue working, even if he had to adapt himself to a different area of work. If he has to learn more to be better, he will do it, if he has to work more hours he will. ETC. Jobs come and go, but if you have the work ethic you can qualify yourself for most anything.

On a side note its interesting to note that its the liberal protestant groups that are declining and the conservative protestant groups which stand for ceratin morals that are growing.

 

[William Joyce]

"The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is very conservative both in doctrine and in practice."

This exception -- and a few others -- duly noted. The rest of my post stands.

 

[OCA]

Don't argue with Willie its pointless. He tries to take each and every subject here and divide it along racial lines which is all he's capable of seeing. I'll bet if he was going out to a nice restaurant and saw that there were more non whites than whites seated inside well he'd just have to keep moving down the road. This is the sort of mentality you are dealing with here. The guy lives in a shell.

 

[nbdysfu]

Protestants aside, the fact is that anyone who came to this country before 1946 had to work their collective tails off to survive. Work was redeeming in itself.

anyone for a MIDNIGHT barrn-raisin'?

It is this work ethic that allowed us to do this with less than currently acceptable compensation to the workers (As shown in this beautiful but entirely too large to post picture of workers on the Golden Gate Bridge) . Nowadays, we're upset when the federal government doesn't want to spend an extra $100 billion cushioning the DOT.

 

[Bry]

What's up, nbdysfu? Thinking fondly of the days of company mining towns, and railroad work where the mortality rate was 50% (and the chinese immigrants always got the most dangerous jobs...)? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take this Union modified world any day, though the rights of the workers are constantly under attack from the likes of you. It's not that Corporations that respect the worker don't work, it's that some corporations that don't respect the worker (and the environment and ordinary conceptions of fairness) are happy to augment their profit margins by taking their production to countries where workers have no rights, and the ethical corporation can't continue to compete.

Monty, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and well developed post. In the beginning, I think the protestant equation was more like IF you work hard, THEN you won't have time for impure thoughts, ELSE you won't make it to the pearly gates. This equation in some cases became IF someone else works hard, THEN you will make more money, ELSE you will be a racist bigot who thinks *******, spics, and chinks aren't genetically incapable of working hard. But, in general, as things are going now, your analysis is correct. Globalization inherently increases the competitivity of the rest of the world, and as third world countries develope, they will inevitably develope more advanced concepts of organized labor, and increasingly they will find themselves on an equal plain. In common terms of competetivity, the successful will be those who are smarter, whether they're from here or the Congo. But in the end, it will no longer be a question of national competetivity, because in all likelihood, smarter workers will simply go to whatever business in whatever country offers them more money. Capitalism will have arrived at its most extreme development, and the rich will still feel uncomfortable when they find themselves under the hungry and envious gaze of everyone else.

Your analysis of "the left" is weak. Again, most people on the left (those that aren't worried about how many votes they'll be getting) have nothing to personally gain from pointing out the priveleges of the rich vis a vis the poor. Nor the symmetry which this division maintains when compared to divisions of race. Do these divisions become symplified in the minds of many to an equation of rich = greedy? or vice versa: poor = invious? You bet. Do these simple dichotomies exert a a negative influence which is easily exploited by both political parties? That also is true. Unfortunately, your analysis of left vs. right is little more than a repetition of the old, seductively and unproductively simplictic formulations of one of those two camps.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
A Historic Perspective

The "American Work Ethic" definitely has its roots in the Puritan movement of the late 16th century in Europe. As we all know, it was exported to the New World via the Puritan settlers of the Massachussetts colony in the early 17th century.

The American Work Ethic is a simple IF > THEN > ELSE proposition. IF you work hard, THEN you will reap the benefits of such work, ELSE you will go hungry and have an unhappy life. This was the foundation upon which the colonies were founded, and it was wildly successful, especially when slave labor entered the equation and allowed it to grow exponentially.

When the industrial revolution began workers had many more choices in where to spend their hours at labor. You did not necessarily have to be a farmer, a tradesman, or a merchant. Now you could work in a factory processing the raw materials from some other area of the economy, thus spurring even faster and greater economic potential for the individual.

Throughout the latter part of the 20th century, the American economy began another quantum shift. The Information Age has transformed the world economy and created further stratification, both depth and width, in the concentration of wealth throughout the world. The U.S still reigns supreme in every category of domestic production, whether it be agriculture, textiles, manufacturing, high technology, communications, or mining. But our historic death grip on some markets is being loosened by developing countries.

As the Third World becomes more and more democratic, their people will be better educated, their markets will develop, jobs will be created, and more wealth will be generated. This is all good.

The downside is that some industries will naturally gravitate toward those countries and their cheaper labor pools. But still, this can be a good thing if managed properly. Globalization is the term given to this natural shift in production and consumption. It is Keyensian economics at work!

Globalization has had a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy in the past 25 years. One would expect this as the greatest change would naturally be felt by the largest economy, since much of the initial shift in production has come from our economy. This has placed a new challenge before the American worker. Quite simply -- adapt or die.

Some areas of our economy have adapted brilliantly while others have lagged behind. A good example is argriculture. As the American farmer became more and more effecient in his methods for producing food, this caused the price of food (in general) to decline dramatically as a percentage of income. This meant the farmer produced more, but made less profit. Not good.

So instead of looking to the government to subsidize every sector of the agricultural economy, we began exporting the technology which allowed us to become so efficient. Now, what the agricultural economy lost in price on the world market for food, we gained on the world market in technology.

This analogy was applied to scores of industries over the past quarter century. Where before we were the biggest and best producer, now we are the biggest and best innovator.

The information age has also created entire new industries that employ millions of Americans -- computer hardware and software, telecommunications, and defense to name a few.

Over time manufacturing or processing of raw amterials into basic products or building blocks for products will eventually shift to the developing nations. Our economy will depend more and more on the innovation of technology, creation of new industries, new energy sources, and the financing of the developing countries.

Our workers will have to be the best educated and the smartest-working labor force on the planet for us to continue to be the dominant force in the global economy. So in summary, we will need to work smarter, not necessarily harder to meet the challenges of the future.

The Role of Religion

Religion and its place in our culture is a very complex topic. But with regard to this thread, I do not believe that any one faith perspective has a monopoly on the American Work Ethic. Clearly our work ethic is rooted in Puritanism, as mentioned earlier, but it has taken on a uniquely American cultural aspect over the intervening 400 years.

Likewise, a person's attitude toward "making money" or profiting has as much to do with his life experience as it does with his religious perspective, if any. Poor people who have always been poor and are likely to continue in that condition will generally have a negative attitude toward those who are perceived as rich or even comfortable. It is simply a function of a very basic human emotion -- envy. Envy has a very nasty cousin called greed that is many times assumed to be the mechanism by which the rich get richer.

Now any serious and thoughful person knows this to be completely without merit. But, it is the basic irrational battlefield upon which the Liberals conduct their class warfare. Year after year, the Libs decry the rich as being greedy as if all successful people somehow came to their wealth by unscrupulous means.

This belief rises almost to the status of doctrine in some populations in America. For example, most poor inner-city Blacks believe that a rich person must have cheated or been given some unfair advantage to reach his/her level of financial success. This poisonous doctrine has enslaved generations of African-Americans, and provided the Liberals with a built-in dependent class of voters. Sickening!

Most religious traditions are careful to separate the value of honest labor (in the spiritual sense) from the reward for labor (in the economic sense). There is nothing wrong with working hard and expecting to profit from that effort. But when the reward becomes the overarching reason for putting forth the effort (greed), most faith traditions would encourage one to carefully examine his motives.

Wow. Monty. Are you a professional writer? I'm astounded at how you took my couple of paragraphs and expanded them into this, fleshing out certain areas and adding histroical contexts and examples.:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[montyfowler]

Your analysis of "the left" is weak. Again, most people on the left (those that aren't worried about how many votes they'll be getting) have nothing to personally gain from pointing out the priveleges of the rich vis a vis the poor. Nor the symmetry which this division maintains when compared to divisions of race. Do these divisions become symplified in the minds of many to an equation of rich = greedy? or vice versa: poor = invious? You bet. Do these simple dichotomies exert a a negative influence which is easily exploited by both political parties? That also is true. Unfortunately, your analysis of left vs. right is little more than a repetition of the old, seductively and unproductively simplictic formulations of one of those two camps.

Bry,

You are right...class warfare is a simplistic and self-defeating tactic in liberal politics. But, nonetheless, the Liberals continue to employ it in election after election. Why? Because it resonates with so many people who love to hate the rich and blame others for their own personal lack of success, money, fame, recognition, etc.

It is a concommitant idea to the notion that government is the ultimate caretaker of people. This sick and perverted doctrine has divided Americans for generations and makes villians of people who work hard and actually achieve some measure of the American Dream. Twisted...

An entire generation of Americans have been taught, vis a vis the liberal establishment in our public schools, that competition is bad. Personal achievement means that someone wins and someone loses. And losing or, more impoartantly, feeling the pain of losing, is bad for people. Feeling good about yourself is better than actually attaining goodness. Feeling important is better than actually being a leader. Have positive self-esteem is better than earning the respect of others.

It is a sad and destructive philosophy and it seems you have drank deeply from this well of lies. You have my pity.

 

[William Joyce]

"I'll bet if he was going out to a nice restaurant and saw that there were more non whites than whites seated inside well he'd just have to keep moving down the road."

Absolutely false. I eat at KFC on a regular basis.

 

[jon_forward]

KFC???a nice restaurant???....really!!!!!!!!!

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Bry
What's up, nbdysfu? Thinking fondly of the days of company mining towns, and railroad work where the mortality rate was 50% (and the chinese immigrants always got the most dangerous jobs...)? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take this Union modified world any day, though the rights of the workers are constantly under attack from the likes of you. It's not that Corporations that respect the worker don't work, it's that some corporations that don't respect the worker (and the environment and ordinary conceptions of fairness) are happy to augment their profit margins by taking their production to countries where workers have no rights, and the ethical corporation can't continue to compete.

Whoah Bry,

nice entrance. As if I'm unaware of that stuff. There was nothing in my post to suggest that unions were bad, at least not before 1970 or so. I'm no lover of Pinkerton. The one thing I pointed out negatively was a pork barrel issue which involves both Democratic and republican senators. And yes there were many japanese and chinese, and africans, and hispanics, and Irish, and Italians, and Germans, Englishmen and n&n. They all worked their asses off to stay alive in this country with little or no guarantee of success. So thank you chinese americans, for helping to build the TransContinental Railroad and introducing culturally barren wild westerners to General Tzo's Chickens!

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by montyfowler
Bry,

You are right...class warfare is a simplistic and self-defeating tactic in liberal politics.

Huh? how did you get that out of what I said?

But, nonetheless, the Liberals continue to employ it in election after election. Why? Because it resonates with so many people who love to hate the rich and blame others for their own personal lack of success, money, fame, recognition, etc.

For the same reason that Repubs are always trying to convince people that there is no difference in class interests apart from the envy of the poor, I suppose. What's good for the rich is good for everyone, they tell us. But your whole hatred of the rich theory is bogus. Democratic politicians are mostly rich.

It is a concommitant idea to the notion that government is the ultimate caretaker of people. This sick and perverted doctrine has divided Americans for generations and makes villians of people who work hard and actually achieve some measure of the American Dream. Twisted...

er, yeah. You can highlight the fact that we disagree all you like, it won't be taken as a fair substitute for real argument. I do believe that the society would be stronger for helping people that need it, and i don't think that sentiment is sick or perverted, your bold assertions not withstanding. As for the form which that help should take, that is another question, isn't it? Would it help if I said I didn't like the old wellfare system either?

An entire generation of Americans have been taught, vis a vis the liberal establishment in our public schools, that competition is bad. Personal achievement means that someone wins and someone loses. And losing or, more impoartantly, feeling the pain of losing, is bad for people. Feeling good about yourself is better than actually attaining goodness. Feeling important is better than actually being a leader. Have positive self-esteem is better than earning the respect of others.

Again, I disagree. Any particular defense for these assertions? To put it simply, I have not seen or heard any of these ideas advocated by anyone ever. Nice false opponent you've set up though.

It is a sad and destructive philosophy and it seems you have drank deeply from this well of lies. You have my pity. [/B]

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
Whoah Bry,

nice entrance. As if I'm unaware of that stuff. There was nothing in my post to suggest that unions were bad, at least not before 1970 or so. I'm no lover of Pinkerton. The one thing I pointed out negatively was a pork barrel issue which involves both Democratic and republican senators. And yes there were many japanese and chinese, and africans, and hispanics, and Irish, and Italians, and Germans, Englishmen and n&n. They all worked their asses off to stay alive in this country with little or no guarantee of success. So thank you chinese americans, for helping to build the TransContinental Railroad and introducing culturally barren wild westerners to General Tzo's Chickens!

Yeah, looks like I completely misunderstood your post. Sorry.