For this list, the question of product and service durability needs to be related to the future of work. Assuming that it is durability of function delivered that is at stake, then some products, like wrist watches, have delivered much more durable (accurate time) service ever since everything but the brand name has become disposable. In the same way, tractors built in the 1950s would be considered a joke by the consumer today. On the other hand a home ceiling made of drywall is not near as durable as the old lath and plaster, although it may offer lower cost and lower labor input. Overall, my first guess is that the labour input is relatively unaffected by the designed durability over any 100 year time span. As more and more of our products and services are provided by robots (ie: computers, drill presses, and survellance systems) the issue of durability, as far as jobs or work are concerned, doesn't seem too significant. It may be that the improved environmental efficiency of the new product is not sufficient to cover the likely increased labor cost (and job creation) of recycling the new. This is essentially an issue of realocating some jobs to new environmental workers at the expense of the tractor owner. Seems about a trade-off. Durability is really a question of esthetics, of art. Some people are hooked on tradition and therefore resist change. For them, durability is important. Others are hooked on stimuli, and therefore can't survive without constant novelty. For them, disposability of the old is important. Although one's attitude towards tradition can impact job creation or loss, generally durability or disposability would seem to have little significant implication for the future of work. Alan Scharf, Futurist and President Scharf and Associates Creative Leap International 1137 Elliott Street, Saskatoon, SK. Canada S7N 0V4 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 306/244-4164 Fax: 306/652-0633
