Jobs, Jobs, Jobs Is Wrong Campaign Cry : Lifestyle: Can work be made meaningful--to the economy, the family, the individual?

Elections concentrate on the disagreements between candidates. Their agreements are often more vital for determining the future. In this election, all three Presidential candidates agree on the need to restore far higher rates of economic growth.

But it is not really growth that is wanted. The real cry is for jobs, jobs, jobs. President Bush has been using the power of incumbency to promise job-creating activities in swing states across the United States, still further increasing the deficit. Gov. Bill Clinton argues that his economic program will get America moving again. And Ross Perot claims that if the deficit dragon can be slain, the American dream can be revived.

The fundamental forces that have created the continuing economic malaise in the 1990s are still being largely ignored. Economists are, however, slowly recognizing that the excesses of the ‘80s will take time to work through the economic system. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has just admitted that the old models don’t explain the sluggishness in the economy. But these economists still believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that the high growth rates of the ‘50s and ‘60s can return.

They fail to recognize the strength of the immediate downward forces that may even now be leading us toward a triple-dip recession. Even more seriously, they do not understand that the world has changed so dramatically that we are forced to change our images of success if the human race and the planet are to survive.

In the short run, we are confronted with problems that have proved far more resistant than were expected. More and more people have decided that thrift is more attractive than debt. This pattern is reinforced because interest rates for consumer debt have remained extraordinarily high.

The glut of office buildings will take even longer to vanish than expected because of the continuing attrition in management. Companies are going to need less and less space to carry on the same amount of business. The impact of computers on jobs, so long expected, has now arrived and will continue through the ‘90s.

The jobs being lost today are lost forever. They result from profound structural shifts in the way that management systems work. It is not only that the number of levels of middle management are declining. A real revolution is taking place in the way that companies organize. There is a belief that company chiefs and their workers should be in direct touch.

Another trend, which is much less noticed, will also decrease jobs. It has been argued that there will be more and more jobs in the information fields. But we are beginning to understand that there can be too much information and that this decreases the effectiveness of management. The move is toward selecting information rather than gathering all possible sources.

Even more critically, the shift away from consumption to thrift appears to be a long-term movement, not a short-run answer to recessionary forces. More and more families believe that their satisfaction will not come from purchases but from time together. One recent poll shows that people would give up income for leisure if they had the choice.

No President can create jobs in the required numbers, and unemployment will continue to grow until we shift our perspective. We need to recognize that modern technology is offering us greater freedom. We no longer need to spend as much of our lives on the job to earn a living.

Personally, I find this development wonderful. I have long been in favor of full unemployment, believing that job structures were not the best way to get the work of the culture done. I find that people who are working in areas they enjoy are far more productive than those who must hold jobs just to get a paycheck.

We have two options for the future. We can keep current economic structures in place. If we do, unemployment rates will rise, social and racial tensions will increase and the next President will serve for only one term because he will fail to meet the expectations of Americans. Resources will become even scarcer and governmental responsibilities will not be met.

Alternatively, we can enjoy our new potentials. We can consider reducing the workweek. We can free up the spouses who would rather be raising their children than holding jobs. We can provide time for people to continue to learn throughout their lifetimes.

The choice should be easy. But the effects of inertia are incredibly strong. Have we the courage to break out of them?