Anti-Climacus

...AND THE PROBLEM IS?

"And, what about this? Who would do a finer job, one man practicing many arts, or one man one art?"

"One man, one art," he said.

"And, further, it's also plain, I suppose, that if a man lets the crucial moment in any work pass, it is completely ruined."

"Yes, it is plain."

"I don't suppose the thing done is willing to await the leisure of the man who does it; but it's necessary for the man who does it to follow close upon the thing done, and not as a spare-time occupation."

"It is necessary."

"So, on this basis each thing becomes more plentiful, finer, and easier, when one man, exempt from other tasks, does one thing according to nature and at the crucial moment."

"That's entirely certain"

-Republic 370b-c

Okay, so I'm a little confused by the problem here. As I understand the post, it's bad that things are inexpensive because... youth need hand skills? It's not cost-effective to employ redundant labor to fix things more easily replaced? No one wants original things, just mass-produced ones? I don't actually find any of those things to be particularly compelling as arguments: I'm sure that anyone willing to pay the surplus for something hand-made actually does* (I in fact used to date someone who would on occasion make items of clothing for herself; it was actually probably cheaper on the margin, but that's another issue entirely). I sympathize with the idea that a labor force trained for one set of (intensely manual) skills finds itself priced out of the market; that's genuinely a tragedy and a legitimate issue for society to think about--though it's not clear to me that artifically sustaining the conditions that made that labor possible is actually better (witness Detroit in the last 30 years).

My suspicion, though, is that this is really a complaint about those darn kids:

"But our youth, following in the footsteps of their parents, are foregoing the use of hand skills for... whatever it is that today's youth specialize in. (I'm not sure what that is, but it's gotta be something.)"

Now, the typical stereotype is that kids today don't actually know how to make anything, they just become I-bankers or lawyers, or join some other profession that doesn't qualify as 'real work.' I often get the impression there's a deeply-seated (paleo-?)conservative suspicion of, among other things, credit, the service economy and the division of labor. I'll confess I just don't get this; perhaps this is a remnant of my liberal past, or perhaps it's my love of Dutch and English political theory, but it seems that cheaper, more sophisticated goods, and a global distribution of labor that allows people to utilize their comparative advantage are good things.

But, as I say, I'm not entirely sure I get the objection. If anyone could recommend something for me on this topic, I'd appreciate it.

*and, dear goodness, I've lived in too many yuppified areas to believe that the natural, organic, artisinal, or traditional can't be turned into an object of fetishization just as easily as the shiny, new and plastic.