Atomization of workforce and establishment of national security state after 9/11 so far prevented
large organized collective actions (recent riots were not organized, and with the current technical
capabilities of the three letter agencies any organization is difficult or impossible). I think that
conversion of the state into national security state was the key factor that saved a couple of the most
notorious neoliberals from being hanged on the electrical posts in 2008 although I remember slogan "Jump
suckers" on the corner of Wall Street.
But neoliberal attacks on labor and especially organized labor started much earlier with Ronald Reagan and then continued
under all subsequent presidents with Bill Clinton doing the bulk of this dirty job. Clinton's creation
of the "New labor" (read neoliberal stooges of Wall Street masked as Democratic Party) was
based on explicit betrayal or workers (" they have nowhere to go") . And for several election
cycles that was true.
But eventually
that changes. Vichy left, represented by "Clintonized" Democratic Party got a crushing defeat in 2016
Presidential elections. Does not mean that Trump is better or less neoliberal, but it does suggest that
working class does not trust Democratic Party any longer.
2008 was the time of the crisis of neoliberal ideology, much like Prague spring signified the crisis
of Communist ideology. While there was some level of harassment, individual beatings of banksters in
2008 were non-existent.
You stated, "Let's also ignore the fact that the sons and grandsons of the unionised
postwar generation for the most part subsequently rejected blue collar work no matter what
the pay. This is a sign of decadence I will grant you, and I am guilty as charged. "
This canard doesn't hold up in the face of empirical evidence. One example: 20,000 waiting
in line for lousy warehouse jobs at Amazon. The fact is, open borders and illegal immigration
are NeoLiberal tactics to promote wage arbitrage. In California, those impacted the most by
illegal immigration are African Americans. Whole sectors, such as hotel maintenance and
janitorial service, had been unionized, and had principally employed black workers whose
salaries enabled them to move into the middle class. The hotel industry welcomed the influx
of illegal immigrants willing to work for drastically lower wages. Black workers were
replaced and the union destroyed. Unfortunately, many in the US and globally have been so
propagandized about illegal immigration that even mentioning illegal immigration gets one
falsely labeled racist. in the US, Democrats use illegal immigration as a "demographic
strategy," which enables Democrats to remain in power while remaining wholly loyal to Wall
Street and doing nothing to ameliorate the misery of the bottom 90%.
The key factor here is that the USA is a neoliberal state which means profits before people
and outsourcing to area with lower labor cost. Like leopard can't change its spots, neoliberalism
can't change it "free movement of goods and labor" principles, or it stop being
neoliberalism.
No jobs will come back to the USA as financial oligarchy is transnational body that uses the
USA military as an enforcer for their gang. It does not care one bit about the common people in
the USA.
Pause on the sound and fury for necessary precision. Even if the Trump administration slaps
25% tariffs on all Chinese exports to the US, the IMF has projected that would trim just a
meager slither – 0.55% – off China's GDP. And America is unlikely to profit,
because the extra tariffs won't bring back manufacturing jobs to the US – something that
Steve Jobs told Barack Obama eons ago.
What happens is that global supply chains will be redirected to economies that offer
comparative advantages in relation to China, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Cambodia
and Laos. And this redirection is already happening anyway – including by Chinese
companies.
BRI represents a massive geopolitical and financial investment by China, as well as its
partners; over 130 states and territories have signed on. Beijing is using its immense pool of
capital to make its own transition towards a consumer-based economy while advancing the
necessary pan-Eurasian infrastructure development – with all those ports, high-speed
rail, fiber optics, electrical grids expanding to most Global South latitudes.
The end result, up to 2049 – BRI's time span – will be the advent of an
integrated market of no less than 4.5 billion people, by that time with access to a Chinese
supply chain of high-tech exports as well as more prosaic consumer goods.
Anyone who has followed the nuts and bolts of the Chinese miracle launched by Little
Helmsman Deng Xiaoping in 1978 knows that Beijing is essentially exporting the mechanism that
led China's own 800 million citizens to, in a flash, become members of a global middle
class.
As much as the Trump administration may bet on "maximum pressure" to restrict or even block
Chinese access to whole sectors of the US market, what really matters is BRI's advance will be
able to generate multiple, extra US markets over the next two decades.
We don't do
'win-win'
There are no illusions in the Zhongnanhai, as there are no illusions in Tehran or in the
Kremlin. These three top actors of Eurasian integration have exhaustively studied how
Washington, in the 1990s, devastated Russia's post-USSR economy (until Putin engineered a
recovery) and how Washington has been trying to utterly destroy Iran for four decades.
Beijing, as well as Moscow and Tehran, know everything there is to know about Hybrid War,
which is an American intel concept. They know the ultimate strategic target of Hybrid War,
whatever the tactics, is social chaos and regime change.
The case of Brazil – a BRICS member like China and Russia – was even more
sophisticated: a Hybrid War initially crafted by NSA spying evolved into lawfare and regime
change via the ballot box. But it ended with mission accomplished – Brazil has been
reduced to the lowly status of an American neo-colony.
Let's remember an ancient mariner, the legendary Chinese Muslim Admiral Zheng He, who for
three decades, from 1405 to 1433, led seven expeditions across the seas all the way to Arabia
and Eastern Africa, reaching Champa, Borneo, Java, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Calicut, Hormuz,
Aden, Jeddah, Mogadiscio, Mombasa, bringing tons of goods to trade (silk, porcelain, silver,
cotton, iron tools, leather utensils).
That was the original Maritime Silk Road, progressing in parallel to Emperor Yong Le
establishing a Pax Sinica in Asia – with no need for colonies and religious proselytism.
But then the Ming dynasty retreated – and China was back to its agricultural vocation of
looking at itself.
They won't make the same mistake again. Even knowing that the current hegemon does not do
"win-win". Get ready for the real hardcore yet to come.
The Swine fever is sweeping china hog farms and since the start of 2019 200+ millions hogs
have been culled. Chinese hog production is down from 2016 high of 700 million to below 420
million by the end of the year. The fever is not under control.
Soybeans from Ukraine are unloaded at the port in Nantong, in eastern China. Imports of
soy used to come from the US, but have slumped since the trade war began. Should point out
that the Ukraine soy production matures at a different time of the year than the US soybean.
The USA planting season starts in Late april, may and june. Because of the harvest time
differences worldwide the USA supplies 80% of the late maturing soybeans needed by
October/Nov and December.
Perhaps this is one of the "casualties" ( https://www.rt.com/news/459355-us-austria-embassy-mcdonalds/
) of economic war given the significance of China and just how important it is to the U.S. in
it's purchases of $USD to maintain the illusion of it's reserve currency status and
"vigor"...
Surprised this didn't happen first at the U.S. Embassies in Russia and China?... Obviously
Ronald McDonald has turned into a charity of sorts helping out Uncle $am in his ailing
"health" these dayz!...
SUPER SIZE ME!... Cause I'm not lovin it anymore!... I'm needin it!!!!
I've never understood this "jobs aren't coming back" argument. Do you really think that it
will stop tariffs? They're happening. Better start preparing.
Oh, right, tariffs WILL bring back American jobs! Then why didn't the Administration
impose them fully in 2017? Why negotiate at all; just impose all the tariffs!?! lol
Pepe is correct as usual. Even if America tariffs the world the jobs aren't coming back as
corporations will be unable to turn profits in such a highly taxed country like America would
be. What could happen however is America can form an internal free market again going
isolationist with new home grown manufacturing.
You VERY obviously have ZERO knowledge of Chinas history and its discoveries/inventions
etc USED BY THE WEST.
I suggest that you keep your eyes open for "History Erased-China" on Y Tube. The series
shows what would happen in todays world if countries and their contributions to the world did
not happen.
As is usual, the headline economic number is always the
rosiest number .
Wages for production and nonsupervisory workers accelerated to a 3.4 percent annual pace,
signaling gains for lower-paid employees.
That sounds pretty good. Except for the part where it is a lie. For starters, it doesn't account for
inflation .
Labor Department numbers released Wednesday show that real average hourly earnings, which
compare the nominal rise in wages with the cost of living, rose 1.7 percent in January on a
year-over-year basis.
1.7% is a lot less than 3.4%. While the financial news was bullish, the
actual professionals took the news differently.
Wage inflation was also muted with average hourly earnings rising six cents, or 0.2% in April
after rising by the same margin in March. Average hourly earnings "were disappointing," said Ian Lyngen, head of U.S. rates strategy at
BMO Capital Markets in New York.
Secondly, 1.7% is an average, not a median.
For instance, none of this applied to you if you are an
older
worker .
Weekly earnings for workers aged 55 to 64 were only 0.8% higher in the first quarter of 2019
than they were in the first quarter of 2007, after accounting for inflation, they found.
For comparison, earnings rose 4.7% during that same period for workers between the ages of 35
and 54.
On the other hand, if you worked for a
bank your wages went up at a rate far above average. This goes double if you are in
management.
Among the biggest standouts: commercial banks, which employ an estimated 1.3 million people in
the U.S. Since Trump took office in January 2017, they have increased their average hourly wage
at an annualized pace of almost 11 percent, compared with just 3.3 percent under Obama.
Finally, there is the reason for this incredibly small wage increase fo regular workers.
Hint: it wasn't because of capitalism and all the bullsh*t jobs it creates.
The tiny wage increase that the working class has seen is because of what the capitalists said
was a
terrible idea .
For Americans living in the 21 states where the federal minimum wage is binding, inflation
means that the minimum wage has lost 16 percent of its purchasing power.
But elsewhere, many workers and employers are experiencing a minimum wage well above 2009
levels. That's because state capitols and, to an unprecedented degree, city halls have become
far more active in setting their own minimum wages. ... Averaging across all of these federal, state and local minimum wage laws, the effective minimum
wage in the United States -- the average minimum wage binding each hour of minimum wage work --
will be $11.80 an hour in 2019. Adjusted for inflation, this is probably the highest minimum
wage in American history. The effective minimum wage has not only outpaced inflation in recent years, but it has also
grown faster than typical wages. We can see this from the Kaitz index, which compares the
minimum wage with median overall wages.
So if you are waiting for capitalism to trickle down on you, it's never going to happen.
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 05/03/2019 - 6:21pm
Thousands of South Carolina teachers rallied outside their state capitol Wednesday, demanding
pay raises, more planning time, increased school funding -- and, in a twist, more legal
protections for their freedom of speech SC for Ed, the grassroots activist group that organized Wednesday's demonstration, told CNN
that many teachers fear protesting or speaking up about education issues, worrying they'll
face retaliation at work. Saani Perry, a teacher in Fort Mill, S.C., told CNN that people in
his profession are "expected to sit in the classroom and stay quiet and not speak [their]
mind."
To address these concerns, SC for Ed is lobbying for the Teachers' Freedom of Speech Act,
which was introduced earlier this year in the state House of Representatives. The bill would
specify that "a public school district may not willfully transfer, terminate or fail to renew
the contract of a teacher because the teacher has publicly or privately supported a public
policy decision of any kind." If that happens, teachers would be able to sue for three times
their salary.
Teachers across the country are raising similar concerns about retaliation. Such fears
aren't unfounded: Lawmakers in some states that saw strikes last year have introduced bills
this year that would punish educators for skipping school to protest.
Millennial and generation Z workers are becoming increasingly miserable with their jobs and careers. Since we are told several
times a day by the media that the economy is booming, why are so many young workers so disastrously melancholy all the time?
"When you're struggling with your mental health it can be much harder to stay in work or manage your spending, while being
in debt can cause huge stress and anxiety – so the two issues feed off each other, creating a vicious cycle which can destroy
lives," said Helen Undy the institute's chief executive.
"Yet despite how connected these problems are, financial services rarely think about our mental health, and mental health
services rarely consider what is happening with our money."
So why are we constantly being told everything is fine? The mainstream media loves to say that the U.S. is nearly ten years into
one of the longest economic expansions in history, unemployment is the lowest it's been in almost half a century, and employees have
more job choices than they've had in years. But there's just one problem. That's not actual truthful when taking all of the data
into consideration. Sure, unemployment is low the way the government calculates it, but there's a reason for that.
102 million Americans are no longer "in the workforce" and therefore, unaccounted for.
When a working-age American does not have a job, the federal number crunchers put them into one of two different categories.
Either they are categorized as "unemployed" or they are categorized as "not in the labor force".
But you have to add both of those categories together to get the total number of Americans that are not working.
Over the last decade, the number of Americans that are in the "unemployed" category has been steadily going down, but the number
of Americans "not in the labor force" has been rapidly going up.
In both cases we are talking about Americans that do not have a job. It is just a matter of how the federal government chooses
to categorize those individuals. –
Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog
That could partially explain the misery some are feeling, but those who have jobs aren't happy either. They are often reeling
from student loan and credit card debt. Being depressed makes shopping feel like a solution, but when the bill comes, the depression
once again sets in making this a difficult cycle to break for so many just trying to scrape by.
Depression and suicide rates are rising sharply
and other than putting the blame on superficial issues, researchers are at a loss as to the real reason why. But could it possibly
be that as the elite globalists continue to take over the world and enslave mankind, people are realizing that they aren't meant
to be controlled or manipulated, but meant to be free?
There's something we are all missing all around the globe. Could it possibly be free will and a life of freedom from theft and
violent coercion and force that's missing?
When even your own article lies to everyone... so the modern person that does well are those who lie the best and are the best
con artists. Trump is an example. Low talent High con.
Example the US unemployment number.
Only the pool of unemployed that is Presently eligible for unemployment benefits is counted in the Unemployment number. That
means self employed, commissioned workers, contractors etc are not included in the pool of unemployment even if they are out of
work because they are unemployment ineligible.
Thus, over time, as unemployment benefits are lost, the unemployment pool shrinks. This is called a mathematical regression.
How far does it shrink? To the point of equilibrium which is roughly 4% in which new persons enter the work force to the same
extent of those losing benefits and being removed and become invisible.
Thus, Unemployment is a bogus number grossly understating truthful Unemployment. This method was first used under Obama and
persists today under the Orange poser.
Nepotism and Affirmative action
Why would this make people unhappy? Chronic underemployment. Advancement is mostly by nepotism or affirmative action the flip
side of the same coin. The incoming Harvard Class this year was 30% legacy student... and 30% affirmative action and the rest
be damned. Happy?
Feminism has gripped the workplace.
Men hate working for female bosses. They don't trust them, they don't trust their judgment which often looks political and
never logical. Men feel those women were promoted because of gender.
I saw this years ago in a clean room at National Semiconductor. A woman was put in charge of a team of roughly 30 white nerd
males. She was at them constantly for not locking doors behind them and other menial infractions. She could not comprehend the
complexity of the work or how inspiration operates but she would nag them and bully them.
At another facility there was a genius that would come to work and set up a sleeping bag and go to sleep under his desk. He
was a Unix programmer and system engineer. So when something went wrong they would wake him and he would get up, solve the problem
and go back to sleep.
Then the overstuffed string of pearls showed up as the new unit boss. She was infuriated that somebody would dare sleep on
the clock and so blatantly. So she would harass him and wake him. Then one day she got so mad she started kicking him while he
was sleeping. He grabbed his sleeping bag and briefcase and stormed out.
Ultimately the woman's boss took her to task and explained to her that it didn't matter if that employee slept under his desk
because when he worked to solve problems only he could solve he saved the company millions. She was fired. As a token stipulation
the sleeping genius came back and a sign was posted on his desk. "Kicking this employee is grounds for immediate dismissal."
Usually the nerd walks and just gets replaced by some diversity politician and string of pearls then sets the tone by making
the workplace ****. Women simply are not as intelligent as men and pretending they are just wrecks morale of the people who are
really intelligent. The rise of the shoulder padded woman string of pearls bully is a scourge to one and all.
Simple answer: because people are spineless and terrible negotiators.
Long answer: for years the adage has been "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" or "find a good job and
never leave" or "work your way to the top" or "be a hard worker, trust your leadership, keep your head down, and don't make waves."
********.
If you do what you love, you'll learn to hate it. Welcome to misery.
Upward mobility doesn't happen unless you leave. If you're a good little productive worker drone, management has no incentive
to give you more than 1-3% raises every year to keep you 'loyal.' Once you've wasted 20 or so years being a robot, welcome to
misery.
Nobody gets promoted unless you're a useless ***-kisser who fails to be productive and hasn't done anything egregious enough
to get canned. Once you've been passed by for that promotion you want enough times, welcome to misery.
The people making the decisions at the top are the useless ***-kissers that can't do what you do but they talk a good game.
Most of them are case studies in the Peter Principle. Once you realize that the 'top' consists of nothing but fuckwads, welcome
to misery.
The only way to get ahead and get what you want out of a career is to develop the skills you need and market yourself top someone
who'll pay you what you're worth.
Develop strong negotiation skills early, know your market value, and don't be afraid of change.
Employer loyalty is a farce; if you think your employer is loyal to you, I've got some oceanfront property in New Mexico to
sell you.
The New York Times has an
illuminating article today summarizing recent research on the gender effects of
mandatory overwork in professional jobs. Lawyers, people in finance and other
client-centered occupations are increasingly required to be available round-the-clock, with
50-60 or more hours of work per week the norm. Among other costs, the impact on wage inequality
between men and women is severe. Since women are largely saddled with primary responsibility
for child care, even when couples ostensibly embrace equality on a theoretical level, the
workaholic jobs are allocated to men. This shows up in dramatic differences between typical
male and female career paths. The article doesn't discuss comparable issues in working class
employment, but availability for last-minute changes in work schedules and similar demands are
likely to impact men and women differentially as well.
What the article doesn't point out is that the situation it describes is a classic prisoners
dilemma.* Consider law firms. They compete for clients, and clients prefer attorneys who are
available on call, always prepared and willing to adjust to whatever schedule the client throws
at them. Assume that most lawyers want sane, predictable work hours if they are offered without
a severe penalty in pay. If law firms care about the well-being of their employees but also
about profits, we have all the ingredients to construct a standard PD payoff matrix:
There is a penalty to unilateral cooperation, cutting work hours back to a work-life balance
level. If your firm does it and the others don't, you lose clients to them.
There is a benefit to unilateral defection. If everyone else is cutting hours but you don't,
you scoop up the lion's share of the clients.
Mutual cooperation is preferred to mutual defection. Law firms, we are assuming, would
prefer a world in which overwork was removed from the contest for competitive advantage. They
would compete for clients as before, but none would require their staff to put in soul-crushing
hours. The alternative equilibrium, in which competition is still on the basis of the quality
of work but everyone is on call 24/7 is inferior.
If the game is played once, mutual defection dominates. If it is played repeatedly there is
a possibility for mutual cooperation to establish itself, but only under favorable conditions
(which apparently don't exist in the world of NY law firms). The logical solution is some
form of binding regulation.
The reason for bringing this up is that it strengthens the case for collective action rather
than placing all the responsibility on individuals caught in the system, including for that
matter individual law firms. Or, the responsibility is political, to demand constraints on the
entire industry. One place to start would be something like France's
right-to-disconnect law .
*I haven't read the studies by economists and sociologists cited in the article, but I
suspect many of them make the same point I'm making here.
The neoliberal war on labor in the USA is real. And it is especially real for It folk over 50. No country for the old
men, so to speak...
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously you need a financial cushion to not be earning for months and to pay for the training courses. ..."
"... Yeah, people get set in their ways and resistant to make changes. Steve Jobs talked about people developing grooves in their brain and how important it is to force yourself out of these grooves.* ..."
"... Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like grooves in a record, and they never get out of them. ..."
"... The brain is like a muscle, it needs to be constantly worked to become strong. If you waste it watching football or looking at porn your brain will atrophy like the muscles of a person in a wheelchair. ..."
"... IBEW (licensed electricians) has no upper age limit for apprentices They have lots of American engineers who applied in their 30s after realizing most companies want diverse HI-B engineers. ..."
"... At 40+, I still can learn advanced mathematics as well as I ever did. In fact, I can still compete with the Chinese 20 year olds. The problem is not mental horsepower, it's time and energy. I rarely have time to concentrate these days (wife, kids, pets), which makes it hard to get the solid hours of prime mental time required to really push yourself at a hard pace and learn advanced material. ..."
"... That's a huge key and I discovered it when I was asked to tutor people who were failing chemistry. I quickly discovered that all it took for most of them to "get it" was to keep approaching the problem from different angles until a light came on for them and for me the challenge of finding the right approach was a great motivator. Invariably it was some minor issue and once they overcame that, it became easy for them. I'm still astonished at that to this day. ..."
"... Sorry man, English teaching is huge, and will remain so for some time to come. I'm heavily involved in the area and know plenty of ESL teachers. Spain for me, and the level of English here is still so dreadful and they all need it, the demand is staggering and their schools suck at teaching it themselves. ..."
"... You have to really dislike your circumstances in the US to leave and be willing to find some way to get by overseas. ..."
"... We already saw this in South Africa. Mandela took over, the country went down the tubes, the wealthy whites left and the Boers were left to die in refugee camps. They WANT to leave and a few went to Russia, but most developed countries don't want them. Not with the limited amount of money they have. ..."
"... Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country except for blacks and rednecks I have met in the Philippines who were stationed there in the military and have a $1000 a month check. Many of them live in more dangerous and dirty internal third worlds in America than what they can have in Southeast Asia and a good many would be homeless. They are worldly enough to leave. ..."
" He's 28 years old getting too old and soft for the entry-level grunt work in the
skilled trades as well. What then?"
I know a UK guy (ex City type) who retrained as an electrician in his early 50s.
Competent guy. Obviously no one would take him on as an apprentice, so he wired up all his
outbuildings as his project to get his certificate. But he's getting work now, word gets
around if you're any good.
Obviously you need a financial cushion to not be earning for months and to pay for the
training courses.
Yeah, people get set in their ways and resistant to make changes. Steve Jobs talked about
people developing grooves in their brain and how important it is to force yourself out of
these grooves.*
I know a Haitian immigrant without a college degree who was working three jobs and then
dropped down to two jobs and went to school part time in his late 40's and earned his degree
in engineering and is a now an engineer in his early 50's.
*From Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson (Simon and Schuster, 2011), pp.330-331:
"It's rare that you see an artist in his 30s or 40s able to really contribute something
amazing," Jobs said wistfully to the writer David Sheff, who published a long and intimate
interview in Playboy the month he turned thirty. "Of course, there are some people who are
innately curious, forever little kids in their awe of life, but they're rare." The
interview touched on many subjects, but Jobs's most poignant ruminations were about growing
old and facing the future:
Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really
etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like
grooves in a record, and they never get out of them.
I'll always stay connected with Apple. I hope that throughout my life I'll sort of
have the thread of my life and the thread of Apple weave in and out of each other, like a
tapestry. There may be a few years when I'm not there, but I'll always come back. . .
.
If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look
back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you've done and whoever you were and
throw them away.
The more the outside world tries to reinforce an image of you, the harder it is to
continue to be an artist, which is why a lot of times, artists have to say, "Bye. I have to
go. I'm going crazy and I'm getting out of here." And they go and hibernate somewhere.
Maybe later they re-emerge a little differently.
"fluid intelligence" starts crystallizing after your 20's". Nonsense, I had
a great deal of trouble learning anything from my teen years and 20's because I didn't know
how to learn. I went for 30 years and eventually figured out a learning style that worked for
me. I have learned more and mastered more skills in the past ten years ages 49-59 than I had
in the previous 30.
You can challenge yourself like I did and after a while of doing this (6 months) you will
find it a lot easier to learn and comprehend than you did previously. (This is true only if
you haven't damaged your brain from years of smoking and drinking). I constantly challenged
myself with trying to learn math that I had trouble with in school and eventually mastered
it.
The brain is like a muscle, it needs to be constantly worked to become strong. If you waste it watching football or looking at porn your brain will atrophy like the
muscles of a person in a wheelchair.
IBEW (licensed electricians) has no upper age limit for apprentices They have lots of
American engineers who applied in their 30s after realizing most companies want diverse HI-B
engineers.
Upper age limits for almost every occupation disappeared decades ago in America because of
age discrimination laws.
I can't see how any 28 year old could possibly be too soft to go into any kind of manual
labor job.
@anonymous
Yeah, there was a recent study showing that 70 year olds can form neural connections as
quickly as teenagers.
At 40+, I still can learn advanced mathematics as well as I ever did. In fact, I can still
compete with the Chinese 20 year olds. The problem is not mental horsepower, it's time and
energy. I rarely have time to concentrate these days (wife, kids, pets), which makes it hard
to get the solid hours of prime mental time required to really push yourself at a hard pace
and learn advanced material.
This is why the Chinese are basically out of date when they are 30, their companies assume
that they have kids and are not able to give 110% anymore.
eventually figured out a learning style that worked for me.
That's a huge key and I discovered it when I was asked to tutor people who were failing
chemistry. I quickly discovered that all it took for most of them to "get it" was to keep
approaching the problem from different angles until a light came on for them and for me the
challenge of finding the right approach was a great motivator. Invariably it was some minor
issue and once they overcame that, it became easy for them. I'm still astonished at that to
this day.
The brain is like a muscle, it needs to be constantly worked to become strong. If you
waste it watching football or looking at porn your brain will atrophy like the muscles of a
person in a wheelchair.
Yeah. He's 28 years old and apparently his chosen skillset is teaching
EASL in foreign countries. That sector is shrinking as English becomes the global lingua
franca and is taught in elementary schools worldwide. He's really too old and soft for his
Plan B (military), and getting too old and soft for the entry-level grunt work in the skilled
trades as well. What then?
do you know anything first hand about the teaching- english- as-a- second- language
hustle?
Asking sincerely – as I don't know anything about it. However I kinda suspect that
'native speakers' will be in demand in many parts of the globe for some time to come [as an
aside – and maybe Linh has written of this and I missed it – but last spring I
was in Saigon for a couple of weeks and, hanging out one day at the zoo & museum complex,
was startled to see about three groups of Vietnamese primary-school students being led around
by americans in their early 20s, narrating everything in american english . Apparently
private schools offering entirely english-language curriculum are the big hit with the middle
& upper class elite there. Perhaps more of the same elsewhere in the region?]
At any rate the young man in this interview has a lot more in the way of qualifications
and skill sets than I had when I left the States 35 years ago, and I've done just fine. I'd
advise any prospective expats to get that TEFL certificate as it's one extra thing to have in
your back pocket and who knows?
PS: "It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship"
– well, yes it can. Everyone knows that the best passport on earth is from Northwest Euroland, one of those places with free university education and free health care and where
teenage mothers don't daily keel over dead from heroin overdoses in Dollar Stores .. Also
more places visa-free
When
you left the States 35 years ago, the world was 3 billion people smaller. The labor market
has gotten a tad more competitive. I don't see any indication of a trade or other refined
skillset in this article.
People who teach EASL for a living are like people who drive cars for a living: you don't
do it because you're really good at teaching your native language, you do it because
you're not marketable at anything else.
I think being Australian is the best citizenry you can have. The country is far from
perfect, but any lower middle class American white like myself would prefer to be lower
middle class there than in Detroit or Phoenix, where being lower income means life around the
unfettered urban underclass that is paranoia inducing.
Being from the US is not as bad as being Bangladeshi, but if you had to be white and urban
and poor you'd be better off in Sydney than Flint.
The most patriotic Americans have never been anywhere, so they have no idea whether
Australia or Tokyo are better. They have never traveled.
Yeah. He's 28 years old and apparently his chosen skillset is teaching
EASL in foreign countries. That sector is shrinking as English becomes the global lingua
franca and is taught in elementary schools worldwide. He's really too old and soft for his
Plan B (military), and getting too old and soft for the entry-level grunt work in the skilled
trades as well. What then?
do you know anything first hand about the teaching- english- as-a- second- language
hustle?
Asking sincerely – as I don't know anything about it. However I kinda suspect that
'native speakers' will be in demand in many parts of the globe for some time to come [as an
aside – and maybe Linh has written of this and I missed it – but last spring I
was in Saigon for a couple of weeks and, hanging out one day at the zoo & museum complex,
was startled to see about three groups of Vietnamese primary-school students being led around
by americans in their early 20s, narrating everything in american english .
Apparently private schools offering entirely english-language curriculum are the big hit
with the middle & upper class elite there. Perhaps more of the same elsewhere in the
region?]
At any rate the young man in this interview has a lot more in the way of qualifications
and skill sets than I had when I left the States 35 years ago, and I've done just fine. I'd
advise any prospective expats to get that TEFL certificate as it's one extra thing to have in
your back pocket and who knows?
ps: "It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship"
– well, yes it can. Everyone knows that the best passport on earth is from Northwest
Euroland, one of those places with free university education and free health care and where
teenage mothers don't daily keel over dead from heroin overdoses in Dollar Stores ..
People who teach EASL for a living are like people who drive cars for a
living: you don't do it because you're really good at teaching your native language, you do
it because you're not marketable at anything else.
well that's the beauty of it: you don't have to be good at anything other than just being
a native speaker to succeed as an EASL teacher, and thousands more potential customers are
born every day. I'd definitely advise any potential expats to become accomplished, and, even
better, qualified, in as many trades as possible. But imho the real key to success as a long
term expat is your mindset: determination and will-power to survive no matter what. If you
really want to break out of the States and see the world, and don't have inherited wealth,
you will be forced to rely on your wits and good luck and seize the opportunities that arise,
whatever those opportunities may be.
Sorry man, English teaching is huge, and will remain so for some time to
come. I'm heavily involved in the area and know plenty of ESL teachers. Spain for me, and the
level of English here is still so dreadful and they all need it, the demand is staggering and
their schools suck at teaching it themselves.
You are one of those people who just like to shit on things:) and people make a lot of
money out of it, not everyone of course, like any area. But it's perfectly viable and good to
go for a long time yet. It's exactly that English is the lingua Franca that people need to be
at a high level of it. The Chinese market is still massive. The bag packer esl teachers are
the ones that give off this stigma, and 'bag packer' and 'traveller' are by now very much
regarded as dirty words in the ESL world.
Most Americans lack the initiative to move anywhere. Most will complain but will never
leave the street they were born on. Urban whites are used to adaptation being around other
cultures anyhow and being somewhat street smart, but the poor rural whites in the exurbs or
sticks whose live would really improve if they got the hell out of America will never move
anywhere.
You have to really dislike your circumstances in the US to leave and be willing to find
some way to get by overseas.
Lots of people will talk about leaving America without having a clue as to how hard this
is to actually do. Australia and New Zealand are not crying out for white proles with high
school education or GED. It is much more difficult to move overseas and stay overseas than
most Americans think.
Except of course for the ruling elite. And that is because five-star hotels look the same
everywhere and money is an international language.
We already saw this in South Africa. Mandela took over, the country went down the tubes,
the wealthy whites left and the Boers were left to die in refugee camps. They WANT to leave
and a few went to Russia, but most developed countries don't want them. Not with the limited
amount of money they have.
Australia and NZ would rather have refugees than white people in dire circumstances.
Even immigrating to Canada, a country that I worked in, is much much harder than anyone
imagines.
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country except for
blacks and rednecks I have met in the Philippines who were stationed there in the military
and have a $1000 a month check. Many of them live in more dangerous and dirty internal third
worlds in America than what they can have in Southeast Asia and a good many would be
homeless. They are worldly enough to leave.
But most Americans whose lives would be vastly improved overseas think they are living in
the greatest country on earth.
"... The divisions can always be jacked up. "My opponent is a white nationalist!" and so he doesn't just think you're lazy, he wants to kill you. Convince average Americans to vote against their own interests by manipulating them into opposing any program that might benefit black and brown equally or more than themselves. ..."
"... Listen for what's missing in the speeches about inequality and injustice. Whichever candidate admits that we've created an apartheid of dollars for all deserves your support. ..."
The birth lottery determines which of those three bands we'll sink or swim together in,
because there is precious little mobility. In that bottom band,
81 percent face flat or falling net worths (
40 percent of Americans make below $15
an hour) and so aren't going anywhere. Education, once a vehicle, is now mostly a tool for the
preservation of current statuses across
generations, to the point that it's worth paying bribes for. Class is sticky.
Money, not so much. Since the 9.9 percent have the most (except for the super wealthy at
least), they have the most to lose. At their
peak in the mid-1980s, the managers and technicians in this group held 35 percent of the
nation's wealth. Three decades later, that fell 12 percent,
exactly as much as the wealth of the 1 percent rose. A significant redistribution of wealth
-- upwards -- took place following the 2008 market collapse, as bailouts, shorts,
repossessions, and new laws helped the top end of the economy at cost to the bottom. What some
label hardships are to others business opportunities.
The people at the top are throwing nails off the back of the truck to make sure no one else
can catch up with them. There is a strong zero sum element to all this. The goal is to
eliminate the competition
. They'll have it all when society is down to two classes, the 1 percent and the 99 percent,
and at that point we'll all be effectively the same color. The CEO of JP Morgan
called it a bifurcated economy. Historians will recognize it as feudalism.
You'd think someone would sound a global climate change-level alarm about all this. Instead
we divide people into
tribes and make them afraid of each other by forcing competition for limited resources like
health care. Identity politics sharpens
the lines, recognizing increasingly smaller separations, like adding letters to LGBTQQIAAP.
Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, herself with presidential ambitions,
is an example of the loud voices demanding
more division . Contrast that with early model Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National
Convention, who pleaded, "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and
Asian America; there's the United States of America."
The divisions can always be jacked up. "My opponent is a white nationalist!" and so he
doesn't just think you're lazy, he wants to kill you. Convince average Americans to vote
against their own interests by manipulating them into opposing any program that might benefit
black and brown equally or more than themselves. Keep the groups fighting left and right and
they'll never notice the real discrimination is up and down, even as massive economic forces
consume all equally. Consumption becomes literal as Americans die from alcohol, drugs, and
suicide in record numbers
.
Meanwhile, no one has caught on to the fact that identity politics is a marketing tool for
votes, fruit flavored vape to bring in the kiddies. Keep that in mind as you listen to the
opening cries of the 2020 election. Listen for what's missing in the speeches about inequality
and injustice. Whichever candidate admits that we've created an apartheid of dollars for all
deserves your support.
** The author doesn't really drive for Uber but his conversation with the Spaniard was
real.
Mr Van Buren. This piece nails it. The Democrats made a huge mistake focusing on race and
LGBTQ instead of class. Their stated goal should be to replace race based affirmative action
with class-based programs.
If there is serious violence coming to America it will come during the next major
recession/financial crisis. The ARs will come out of the closet when, during the next
financial crisis, the elites are bailed out (again), yet the riff raff lose their homes and
pickups to foreclosure.
I am very pessimistic in this area. I believe the elites, in general, are agnostic to SJW
issues, abortion, job loss, BLM, religious liberty, and on and on. The look at the riff raff
with amusement, sparring over such trivial things. Meanwhile, the river of cash keeps flowing
to their bank accounts.
Imagine if the digital transfer of money was abolished. Imagine if everybody had to have
their money in a local bank instead of in an investment account of a major bank. Imagine if
Americans saw, day after day, armored vehicles showing up at local banks to offload sacks of
currency that went to only a few individual accounts held by the very rich.
Instead, the elites receive their financial statements showing an ever increasing hoard of
cash at their disposal. They see it, but nobody else does. However, if everybody saw the
river of wealth flowing to the elites, I believe things would change. Fast. Right now this
transfer of wealth is all digital, hidden from the view of 99.99% of Americans and the IRS.
And the elites, the banking industry, and the wealth management cabal prefer it that way.
It's easy to propose the ultimate goal of the elites is to have a utopian society to
themselves, where the only interaction they have with the riff raff is with subservient
technicians keeping it all running. Like the movie Elysium.
When feudalism comes to America, it will be justified by Libertarianism. With government
defined as the bad guy, there's nothing to stop the 1% from organizing everything to their
own benefit.
On the other side of the political spectrum, identity politics emphasizes people's
differences and tribal affiliations over their shared citizenship. This prevents them from
making common cause.
Fundamentally, these trends make the body politic so weak that it becomes susceptible to
takeover by authoritarians that represent narrow interests.
"His skin was clearly a few shades darker than mine, though he pointed out that was only
because my relatives came from the cold part of Europe and he came from the sunny part."
The Spanish in Europe got their color from the Moorish invasion, not the sun.
More of my annoying trivia that has little to do with the subject of an article.
Welp, the Democratic Party, by and large, believes all Americans regardless of class, race,
religion, and gender should have guaranteed equal access to affordable healthcare, a
substantial minimum wage, education and the rest.
Stacy Abrams wants these items too, along with equal access to the voting franchise.
"Until slavery was ended in the United States, human beings were legally considered
capital, just like owning stocks and bonds today. But the Spaniard knew enough about history
to wonder what reparations would be offered to the thousands of Chinese treated as animals to
build the railroads or the 8,000 Irish who died digging the New Basin Canal or the whole
families of Jews living on the Lower East Side of New York who were forced to employ their
children to make clothing for uptown "white" stores. Later in the same century, wages were
"voluntarily" cut to the bone at factories in Ohio to save jobs that disappeared anyway after
the owners had wrung out the last profits."
That would be an excellent point if your inner Spaniard concluded reparations should be
offered to the others as well, but ends up being merely tendentious if he contends that no
one gets reparations.
But will you like it if the Democratic Party makes that part of their platform too?
I was born in Middletown, Ohio alongside the elegiacal hillbillies, who, by the way,
didn't care for the blacks on the other side of the tracks anymore than my Armco-employed
grandfather did, and certainly the business owners who disappeared the jobs and cut wages
while voting for the so-called free traders were of the same ilk.
I didn't know any Democrats among any of my family's circle and, by the way, Middletown
might as well have been south of the Mason Dixon anyway for all the white Democrats in town
who gave not a crap about their fellow black citizens, certainly not the business owners who
disappeared the jobs while voting for the so-called free traders.
It was the Republican Party (Larry Kudlow, I'm gunning for you) who championed creative
destruction and the red tooth and claw of unfettered worldwide competition without asking, in
fact jumping for joy, what the unintended consequences would be because the consequences were
intended smash the unions for all, cut wages and benefits and hand the booty to shareholders,
move operations to lower-tax, lower wage, environmentally unregulated parts of the globe to
manufacture them thar high margin MAGA hats for the aggrieved.
What a beautiful grift!
Hello, Marianas.
That Democrats jumped on the bandwagon is no credit to them, especially while assuming the
prone position as the republican party frayed the safety net.
True, the republicans laid off everyone, regardless of race, gender, and class and then
cut everyone's benefits.
As the Spaniard rightly understood, one can look way back into our history and see that the
moneyed class has always used identity politics in economic control games to divide and
conquer. That the Republicans rail on this as some evil creation of the modern Democrat is
laughable at best. That the sheep who follow the party mouth pieces of the moneyed class in
this media age can still be so easily manipulated is rather pitiful. Making common cause for
the general welfare has never really sunk in as an American value.
Divide and conquer remains our true ethos. As the dole gets evermore paltry the only
seeming options remaining are common cause for a common good or greater violence. One
requires us to find a contentment beyond the delusional American dream of becoming that 1 to
10%. The other just requires continued anger, division and despair.
Ironically the view that race/culture isn't at all important and should be disregarded in
view of the class division (a "distraction"), is pretty much endorsing the classic Marxist
critique.
It's easy to notice divide and conquer when it's hate against those of the same class but are
of a different culture/race.
But what's *difficult* to notice is identifying with the elites of your race in a positive
way.
A lot of people, especially with the onset of realityTV, tend to think rich people are just
like them (albeit a little smarter). The methods and systems to keep power aren't considered.
They're made non-threatening. So many billionaires and politicians act effete today to stoke
this image.
" Whether your housing is subsidized via a mortgage tax deduction "
This jumped off the screen. I wonder how many people even realize that. Probably the same
number who still believe that social security is a "forced savings".
Not to put too fine a point on it but clearly we are wasting our time arguing. As long as the
current system of government remains in effect it will be same old same old.
Many changes are in order–starting with this archaic remnant of a bygone era called
"The Two Party System".
Spaniards are indeed Hispanic. The definition of Hispanic relates to a linguistic grouping
– that is, relating to Spain or Spanish speaking countries. Your friend would indeed
qualify for all sorts of preferences according to the definition.
As to being a POC, I could not locate any definition as to what threshold of skin tone
qualifies someone as a POC. I wager none yet exists but will be forthcoming.
Johann
As for the skin tone of Spaniards, many in the south have the Moorish influence,however,
in the rest of the country skin tones range from light beige to very fair. Rather similar to
Italians, actually.
First, kudos to Van Buren for getting a Seamless delivery while driving. That's not easy to
coordinate. Second, I look forward to more conservative policies addressing poverty, drug
addiction and access to health care. This article adds to the 10-year rant against what
Democrats have done or want to do.
Like nearly every Republican of the last 10 years, Van Buren offers none here. But I'm
sure once the complaining is out of his system, they will arrive.
Your Spaniard friend also has it all wrong. The real division line is between those willing
to initiate coercion for their own self-righteousness and those who refuse to. Anyone that
supports government is one-in-the-same, regardless of color or class.
Thirty years ago I'd be asking who printed the canned response pamphlet to give prepared
talking points to enable anyone to provide quick sharp tongued witty criticisms of anything
they may encounter that didn't tow the party line.
Now I gotta ask where do I download the Trollware to accomplish the same thing.
The Moors were a tiny class of invaders who left rather little imprint on the Spanish genome.
That was true of the Romans and the Goths as well. Spanish genes are mostly the genes of the
pre-Roman population: the Iberians in the south (who maybe migrated from North Africa), Celts
in the north, and the indigenous Basques along the Pyrenees.
What happened to "a rising tide lifts all boats"? We've been promised for decades that the
wealth generated by those at the very top would "trickle down." This was a cornerstone of
Reaganism that has been parroted ever since.
There have been naysayers who say that that theory was fantasy and that all we would have
is increased wealth disparity and greater national deficits.
"... Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally." ..."
"... Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists. ..."
"... Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. ..."
"... it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him. ..."
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs.
However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a
value added tax , Yang claims that it would
reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes
that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent
libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system.
Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A
guaranteed income for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton
Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though
Friedman called it a
"negative income tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority
and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for
citizens
only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin'sdisingenuous
complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal
basic income while still demanding mass immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with
his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang
has directly spoken about the demographic
collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance
abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.
...He wants to make
Puerto Rico a state . He
supports a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with
pledges to secure the border
and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track
gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with taxpayer
dollars...
... ... ...
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to
Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are
"far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about
the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism
[are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [
Presidential candidate
Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national
symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity.
Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it
except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass
immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has
repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about
unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative
Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically
pledged to protect
entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative
accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [
Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3, by Tara
Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now
embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans
about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire
generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately
trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because
Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a
family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned
on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is
beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway.
If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get
something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers
ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [
Rise of the pink hats,
March 12, 2019].
Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard
are giving up on him.
"... Buying beautiful clothes at full retail price was not a part of my childhood and it is not a part of my life now. It felt more illicit and more pleasurable than buying drugs. It was like buying drugs and doing the drugs, simultaneously."" ..."
"... "Erie Locomotive Plant Workers Strike against Two-Tier" [ Labor Notes ]. "UE proposed keeping the terms of the existing collective bargaining agreement in place while negotiating a new contract, but Wabtec rejected that proposal. Instead it said it would impose a two-tier pay system that would pay new hires and recalled employees up to 38 percent less in wages, institute mandatory overtime, reorganize job classifications, and hire temporary workers for up to 20 percent of the plant's jobs. ..."
"... Workers voted on Saturday to authorize the strike." • Good. Two-tier is awful, wherever found (including Social Security). ..."
"[S]hopping with T was different. When she walked into a store, the employees greeted her by name and began to
pull items from the racks for her to try on. Riding her coattails, I was treated with the same consideration, which is how I
wound up owning a beautiful cashmere 3.1 Philip Lim sweater that I had no use for and rarely wore, and which was eventually
eaten by moths in my closet.
Buying beautiful clothes at full retail price was not a part of my childhood and it is not a part of my life now. It
felt more illicit and more pleasurable than buying drugs. It was like buying drugs and doing the drugs, simultaneously.""
"Erie Locomotive Plant Workers Strike against Two-Tier" [
Labor
Notes ]. "UE proposed keeping the terms of the existing collective bargaining agreement in
place while negotiating a new contract, but Wabtec rejected that proposal. Instead it said it
would impose a two-tier pay system that would pay new hires and recalled employees up to 38
percent less in wages, institute mandatory overtime, reorganize job classifications, and hire
temporary workers for up to 20 percent of the plant's jobs.
Workers voted on Saturday to
authorize the strike." • Good. Two-tier is awful, wherever found (including Social
Security).
The phrase 'hard-working families', a staple of New Labour and Conservative rhetoric for
about twenty years, fell by the wayside with the political upheavals of Jeremy Corbyn's
election as Labour leader in 2015 and the resignation of David Cameron the following summer.
(Theresa May initially hoped to refocus on 'JAMs' – Just About Managing families –
but lost all ideological confidence along with her parliamentary majority in June last year.)
The phrase was used as a way of signalling economic and moral commitment at the same time.
Gordon Brown – who liked to cloak redistributive policies in communitarian,
traditionalist rhetoric – is said to have been the first to use it, in 1995. The Blair,
Brown and Cameron governments all repeatedly claimed to be on the side of hard-working
families, tinkering with tax, benefits and public services as way of helping this opaque group
to 'get on'.
The full text of this book review is only available to subscribers of the
London Review of Books.
"... It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as have some other communists. ..."
@Commentator Mike
Today's system is a hybrid of a late finance-stage global capitalism and cultural–not
economic–Marxism. Instead of class struggle, we have identity politics. Instead of the
ownership of the means of production, we have tranny bathrooms.
So the right-wingers (like Peter Hitchens) who say that 'Marxism won' are half right
culturally, not economically. What causes all the confusion (among the libertarian types
especially) is that capitalism in reality does not in any way resemble how it ought to
work according to libertarian theories and never did. But when you point out to them
that capitalism never worked in practice to begin with, they answer: 'But true
capitalism has never even been tried!' And of course, they're right. 'True' capitalism (i.e.,
what libertarian theory calls capitalism) really never has been tried, and for exactly the
same reason that perpetual motion machines have never been tried either: they're
impossible.
None of which means I'm a 'pure' socialist. I'm open to mixed-economies and new
experiments. I usually characterize myself more as a national socialist, mostly to
differentiate myself from the 'world revolution' Trotskyite socialists who now predominate on
the far-left.
That means I also take some inspiration from some fascists and national-syndicalists,
although I don't regard any of them as holy writ, either.
In my opinion, the number one success factor for a civilization is not what theory
it professes, but rather who controls it. Theories will always have to be modified to
suit the circumstances; but the character of a people is much harder to change.
China's prospering because it's controlled by Chinese engineers; our civilization is
suffocating because it's controlled by Jew-bankers and Masonic lawyers. Get rid of them
first, and we can debate monetary theory till we're blue in the face.
I think that applying the old concepts of Marxism is no longer possible in the west since
there is hardly a genuine proletariat as a proper class any more with the deindustrialisation
and the transfer of major industries to China and other Asian and Latin American countries.
On the other hand the lumpenproletariat has grown and will grow further with greater
automation in industry.
Many more people are now unemployed, underemployed, in service industries, part-time and
temporary jobs, or ageing old age pensioners and retirees.
With the greater atomisation of the individual, break up of families, greater mobility,
the concept of classes rooted long-term in their communities seems less applicable. You could
say most of the global proletariat is now in China.
It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring
capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as
have some other communists.
Paul Edward Gottfried's "The Strange Death of Marxism" seems to offer some explanations
but is not of much use in developing a new activism capable of taking on the system or
providing a more viable alternative.
classical concepts of socialism and capitalism, and left and right politics
The left/right concept is no longer valid. For one thing, of what use is a $15. minimum
wage (apparently a standard "left" plank) if there aren't any jobs? Take a look at Andrew
Yang. At least he is posing the right questions.
Andrew Yang's Pitch to America – We Must Evolve to a New Form of
Capitalism
Political ideologies appear to have contributed to inequality and disadvantage in Australia
in that time, he argues.
Fraser in large part blames "neoliberalism" and its influence on policymaking for the
"disconnect between Australia's impressive economic growth story and its failure on so many
markers to show progress towards a better, fairer society".
"Favouring the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of
community interests, can lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes.
ss="rich-link"> More than three million Australians living in poverty, Acoss report
reveals Read more
"Those unable to afford access to decent standards of housing, healthcare, and other
essential services have to settle for inferior arrangements, or go without."
Fraser says charitable organisations see the effects of "real poverty" that result in
"misery, anxiety and loss of self-esteem of mothers unable to put food on the table for their
kids, of old and young homeless people, and the victims of domestic violence and drug
overdoses".
Fraser summarises the key thrusts of neoliberalism as "the pursuit of the lowest possible
rates of income and most other taxes and the maximum restraint on government interventions and
spending programs".
Evidence in Australia and overseas shows the influence of neoliberalism on fiscal policy
"and the misery and social polarisation that has come with it", he says.
The global financial crisis "should have" marked a tipping point, when the "idealised view
of financial markets being self-regulating" was shattered. While Australia "avoided the worst
traumas of the GFC" with prompt fiscal and monetary policy responses, in Europe "taxes were
increased and spending programs slashed", resulting in a further five or six years of severe
recession.
Fraser says that all political ideologies -- taken to extremes -- can be divisive and cause
damage, including an ideology "based on a state system".
But the former Reserve Bank governor focuses on neoliberalism because it "remains in vogue".
The Morrison government "continues to reaffirm its over-riding commitment to lower taxation,
and to assert that this is the best way to increase investment, jobs and economic growth" -
despite the lack of evidence to support the theory .
Although Fraser recognises that politics never can or should be taken out of policymaking,
he suggests the best course is to "hammer away" at flaws of particular approaches.
In a separate presentation Keating -- who headed PM&C from 1991 to 1996 -- warns the
government's promise to cap expenditure while simultaneously cutting taxes and returning the
budget to surplus is based on overly optimistic assumptions of growth in GDP, wages and
productivity.
ss="rich-link"> Why are stock markets falling and how far will they go? Read
more
According to Keating, the government must stop assuming there have been no structural
changes in the relationship between unemployment and the rate of wage increases.
He notes that predictions of a tightening labour market leading to higher wages are
predicated on assumptions of growth averaging 3% or as much as 3.5%.
He will also say a sustained return to past rates of economic growth will be impossible
unless we can ensure a reasonably equitable distribution of income, involving a faster rate of
wage increases, especially for the low-paid.
Excellent that neoliberalism is being put under the spotlight. To fully understand it,
and the root causes of its "thrusts", one need only refer to its history, helpfully
chronicled by economist Mason Gaffney in his little known but devastating 1994 work The
Corruption of Economics . It begins:
Neoclassical economics is the idiom of most economic discourse today. It is the paradigm
that bends the twigs of young minds. Then it confines the florescence of older ones, like
chicken-wire shaping a topiary.
It took form about a hundred years ago, when Henry George and his reform proposals were
a clear and present political danger and challenge to the landed and intellectual
establishments of the world.
Few people realize to what degree the founders of Neo-classical economics changed the
discipline for the express purpose of deflecting George and frustrating future students
seeking to follow his arguments.
It can be argued that the 20th century was a disastrous wrong-turn leading to the
subversion of a rising economic democracy for the benefit of rent-takers. Unnecessary
privation, war and destruction of the living world were it's necessary consequence, but it's
not to late to revisit the keen insights of a (deliberately) forgotten genius like Henry
George.
And you appear not to understand the difference between an "average" and a "median". The
median measure the mid-point, above and below which 50% of the sample population falls. The
average is just an average over all, and become increasingly different from the median, the
more the inequalities (i.e., skewness of the distribution) increase. This is precisely what
has happened in most western societies since the 1980s. The report mentions AVERAGE wealth,
but this hides a large spread, with large increases at the top, while the bottom 10 to 20% in
most western societies have almost nothing, and have not seen their new wealth increase for
decades. How can it, if you don't own a house and don't have shares/super, etc.?? I think you
are generalising too much from your own (probably limited) social circle and experiences.
Your welcome, yes its an informative site, I might add, Neo-liberalism is only half the
problem Globalisation goes hand in hand with it and both are supported if not controlled by
the IMF, with the aim of crushing the working people of third world nations, and the ALP
explicitly support Globalisation whilst emphatically deny involvement with Neoliberalism.
Wages have stagnated and corporate profits have soared! Privatisation of public assets and
corporatization in this capitalist system, is the biggest fail of all times for the majority
of our society! Back in my day, If there were two working, (Which there wasn't) my wage was
enough to own my own house in 2.8 years.
The system is defunct and fucked!
Neoliberalism seems to be a nice name, conjured up by a nasty think tank. given to a system
that enhances massive profits for the few. A system that allows public owned assets
(Infrastructure) to be sold at devalued prices and a system where people are to be considered
as a commodity, with those of no use to their system being skinned and left out to dry.
I have been hammering the same line for years now, it so good to have someone as articulate
and respected as Bernie Fraser damning neoliberalism for what it is as an economic cover
story for implementing right-wing ideology. Trickle down theory has been routinely assessed
as a failure to deliver equity and as a result the LNP are polarising society.
When neoliberalism is broken down, it's just the same old chestnut of socialism for the
privileged (via lobbying to create an environment best for rent seekers) and capitalism for
the rest of us where if we fail, too bad so sad.
Neoliberalism is fraud.
It is the speedo wound back, that 'glorious beachside situation' under water, a
pea-and-thimble trick to baffle and fleece the suckers.
Being the creation of Libertarians, it has their trademark ideological motivation, a visceral
loathing of government, in whatever form.
That determination to demonise and even dismantle govt is made plain by Neoliberalism's
numerous facilitating porkies, pushed as the unvarnished truth.
One example.
Neoliberal ideologues dogmatically insist the Commonwealth needs to somehow 'borrow' to fund
the deficit.
This assertion has no basis in reality.
It is a whopper designed to serve the needs of ideology, nothing more.
For Neoliberal ideologues, this piece of deceit kicks two significant goals.
First, it enables them to depict govt as so inherently inefficient, so inept, it cannot even
raise dollar one of the very currency which it is allegedly controls.
Down, down goes disgraced govt.
From where can it obtain the desperately-needed funds?
Here comes the second goal.
To fund the deficit, the C' wealth goes crawling, cap-in-hand, to the private sector.
Fearless, freedom-loving, shit-hot-and-shiny private sector !
But it's total myth.
The Commonwealth is a sovereign currency issuer.
Ergo sum, it always has its own money, AUD.
Saying it needs to borrow something it creates and controls-- and of which it has an infinite
supply-- only makes sense as a propaganda-driven porkie.
It's like claiming you need to borrow somebody else's piss.
Neoliberalism (ie rule market forces) is a binary system - it produces winners and losers.
The winners are those paid to lobby, write the legislation, secure the profits, get the
shares, run the corporations, the banks, the accountancies, the insurers etc.
The losers are the majority us who remain outside in the cold. The winners are not going
to change their ways and why should they - they hold the power and we the masses pose no
threat to them.
Its way past time that those who are not winning in this binary game started to threaten
the winners. This is what McManus is doing with her ACTU 'change the rules' campaign - it is
seriously threatening the neoliberal agenda.
The Wentworth by-election is threatening the Morrison neoliberal coalition with
annihilation and just might be the turning point for Australians to take back their democracy
and their economy from the thieves who hold power.
No. With a couple of exceptions the communities that delivered the highest Brexit vote tended
to have the least migrants.
I am advocating Social Democracy, a mixed economy where there is a private sector and a
state sector and more state intervention to stop communities being 'left behind'. Investment
in education & training and renationalisation of natural monopolies such as water and
rail is what's needed in the UK.
For far too long all the mainstream MSM including the BBC and this paper have acted as a
propaganda machine for the Neoliberal outsourcing of workers to undermine salaries while
putting money into the off shore accounts of fat cats.
Meanwhile the Mail, Sky & Sun (Murdoch) and Express, LBC radio have jumped on the
opportunity of a divided Britain to encourage hatred of the other.
I used to buy crap chinese marine ply, my new supplier has Australian made, high quality
marine ply for 2/3 the price. I always prefer to keep my money local.
2/3 of Australia isn't surviving, they're drowning, not waving.
It is about the 1% who think robbing the poor is good business. The strongest economy in
Australia was when wage growth was good. Businesses only look at their small picture and the
larger economy is none of their concern. Business has been able to buy politicians for their
own profit, not the good of the country.
Obviously, everything is horrible in Australia these days and is getting worse.
Even though Australia is ranked #3 on the Human Development Index out of some
192 countries and has an awesomely high per capita GDP. Australia is also among the
most respected, most reputable countries on the planet and has 3 cities in the top 10
of best cities in the world to live in. Other than that, it is horrible there.
"Favouring the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of
community interests, can lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes"
Australians take note. Neoliberalism has led to the rise of the far right in the UK and
across EU countries. Doesn't help that people like Murdoch encourage finger pointing at
foreigners while supporting the right-wing economic policies creating the massive division
and job insecurity.
Neo-liberalism: low taxes to encourage employment; deregulation of labour market and business
"red-tape" and privatisation of public assets and utilities. You may also throw in an
unhealthy obsession with micro economics and interest rates.
All of which have been shown to have negligible impact on their stated goals (see lower
taxes) and have been terrible for consumers, workers and society.
Seventy years (give or take) have passed since the end of WW2.
In Europe, the first half of that period could broadly be described as social democracy,
the second as neo-liberal.
To your point Fox, let's see the data on a simple line chart:
Real individual wages per capita
GDP per capita
National indebtedness
Private indebtedness
I'm willing to be corrected but I'd bet you London to a brick that the social democratic
shits all over the neo-liberal from a great height when it comes to improvements in these
core data.
That's it.. the world moved to the right back in the mid to late 80's ..as the Soviet Union
collapsed ..and the wall came down.
Now both Russia and China are on the free market merry go round.. except that they keep
controls on certain aspects .. of the economy, an iron fist control, taking advantage and
abusing the free market to meet their own ends. Conservatism is about individualism ..
as put forward by Howard.. aspirational to achieve for yourself.. Nothing to do with your
community. That's why they hate the UN.. generally and particularly in regards to climate
change.. the world acting as one community for the benefit of all communities.. So they want
to build walls.. trade barriers... it's all characterized as impinging on the countries
sovereignty.. The interesting thing is ..that back in the 80's ..the left was all about
protectionism.. and isolationist policy. So to speak.. now Trump wants to turn back the
clock.. 40 years or so. It's a bit late for that.
So...never give conservatism a chance. Actually..the inevitable consequence of climate
change making the world re calibrate economics ..through sustainability, not greed first,
will put and end to conservatism. It's a high price to pay.. but I have no doubt it will
happen.
Income is important, but it has been the progressive concentration of wealth that is causing
the real damage and polarization. If we no longer belong in the same society, if we no longer
care for others as being our own, if we no longer look at other living things as our
relations, then we are looking into a catastrophic void.
Asked whether they have confidence in CEO Sundar Pichai and his management team to
"effectively lead in the future," 74 percent of employees responded "positive," as opposed to
"neutral" or "negative," in late 2018, down from 92 percent "positive" the year before. The
18-point drop left employee confidence at its lowest point in at least six years. The results
of the survey, known internally as Googlegeist, also showed a decline in employees'
satisfaction with their compensation, with 54 percent saying they were satisfied, compared with
64 percent the prior year.
The drop in employee sentiment helps explain why internal debate around compensation, pay
equity, and trust in executives has heated up in recent weeks -- and why an HR presentation
from 2016 went viral inside the company three years later.
The presentation, first reported by Bloomberg and
reviewed by WIRED, dates from July 2016, about a year after Google started an internal effort
to curb
spending . In the slide deck, Google's human-resources department presents potential ways
to cut the company's $20 billion compensation budget. Ideas include: promoting fewer people,
hiring proportionately more low-level employees, and conducting an audit to make sure Google is
paying benefits "(only) for the right people." In some cases, HR suggested ways to implement
changes while drawing little attention, or tips on how to sell the changes to Google employees.
Some of the suggestions were implemented, like eliminating the annual employee holiday gift;
most were not.
Another, more radical proposal floated inside the company around the same time didn't appear
in the deck. That suggested converting some full-time employees to contractors to save money. A
person familiar with the situation said this proposal was not implemented. In July,
Bloomberg
reported that, for the first time, more than 50 percent of Google's workforce were temps,
contractors, and vendors.
"... By Chris Becker. Originally published at MacroBusiness ..."
"... The problem with capitalism is when it is wedded to an ideology that has limited or perverted checks and balances. Inequality being the most dire and neglected outcome of perverting a system that does not punish the risk takers who fail. Witness the banking industry in the aftermath of the GFC. A properly tuned capitalistic system would have seen the majority of bankers incarcerated, there wealth confiscated by legal and just reparations and an overhaul of the financial sector. ..."
"... Make a system where the actors benefit by cheating and they will cheat – good people included. ..."
"... Sal si puedes. ..."
"... "This general irregularity must be placed within the irregular cycle of the working week (and indeed of the working year) which provoked so much lament from moralists and mercantilists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. ..."
"... A rhyme printed in 1639 gives us a satirical version: ..."
"... You know that Munday is Sundayes brother; Tuesday is such another; Wednesday you must go to Church and pray; Thursday is half-holiday; On Friday it is too late to begin to spin; The Saturday is half-holiday agen. John Houghton, in 1681, gives us the indignant version: ..."
"... "When the framework knitters or makers of silk stockings had a great price for their work, they have been observed seldom to work on Mondays and Tuesdays but to spend most of their time at the ale-house or nine-pins . . . The weavers, 'tis common with them to be drunk on Monday, have their head-ache on Tuesday, and their tools out of order on Wednesday. As for the shoemakers, they'll rather be hanged than not remember St. Crispin on Monday . . . and it commonly holds as long as they have a penny of money or pennyworth of credit." ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ..."
"... "In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not legal and illegal immigrants." ..."
"... "This is an outrageous betrayal of public trust -- but only what can be expected when private bankers are given a governing role in American monetary policy. In a sane world, private bankers would have no more voice than any other citizen in making that decision . It's time to throw these turkeys out of American monetary policy." ..."
"... "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ..."
"... "The Trilateralist Commission is international (and) is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests BY SEIZING CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical." ..."
It's always interesting to hear mega-capitalists complain about the very
system that provides them opportunity to turn their talents into Scrooge McDuck size piles of
cash. Furthermore, it's usually the most successful that have the most liberal of views and Ray Dalio, head
of hedge fund Bridgewater, has weighed in again.
"Capitalism basically is not working for the majority of people. That's just the reality," Dalio said
at the 2018
Summit
conference in Los Angeles
in November. Monday, Dalio tweeted a video of his Summit talk.
"Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of the population's net worth is equal to the bottom 90 percent
combined. In other words, a big giant wealth gap. That was the same -- last time that happened was the
late '30s," Dalio said. (Indeed,
research
from Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
of the National Bureau of Economic Research of wealth
inequality throughout the 20th century,
covered
by The Guardian
, bears this out.)
Further, Dalio points to a survey by the Federal Reserve showing that
40
percent of adults can't come up with $400
in the case of an emergency. "It gives you an idea of what
the polarity is," Dalio said. "That's a real world. That's an issue."
"We're in a situation when the economy is at a peak, we still have this very big tension. That's where
we are today," he said in November. "We're in a situation where, if you have a downturn, and we will have
a downturn, I believe that -- I worry that that polarity will become greater."
There is no actual problem with capitalism in and of itself. As a system, compared to other systems in
the past, it has provided the greatest gains to the greatest number of people in the last two centuries of
human development. To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories
of economics that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have
failed time and time again.
The problem with capitalism is when it is wedded to an ideology that has limited or perverted checks
and balances. Inequality being the most dire and neglected outcome of perverting a system that does not
punish the risk takers who fail. Witness the banking industry in the aftermath of the GFC. A properly tuned
capitalistic system would have seen the majority of bankers incarcerated, there wealth confiscated by legal
and just reparations and an overhaul of the financial sector.
Captured regulatory authorities and legislative assemblies overturned the fundamental
cornerstone of capitalism – if you fail, you take a loss – and turned it into an even more perverse form of
socialism where the losers become winners and society bears the entire burden of their mistakes.
Dalio, like Buffet and Gates before him are pointing out the problems of extreme wealth, but this is not
a new phenomenon. History shows that when income and wealth inequality become widely disparate, the forces
of populism rise to shake the foundations. And inequality in the US and in the Western world is again
reaching those heady heights where "unbridled" (read:captured) capitalism resulted in the Great Depression:
The concentration of wealth by capturing the full yield of capitalism without distributing any seeds is
worse than ever as
The Economist
explains:
The 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01%, with an average net worth of $371m, now control 11.2%
of total wealth -- back to the 1916 share, which is the highest on record. Those down the distribution have
not done quite so well: the top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of
America's wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak -- and exactly the same share as the bottom 90% of the
population.
Dalio is right to point out that an unworkable capitalist system, where the majority of the gains are
kept by the few, creating an oligarchy that is inflexible to change, or risk, has not benefited the
majority.
Lost in the amazing advances in the developing world which has embraced versions of capitalism over the
last thirty years is that the average Westerner has gone nowhere in terms of wage growth and real wealth:
Similar forces have been in play in Australia:
Creating these instabilities, where it's extremely hard for someone to rise above the average wage, let
alone no wage, is going to cost the whole system eventually if it is not reformed and brought back to the
center where it belongs.
Capitalism "works" because it is a flawed system that steals from society.
Limited liability corporations protect profits and socialize losses.
Companies get society provided benefits for well well below cost, but spend zillions avoiding contributing
to their improvement (think infrastructure, public education, legal system).
Consumers over consume because they are not charged the full cost of their consumption. So we get pollution,
resource depletion and worker exploitation.
Capitalism is a wild stallion that can take you to places you would never get to on your own, but unharnessd
it will likely also take you into a ditch. Capitalism needs to be harnessed by society. It needs to serve
society. Society should not be serving capitalism.
The actions of the actors in a system can be predictable. Make a system where the actors benefit by cheating
and they will cheat – good people included. Make a system that encourages good behaviour and people will be
better.
The planet can not handle much more of capitalism's "success".
"To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories of
economics that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have
failed time and time again."
Remember when capitalism started in earnest in the early Renaissance and the already established,
competing ideology tried to strangle it in its crib and destabilize any state, no matter how small,
that didn't hew to the orthodox economic and political hegemony? Oh right, me neither.
"Socialism didn't work" without acknowledging the entire resources of the European and American
"first world" attempted to put down the USSR from 1917-1921, and undeclared covert war on any state
with a constitution to the left of Harry Truman ever since is kind of a mitigating circumstance of
"capitalism > socialism"
Not true. See the uk revolution, the dutch revolution, and the French. Each one was an attempt
by capitalism to revolutionize a region and the feudal lords tried to strangle it.
But it slowly built basic accounting methods and legal social frameworks that ended up
dominating the world.
Just like socialism has created legal structures that have changed basic sense with 2 steps
forwards and 1 back. Who knows where it may go after a few more centuries of revolutions?
Make a system where the actors benefit by cheating and they will cheat – good people included.
That's the basic question in a nutshell. Can Capitalism
ever
be configured in such a way in
which that doesn't happen? The historical record says no, not for long, "cheating" being a relative term
anyway. Good capitalists will tell you they don't cheat, they simply redefine the legal meaning of the
word to benefit their own interests, the law and its makers being simply another commodity to be bought
and sold like any other.
This debate on "capitalism" feels like the black mirror discussion of MMT.
MMT = Good because it is a theory that runs contrary to norms that have produced bad results.
Capitalism = Bad because it is the widely accepted theory that has led to bad results.
Reality is they are both amoral concepts that need to be applied appropriately to produce the desired
results. Coming to consensus on what those results need to be is the issue.
Dalio is an interesting character. If he went public with this in November, you can bet he's been
modeling it for years, made piles of money on it and he sees it at the end of its cycle. What he's not
saying is how they've modeled it out for the next 5-10 years and what those outcomes entail, which is
unfortunate.
I disagree with the characterization of both MMT and capitalism. MMT is mostly not theoretical, but
descriptive. The system is operated as economists like Stephanie Kelton describe. What is not the "norm"
is the
open acknowledgement
of the way in which the monetary system operates. That
particular self-delusion is about 300 years old.
Capitalism is driven by the need to always expand. But what seems possible on the micro level is not
possible on the macro level, at least not forever.
Capitalism is based on two kinds of theft. Private ownership of the gifts of nature is theft from the
community. Appropriation of the surplus is theft from the workers.
This is the kind of lectures you will get when you bail out scoundrels. Scoundrels will blame capitalism
when in reality these scoundrels define capitalism as "privatize profits and socialize losses". The temerity
of these scoundrels is galling. These arsonists talk of capitalism. If capitalism had been allowed to do its
job, many of these scoundrels would have been languishing in jails and the companies they run would have
been dead and buried.
Capitalism doesn't prescribe right or wrong in moral terms, only profits. The idea that markets could
ever be self-policing is laughably misguided. We're living with that truth as we speak. Profits buy power
and influence, which are then used to change the rules of the game to enable even more profits in a
classic vicious cycle. Rinse and repeat until a clear winner emerges or the entire system collapses in a
mass of warring factions. Looks like we've got the latter to me.
It is the bailouts (in the guise of saving the common man from something unimaginably worse, mind
you) and the lack of accountability (no one going to jail, arsonists being asked to put out the fire
etc.) that is simply covering capitalism with the moral hazard muck to an extent that capitalism is
now unrecognizable. The rottenness of the system has been in the works since 1987 (Greenspan put) and
has taken this long to germinate into a monster. Let us see how it ends!
Gotta be real specific in our terminology here. When you say Capitalism it is like saying Religion. Just
as with Religion you have different flavours of it such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. you have
also different types of Capitalism as well. I suppose that you can best describe the type of Capitalism that
we have in place now as 'Crony Capitalism' though others may disagree. Another aspect of the type of
capitalism that has evolved is that it is built on the premise of expansion as it came of age during the
past two centuries when expansion was just the way it was.
Not only has this caused problems in a world of finite resources which we are pushing the envelope off but I
have no idea what would happen when the Age of Expansion ends and we instead go into the Age of Contraction
which will maybe last just as long. Another problem with our brand of Capitalism is that it never captures
all the costs associated with a venture. An example? All those toxic sites that fracking will leave behind?
The companies will never pay to clean that mess up but it will be done – maybe – by the taxpayer so of
course those companies never add those costs into their accounts. A more sustainable form of Capitalism
would be forced to calculate those costs into their accounts. Just because Capitalism is the way that it is
does not mean that that is the way that it has to be.
Looking back, it appears that when humans came out of Africa, they intermixed with Neaderthals,
acquiring some of the local immunity DNA, among others, and that gave them survival advantages.
And the hybridization has enabled them to overpopulate the planet, with commentators of all kinds,
including those wiser ones who are aware of the over-popluation problem and climate change.
So, in the same way, we should look to combining ideas and -isms.
Not just socialism all good, capitalism all bad, etc.
oh it's obvious to them too, but as Upton Sinclair said, it's impossible to get someone to understand
something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.
Correct. Without "restraint", unbridled capitalism cannot be sustained; it will eventually devour the
planet and render it uninhabitable. Unbridled capitalism is an animal uncaged. That uncaged animal today,
globally is devouring the commons. "Capitalism" is now, "off the rails".
"There is no actual problem with capitalism in and of itself. As a system, compared to other systems in
the past, it has provided the greatest gains to the greatest number of people in the last two centuries of
human development. To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories
of economics that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have
failed time and time again."
Precisely wrong. Capitalism is a donut machine, doing its job, and spitting out donuts, it's working
exactly as it's supposed to. The externalities and corruption are part and parcel of the system. Saying that
"pure" capitalism wouldn't have the impurities we see in the system is the exact same arguement socialists
and communists could argue for their own systems. "Communism (or capitalism) (or socialism) failed because
it wasn't pure enough", essentially. Capitalism takes the worst aspects of human nature, promotes them as
virtues, then acts surprised when everyone starts acting like pirates and vampire squid.
capitalism assumes rational actors will balance out its flaws. He claims socialism fails but the new
deal had some elements of socialism which assuaged the winner take all nature of capitalism. Deregulation
basically is unmaking the rules and the result is global casino capitalism, and that's a disease just as
it would be in vegas or atlantic city. I am unsurprisingly not optimistic, we had a great chance to rein
it all in, twice with obama (i say twice because I was cajoled into voting for him a second time because
he was supposedly going to do something good in his second term when the poor man became unshackled from
the need to be re elected [irony alert: if obama had made any effort to help regular "folks" he wouldn't
have had any problem getting re elected and the dnc wouldn't have needed to cheat the voters and shove
her republican leaning highness down our collective throats]) and a third time with b sanders, so that's
12 years of active enrichment of the worst fackers in the world, and now this article makes it seem like
maybe they are worried but they won't do anything to rein in bezos, or fix student loans, or any of the
other crises facing the population. Self driving tech is going to increase traffic and consumption, who
here thinks waymo and uber will give up on the fantasy because they're worried about global warming?
They're worried about patents. They're worried someone else will get the mountainous payoff. It's all
about the self and there is no sign that hand wringing of the nature Mr Dalio is engaging in, as sensible
and reasoned as it may be, is going to lead to any changes that result in concrete material benefits
going to people who the upper class, for lack of a better word, hates. The only good mope is one with a
catalog of unpayable debts, who works to survive all the while paying into their social security account
so the worst fackers in the world can garnish it and put a bottom tranche on their greedy securitization
schemes.
My first thought was: climate change. If your system of producing goods and services leads to
environmental destruction that interferes with the ability of the planet to harbor human life, well .I'd
say that's a major problem with your system.
The one difference with the purity argument is that the communist apologists are pointing to the
impurity of the system. The tried systems were either too capitalist or too despotic or not despotic
enough or too reformist or etc.They posit that the solution is just that the system needs to have the
purity of the way their political theory describes a communist system.
The capitalist apologists, apropos, point to the impurity of the individual instead. The system cannot
fail, as they don't even see it as a system, it is simply "human nature." The morality of the individuals
at the top of the hierarchy determines all. If capitalism is failing, it is because of the bad choices of
those individuals.
"The morality of the individuals at the top of the hierarchy determines all. If capitalism is
failing, it is because of the bad choices of those individuals."
That's incorrect, though. The system favors those willing to exploit others and the system as
structured puts those people at the top of the pyramid. Anyone with morality cannot have outstanding
success in rising to the top of the economic hierarchy in this system due to their morality being a
major limitation, with the possible exception of being born into wealth.
From my background as an engineer, I have come to the conclusion that economics is not a science and
should be renamed as political economics as that is a much more descriptive.
All of the "isms" are constructs of the governing rules established by governing bodies (mostly
national governments) and agreements between governing bodies. All of the "isms" depend on a means to
enforce the rules. I know this is all obvious to anybody who has studied this stuff. It was not to me
until I started paying attention in the late 90's, and ignored all the BS we get bombarded with on a
daily basis.
The current set of rules (including the unwritten class rules where the rich and poor have different
rules) guarantees the end of a human inhabitable world. It seems to me that we need to re-write the rules
very quickly before we are overtaken by events.
>As a system, compared to other systems in the past, it has provided the greatest gains to the greatest
number of people in the last two centuries of human development.
How do we actually know that? What was, during the peak years, an "average" Aztec's quality of life, for
example? Let alone knowing what work/remuneration system he/she existed under. And in truth, the measurement
itself is capitalism's measurement. It's like ranking everybody in the country by how hard they can throw a
baseball. It's useful for winning at baseball, doesn't say anything about the country's metallurgical
capabilities. Capitalism is best at Capitalism! Yea!
I actually think the biggest contributor to what they claim as "the greatest gains to the greatest number
of people" is sewage treatment. Which I believe has been a government initiative, yes?
Now, I'm actually not comfortable kicking over the table. Universal Health Care and really high marginal
tax rates would, in my model of the world (which may be completely wrong) work well enough. We would have to
study not-so-Great Britain's problems when they tried the same thing, to be sure.
For me, the question is:
once capitalism is established, is it possible to rein it in? Will it not allways turn out to get out of
control, to become the „real existing" capitalism. Is a capitalism „with a human face" a stable possibilty.
Communism „with a human face" doesn't seem to be possible. Sytems have their own dynamics and tend to find a
stable equlibrium, and for each there are only a finite number of stable states, probably defined by human
nature. Power tends to concentrate.
In short: Is a capitalist system, in which the TBTF are allowed to fail, a realistic possibility?
"To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories of economics
that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have failed time and
time again." Seems like the author is ignoring those successful socialistic countries like Denmark, Sweden,
etc.
Sorry, but the USA's biggest trading partner is a self declared Communist state. Anytime someone
brings up the Communist boogeyman this needs to be given right back to them. Vietnam isn't doing so bad
either. Of course what the Corporatists love is not the Communism but the Totalitarianism. You can still
be Communist and be involved in a market economy, and China has plenty of state involvement in it's
industry
Seemingly a significant portion of the folk desire more stuff, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism
provides more stuff for many of them, or can pretend to. Therefore they will continue to support it until it
collapses.
Sal si puedes.
Classical economics – observations and deductions from the world of small state, unregulated capitalism
around them
Neoclassical economics – Where did that come from?
Keynesian economics – observations, deductions and fixes for the problems of neoclassical economics
Neoclassical economics – Why is that back?
We thought small state, unregulated capitalism was something that it wasn't as our ideas came from
neoclassical economics, which has little connection with classical economics.
On bringing it back again, we had lost everything that had been learned in the 1930s, by which time it
had already demonstrated its flaws.
Let's find out what capitalism really is again by going back to the classical economists.
We really need to get the cost of living back into economics.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Cutting taxes but letting the cost of living soar has been a pointless neoliberal exercise.
Let's find out what real wealth creation is again as they worked out in the 1930s.
It's measured by GDP that excludes the transfer of existing assets like stocks and real estate as
inflating asset prices isn't creating real wealth. That fictitious financial wealth has a habit of
disappearing as they realised after 1929.
We need to remember the problem with the markets they discovered in the 1930s.
"This general irregularity must be placed within the irregular cycle of the working week (and indeed
of the working year) which provoked so much lament from moralists and mercantilists in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
A rhyme printed in 1639 gives us a satirical version:
You know that Munday is Sundayes brother;
Tuesday is such another;
Wednesday you must go to Church and pray;
Thursday is half-holiday;
On Friday it is too late to begin to spin;
The Saturday is half-holiday agen.
John Houghton, in 1681, gives us the indignant version:
"When the framework knitters or makers of silk stockings had a great price for their work, they have
been observed seldom to work on Mondays and Tuesdays but to spend most of their time at the ale-house or
nine-pins . . .
The weavers, 'tis common with them to be drunk on Monday, have their head-ache on Tuesday, and their tools
out of order on Wednesday. As for the shoemakers, they'll rather be hanged than not remember St. Crispin on
Monday . . . and it commonly holds as long as they have a penny of money or pennyworth of credit."
Merrie England gave way to the dark satanic mills.
Maybe because they had plenty of time to think while they were weaving but historically, if you had an
active politically minded group, it was guaranteed that the weavers would be part of them. Until they got
industrialized that is. Certainly that was true in Scotland in the 19th century.
The article is interesting, but do we truly have to be lectured by Becker?:
To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories of economics
that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have failed time
and time again.
In other words, capitalism is dogma that has defeated the Arians. Try going to Wikipedia, put in "Panic
of," and you will get fifteen major crashes in the U.S. economy from 1792 to 1930. That's fifteen crashes in
150 years. And this is a system that hasn't failed time and time again?
Mixed economies with strong government intervention and subsidies to the citizenry (the welfare state)
have done quite well. The Venetian republic used that economic model for some 1100 years. There are
alternatives to U.S. buccaneer capitalism and its endless slogans about its bestness.
They are never honest about socialism, "its been tried and it failed"
Never mention that any country that dares go socialist will immediately be economically attacked by
capitalist countries. Has it ever been given a chance where it wasn't?
I always thought it funny that capitalists always say socialism doesn't work but then why are they so
desperately afraid of it.
it's not clear that China's present system isn't also capitalism. Russia neither only it's also
particularly corrupt. It's a raw power contest with them and the U.S. government, not an ideological
one,
Russia has been capitalist since the wall fell, China since Deng Xiaopings reforms. Russia is just
a regular capitalist country at this point, whereas China is State Capitalism (in fact, the only major
extant example of such).
What I find so frustrating about this kind of analysis is that it takes as given that "capitalism" is a
thing, something actually existing in the real world. In reality, it's a sound we make with our mouths, and
nothing more. At most it's a rather vague concept whose definition there does not seem to be any real
agreement on. It's a shibboleth with no actual referent in the physical world.
I think words like "capitalism" and "socialism" get used as mental shorthand because most of us can't be
bothered with the nuance of reality. The policies, norms, and systems we have in place now are there because
they serve (or served) the interests of some person or group of people who had enough influence/power to get
them put in place. Sheldon Adelson demanding the Feds regulate on-line gambling is a perfect example.
Adelson doesn't give a rip whether having the gov't remove his competitors is "capitalism" or not. It's in
his interests, and if he can flex enough muscle to get the Feds to go along, he'll get his way. What label
you put on the outcome is irrelevant.
The strong take what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Seems like that's been true in every
large-scale society I'm familiar with, regardless of how they labled themselves.
A clear definition of capitalism is not to the advantage of capitalists, so we never hear one, except
"private ownership of the means of production" which is not it.
People have been taught to think of capitalism simply as "the source of all good things" so by
definition any alternative must be worse. No need to think about the details.
for leftists it seems it's often shorthand for the status quo, and the status quo economics and power
relationships. So sure that's a catch all for the water us fishes hardly know we swim in.
They aren't wrong on the fact that any system that uses more resources than the earth produces WILL
NOT and CAN NOT end well and that the only hope, if hope there is, is in reigning this in. And that
probably, or at least probably if it is to be humane in any sense and not just be mass extermination,
requires an economy geared toward human needs, not consumerism, not excess for anyone beyond what the
world can produce.
Sometimes this system we live in produces more or less inequality, how much depends on how much the
powerful are able to take, how much power they have to direct all wealth to themselves. Always it
produces wage slavery, deprived as wage slaves are of their own subsistence other than by selling their
labor. They might have more of less of a voice in the workplace, in the U.S. they have pretty much none.
So the U.S. status quo is a powerless vast mass of people that must work for a living whose lives are
dictated by economic powers beyond their control. And then there are the rentiers taking their cut from
everyone working for a living as well. The returns just from owning property etc. – almost all real
property being owned by a few large players.
The biggest failure of capitalism is environmental. In a system which everything is privatized except the
externalities which are dumped on public plate with no way to pursue public interest and which will bring us
down sooner than later. Inequality is at the core of the system, but it isn't the worst outcome. A system
that produces much more than needed and pollutes the environment, we find ourselves sitting on piles of
garbage and killing ourselves in the name of production efficiency. In a socialist system the public has
potentially control over resources and could potentially divert resources to less destructive production, or
make a conscious decision to stop altogether. Even if we, in this stage, distribute wealth equaly we won't
be able to avert the environmental catastrophe that awaits us.
Capitalism has been historically a system of exploitation of the Masses, and remains so today, even after
decades of attempts to reform it. Talk regarding the system has largely been of a circular and utopian
nature since the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. The Center-Left coalition has been searching for a way to make
Capitalism "work," i.e. make it palpable enough for the majority of people so as to keep the Owner Classes
feeling secure. You can't fix what something is by its very nature, though. Capitalism is a socio-economic
model for a Class based organizing of society; it's chief claim to progress was that it operated as a
universal (neither religiously or ethnically demarcated) organizational structure outside of the hereditary
based systems of feudalism that preceded it–though given projected trends for Wealth concentration one might
find the later claim to be somewhat specious.
The Keynesian economists tried to make Capitalism work and they were axed back in the 70's, along with
the older generations of the CED, the moment the owner classes felt secure again after the Great Crash.
Unions, Regulatory Bodies, and the promises of a Great Society where undermined and attacked, dismantled,
and largely turned into empty talking points. The triumph of Right Wing politics, aka the last four to five
decades, should be observed as nothing short of absolute failure on the part of the Center-Left,
Triangulationists (Neo-Liberals), and the Soft-Politics of Identity in providing substantive answers to
systemic questions of exploitation of the Many by the Few. The Liberal Theory of Reform has ultimately
proved to be very divergent from Reality, which has largely demonstrated that it takes both large scale
emergent catastrophes (Great Depression), a militant population (Socialists, Fascists, Organized Labor,
and/or Disgruntled Peasantry), and the acceptance or acquiescence of the Power Elites in order for Change to
place. The gradualism of reformist policy has largely been debunked thanks to over a century of sloppy and
mostly reactive implementation and subsequent repeal.
In the Western context, however, Capitalism is the softest form of Power enforcement, in that it is
largely an idea that most in the society at least tentatively accept as the deterministic apparatus for
"success" and "failure." Even intellectual debate is referred to as, "the Marketplace of Ideas." Once it is
gone as viable option, the Elites have one of two options: submit to egalitarianism or resort to older forms
of control.
To be more frank, we also need to start talking about actual material breaking points, rather than
pretending that abstract "polarization" will continue on.
For me the question is if the "system", broken as it is, is or isn't already repairable, and whether guys
like this are really ready for the necessary steps.
Capitalism works! The problem are all those brainwashed by neoliberal propaganda nonsense, that
capitalism is a system that will deliver to all and sundry, sort of market socialism.
Only a child could believe that?
That the minority of the elite that owns and control the means of production and not least the financial
institutions would have identical interests with common people?
Some people still not get that neoliberalism is and was a counter revolution, by the capitalist class, on
the postwar mixed economy that did spread economic growth to all and sundry. That it should generate welfare
to everybody was just a propaganda ploy. Everyone who didn't engage in self-deception did see that from the
beginning.
It have worked beyond any expectations, a total success for the few that owns this world. Some counter
counter revolution on this aren't even remotely visible on the horizon. And if it would come the few will
defend their progress with whatever it takes, if a bloodbath are required they won't hesitate.
A Benevolent Dictator will be needed to displace capitalism as the means for supplying the goods and
services needed for a survivable and sustainable society. A new enlightened elite conscious of rational
needs instead of marketers and self-promoters.
Millions of individuals are beginning to extricate themselves, the best way they can, from this corrupt
system. The die hard capitalists will be the last to notice that the world has changed around them. Climate
change will make this a necessity. People not working together to ensure their common survival will be dead.
Capitalism depends on various forms of exploitation to persist. When the world has been ground down to
such an extent that growth and exploitation cannot continue, those practiced in radical conservation have
the best chance for survival. I just don't see slave societies meeting that requirement. Slaves can always
sabotage the system if they don't fear for their lives. An elite spending their time and energies focused on
preventing slave revolts won't have the luxury of abundance to pursue their follies- they will be too busy
trying to survive themselves.
Maybe this has a silver lining. The future elite will be members of the community, not some sequestered
and pampered minority granted the privilege to live in this seclusion- it just won't be possible any more.
" .is going to cost the system eventually. " This is the reality .. Systems DO NOT reform themselves;
they can't because they don't know how to. Something new has to emerge to fill the vacumm they create when
they collapse.No one knows what that will be. So just be prepared . Hold to what you know to be true.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow
work for the benefit of us all." –J. M. Keynes
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have
Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the
economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to
reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom."
~ Michael Hudson
Neoliberalism is extreme capitalism, the libertarian purists' dream that, if left unabated, would
eliminate human rights, safety regulations and environmental protections. That's why they've taken Civics
out of the educational curriculum. Why should people learn about rights in a future world of no citizenship?
And forget about freedom to roam. There would be restricted zones, less car ownership, more mass transit,
less private property ownership. Why do you think the housing prices are so out of reach today?
"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not
borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners,
guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not legal and illegal immigrants."
~ Jeff Deist,
president of the Mises Institute
They've already tried their experiment of replacing nations with privately owned "charter cities" in
Honduras, but it didn't work, unsurprisingly. Co-ops must be restored in that region, which were very
successful.
Private bankers can't control BOTH forms of money creation – government issuance of new currency and
credit creation, but they do and have been in the US for the past 40 years now.
Gov't finance is being intentionally mismanaged because banks make money on loans (and deficits cut into
their profits), so they suppressed wages and shut off fiscal policy gov't investment in order to force the
nation to borrow credit. This has caused a massive private debt over the past 40 years, all dishonorably
accrued because it never had to have happened in the first place. It should all be cancelled.
We need to reclaim the State from the money lenders.
"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal
creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are
far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."
~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970
"The Trilateralist Commission is international (and) is intended to be the vehicle for multinational
consolidation of the commercial and banking interests BY SEIZING CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and
consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical."
~ Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, 1979
"Uses and Abuses of Class Separatism" [ Verso ].
"[T]here are at least two necessary and sufficient elements in a relation of production.
There's a structural element and an individual element. The structural element is in the
relation itself (externally-facing), like a ratio, for example, and the individual element is
in how people experience and live the relation (internally-facing) .. The wage relation is a
paradigm case of a relation of production. It's got structural elements, like the exploitative
difference between amounts paid to workers compared to profits made by capitalists. It also has
experiential elements, like how workers live their wage relations depending on their race,
gender, nationality, sexuality, ability. Neither element is sufficient on its own for the
relation of production. Neither is dependent on the other. Neither is a function of the other.
Both are necessary and sufficient for the relation of production . Class separatists separate
out the structural element of relations of production, name it "class", and then distinguish
this element of relations of production from the individual elements, calling them "identity" .
However, class separatists make a big mistake (maybe their biggest) when they think that
structural elements cut across individual elements of relations of production. The way Black
women live unequal housing relations is different than indigenous men, queer immigrants, or a
straight white people. But class separatists go way too far and think that these individual
elements of relations of production (which they tragically call "identity" just like liberals
do) need not be foregrounded and given equal political weight in their thinking and organizing.
Of course structural elements of relations of production, like rent prices or mold, cut across
so many differences. But these elements don't cut across individual differences. The structural
elements are lived through the individual elements. The individual differences are muscles to
the structural bones in relations of production. If we try to cut across these muscles, we lose
our movement power." • This article is part of an extremely heatlthy on-going polemic on
the left, and well worth a read on that account (It's also written in English, and not dense
jargon. (I do think that "separatists" has the wrong tone.)
"Labor exploitation also happens close to home" [ Supply
Chain Dive ]. "Far too often, customers outsource their moral outrage, as well as their
manufacturing, to their top tier suppliers. Turning a blind eye to these tragedies may be the
easy choice, especially when the upstream supply chain is halfway around the world. But human
trafficking and exploitation are not reserved to low cost countries. We need to acknowledge
there are labor exploitations within our domestic supply chain. Knowingly or not, we use
suppliers who take advantage of employees, provide poor working conditions and low wages, and
purposefully violate laws and regulations. Where is the moral outrage of labor exploitation in
the United States?" More:
I remember the employees at a printed circuit board facility with holes in their clothes
and burns on their skin due to the acids they worked with. Employees in a small and crowded
break room that was crawling with roaches eating their lunch. Workers jammed shoulder to
shoulder on assembly benches without enough room to properly do their work. Machinists
lacking eye and hearing protection. Barbed wire surrounding an outside break area. Exposed
electrical wires and leaking pipes, and clean rooms that were far from clean.
Protectionist Measure to Help U.S. Corporations at the Expense of U.S. Workers Tops Trump
China Trade Agenda
By Dean Baker
Readers of this New York Times piece * on Robert Lighthizer, United States trade
representative, and his negotiations with China may have missed this point. The piece said
that one of Lighthizer's main goals was to stop China's practice of requiring that companies
like Boeing and GE, who set up operations in China, take Chinese companies as business
partners.
This is an effective way of requiring technology transfers, since the partners will become
familiar with the production techniques of the U.S. companies. This will enable them in
future years to be competitors with these companies.
If the U.S. government prohibits contracts that require this sort of technology transfer
it will make it more desirable to outsource some of their production to China. This will be
good for the profits of Boeing, GE, and other large companies but bad for U.S. workers. It
will also mean that we will be paying more for products in the future than would otherwise be
the case, since if Chinese companies would have been able to out-compete U.S. companies, it
presumably means that would be charging lower prices or selling a better product.
It is also worth noting that the basic concern expressed by Lighthizer and others assumes
that major U.S. corporations are unable to look out for themselves. They are not being forced
to enter in contracts with China. This problem arises because they decide to invest in China,
even with conditions requiring technology transfer.
We have a great story here where the government, and many analysts, think our largest
corporations lack the ability to look out for their best interest. By contrast, when it comes
to individual workers who are forced to sign away their right to have class action suits, or
individual investors who can be fleeced by the financial industry, the current position of
the government is that they can look out for themselves.
The NYT piece also does some inappropriate mind reading when it tells readers:
"Mr. Trump is increasingly eager to reach a deal that will help calm the markets, which he
views as a political electrocardiogram of his presidency."
The reporter/editor does not know that Trump is "increasingly eager" or that he "views"
the markets as "a political electrocardiogram of his presidency."
Good reporting says what politicians do and say. It does not report as fact their alleged
opinions.
As a people, we should look to the masters of mercantilism, Germany, and learn the lessons.
How are they dealing with the tendency of corporations to hire the gulag communists to
produce goods for sale in the advanced Western economies, like Germany and America.
Obviously, the communist government of China, which owns all production, has decided to not
buy from the capitalists, but prefers to sell to them, only. Whoops.
Why can't Krugman, an economist, clearly explain the destruction of the nation by neoliberals
destruction of economic theory, turning benefits into liabilities, and liabilities into
benefit, but only asymetricaly???
Hard core neoliberals cleverly attacked Adam Smith and Keynes so stealthily that even
Krugman rejects Adamm Smith and Keynes, and embraces free lunch economics.
No progressive today would support FDR or his advisors, including Eccles, who was much
smarter than anyone running the Fed since about 1970.
Hard core neoliberals want no money paid to workers, but they demand government ensure
consumers have lots of money to spend, far mote money than they earn. But, Hard core
neoliberals do not want government giving consumers money to spend to generate high profits
for Hard core neoliberals, but want the government to enable cHard core neoliberals get the
free money to rent to consumers, and then government punish consumers for not being able to
pay debt because they are not paid to work, because paying workers costs Hard core
neoliberals too much.
Just read a editorial from the anti government control of economy Heritage demanding a
branch of government, the Fed, control the economy, ie print more money, so businesses don't
have to pay consumers to buy stuff, ie, pay higher wages.
Free lunch economics is a total failure, yet hard core neoliberals argue its working
great, except [real] liberals keep pointing out its clear and obvious failures.
But hard core neoliberals should be thankful Krugman is not a liberal, but a free lunch
progressive in near total agreement with free lunch Hard core neoliberals.
"... "We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you're a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If you're a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you." ..."
"... "No single event has influenced the history of labor in Illinois, the United States, and even the world, more than the Chicago Haymarket Affair. It began with a rally on May 4, 1886, but the consequences are still being felt today. Although the rally is included in American history textbooks, very few present the event accurately or point out its significance." ..."
"... Chicago Haymarket Massacre ..."
"... Working for Inclusive, Just, and Equal Alternatives in Asia and Europe. AEPF11 tackled strategies on major themes or People's Visions, representing the hopes of citizens of the two regions. These are: ..."
"... Resource Justice, Land Rights, Equal Access to Water, and Participation – Going Beyond Extractivism ..."
"... Food Sovereignty/Food Security – Beyond zero hunger ..."
"... Climate Justice – Towards Sustainable Energy Production and Use, and Zero Waste ..."
"... Socially Just Trade, Production and Investment ..."
"... Social Justice – Social Protection for All, Decent Work and Sustainable Livelihoods, Tax Justice and other egalitarian Alternatives to Debt and Austerity ..."
"... Peace Building and Human Security – Responses to Migration, and Fundamentalism and Terrorism ..."
"... Participatory Democracy, Gender Equality and Minority Rights ..."
"... "We are increasingly experiencing corporate capture", whereby multinational and national corporations structure and determine our lives and livelihoods," ..."
It is indeed ironic that the US, where May Day has its origin, government has never
celebrated this day, but instead has declared it 'law and order day' since Eisenhower. This is
indicative of contempt for workers by a capitalist-controlled state and the resolve to prevent
labor from demanding a voice in public policy as it did in the 19 th century when it
confronted a violently hostile employer backed by the state. Today, many Republican and
Democrats openly and unapologetically acknowledge capitalist monopoly over public policy. Mick
Mulvaney, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, unashamedly invited 1,300 bank
executives to help him convert the agency that he heads into a pro-banking institution, more so
than it is currently, by contributing money to politicians favoring banking deregulation and
curbing consumer protection safeguards. "We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If
you're a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If you're a lobbyist who gave
us money, I might talk to you."
An honest admission of the degree to which neoliberalism has triumphed, Mulvaney's speech
was indicative of the degree to which capital is now in an open politically-normalized war
against labor and society. This is no different than it was in the post-Civil War era when the
nascent labor movement in America confronted the combined forces of both employers and the
state in the struggle for living wages, safety, and varieties of employer abuses of workers,
including children and women. An estimated 35,000 workers, mostly Italian and Irish immigrants,
went on strike in Chicago on May 1, 1886 in what became known as the Haymarket Massacre. They
demanded an 8-hour workday, fair wages, work safety, abolition of child labor, and the end to
labor exploitation by management in the workplace. The response was the police striking workers
and government adopting harsh measures against any worker trying to organize in the aftermath.
William J Adelman, founder of the Illinois Labor History Society and Vice President, correctly
stated: "No single event has influenced the history of labor in Illinois, the United
States, and even the world, more than the Chicago Haymarket Affair. It began with a rally on
May 4, 1886, but the consequences are still being felt today. Although the rally is included in
American history textbooks, very few present the event accurately or point out its
significance."
As Adelman pointed out, American society is more anti-labor than many other advanced
capitalist countries, though anti-labor policies have spread globally under neoliberalism since
the 1980s. While the police are not out killing workers as they were in the 19 th
and early 20 th century, the contemporary neoliberal state has adopted policies
intended to crush organized labor and silence any voice of dissent to the corporate welfare
state. As a market-based institutional order impacting every aspect of society, including
personal identity, neoliberal corporate welfarism has replaced social welfare capitalism. The
neoliberal goal is to turn the clock back to the early stages of capitalist development when
labor had no rights and the state's role was to act as a conduit for private capital
accumulation. Although society's institutional evolution does not permit for a return to 19
th century social conditions, the trend is to erase as many of the vestiges of
social welfare as possible in order to accelerate capital accumulation.
Whether neoliberalism operates under the pluralist model where vestiges of social welfare
and diversity remain as part of the legal structure, or under the populist authoritarian model
intended to erase pluralism and social welfare, the goal is capital accumulation through
massive transfer of income from labor and the middle class to the richest tiny percentage in
the world. Employers had no difficulty convincing the government to crush the labor movement in
Chicago through violent means in the 1880s or to execute a number of labor leaders in the
aftermath, thus sending a strong message to the world about the absence of workers' rights,
civil rights, human rights and social justice. The infamous Chicago Haymarket Massacre
left a legacy of the class struggle with reverberations around the world, exposing the myth of
bourgeois democracy as representative of anyone outside the capitalist class. Anti-union and
anti-labor policies were characteristic of the US government from Haymarket until the Great
Depression when Roosevelt cleverly broadened the labor movement in order to co-opt if as part
of the Democratic party, thus deradicalizing workers and subordinating the class struggle to
capital, in return for a social welfare state.
Post-Vietnam War progressive opposition to the misanthropic neoliberal culture in most
countries has been co-opted by pluralist neoliberal political parties claiming to represent all
classes within the context of the existing social order. Every identity group, from minorities,
women, elderly, alternative lifestyle, environmental groups, etc. is represented under the
larger umbrella of a pluralist political party. Similarly, the conservative to rightwing
identity groups, religious, nationalist, militarist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, etc. are
under the umbrella of the populist/authoritarian neoliberal political camp as in Trump's
Republican Party. The left representing the working class – lower middle class included
– has a very weak voice so marginalized a much in the historically anti-left America as
in most of the Western World. Instead of joining the progressive leftist camp, the labor
movement is itself co-opted by the neoliberal political parties of the pluralist or populist
variety, thus society operates under a totalitarian canopy within which the choices are between
the neoliberal pluralist or the populist pluralist parties, with variations in modalities,
considering inherent conflicts among the political and financial elites choosing different
camps. President Macron representing the pluralist neoliberal camp in France is just as
militaristic and anti-labor as Trump representing the populist neoliberal camp in the US.
Labor's representation in these governments is non-existent. Operating within the parliamentary
system, France has an anti-capitalist non-revolutionary party, though it has not been put to
the test and it has a very long way to go before it takes power.
In the neoliberal age that dominates life in all its aspects, the development of genuine
socialism seems unattainable and people become fatalistic or apathetic. However, the
contradictions of the neoliberal establishment, the countless of contradictions in the social
order will produce the foundations of a new social order built on the ashes of the one
decaying. The declarations of the Asia-Europe People's Forum in the last two decades point out
some of the structural problems of the neoliberal status quo, as articulated by heads of state.
However, these declarations remain mere rhetoric, as the 11th Asia-Europe Meeting Summit of
July 2016 illustrates.
Working for Inclusive, Just, and Equal Alternatives in Asia and Europe. AEPF11 tackled
strategies on major themes or People's Visions, representing the hopes of citizens of the two
regions. These are:
Resource Justice, Land Rights, Equal Access to Water, and Participation – Going
Beyond Extractivism
Food Sovereignty/Food Security – Beyond zero hunger
Climate Justice – Towards Sustainable Energy Production and Use, and Zero
Waste
Socially Just Trade, Production and Investment
Social Justice – Social Protection for All, Decent Work and Sustainable
Livelihoods, Tax Justice and other egalitarian Alternatives to Debt and Austerity
Peace Building and Human Security – Responses to Migration, and Fundamentalism
and Terrorism
Participatory Democracy, Gender Equality and Minority Rights
ASEM11 touches on some of the problems without analyzing their root causes, namely,
globalist neoliberal policies that the same heads of state as signatories are pursuing. While
agreeing on the interlocking nature of the crises of capitalism, and acknowledging such crises
are the cause of greater social polarization – poverty, inequality, joblessness, and
insecurity – they are not willing to abandon the very system that gives rise to the
crises. While they readily admit that "We are increasingly experiencing corporate capture",
whereby multinational and national corporations structure and determine our lives and
livelihoods," they are unwilling to do anything about it. No government is doing anything
to encourage genuine grassroots progressive movements, labor and social movements that would
become the foundation for a new social order rooted in social justice. On the contrary, the
goal is to prevent labor mobilization, progressive social organizations, unless of course they
are co-opted and subordinate to the goals of neoliberalism. That the US does not celebrate May
Day to honor workers is a reflection of the dominant culture's contempt for labor. For those
countries that officially celebrate May Day while pursuing neoliberal anti-labor policies, the
holiday has been reduced to about the same level of hypocrisy as any national Independence Day
– oppression remains a reality for workers, while equality and social justice are a
distant dream.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten
academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political
economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the
World Bank and IMF in the world.
"... only 1 in 3 US citizen STEM graduates can actually find jobs these days. ..."
"... US citizen are left submitting their resumes into black holes because the tech firms have placed their HR function into bunkers with near zero accessibility to the professional community who wants to offer their services. ..."
"... many bright minds, in the prime of their lives, instead of contributing, are sitting around trying to figure out where they're going to get their next meal. ..."
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go,
I owe my soul to the company store.
Travis Merle wrote the song Sixteen Tons about working your life away in the coal mines and spending your whole paycheck–and then
some–at the company store. You had no other options in the corporate mining villages of the early twentieth century.
The most famous version of the song came from Tennessee Ernie Ford. Sixteen Tons was covered by many others, including Johnny
Cash, and even Elvis at some concerts though he never recorded it.
And South Park recently featured their own version in an episode called "Unfulfilled," about working for Amazon. Of course, South Park is a comedy cartoon series that parodies real-life events. They depicted Amazon fulfilment centers as the only available jobs in the small Colorado town. People worked in dangerous collaboration
with machines, and went home to spend their entire paycheck on Amazon.
Jeff Bezos was depicted as a telepathic villain . He would tune in to various
Alexa streams to gauge the mood of the town. And anyone who didn't do his bidding would have their Prime status revoked. Comparing Amazon to coal mines is funny because it exaggerates a fear in society. Everyone buys from Amazon, so the small businesses
go under. And everyone working for the small businesses goes to work for Amazon.
South Park did the same thing with a Walmart episode about a decade back. Walmart possessed some unknown power which compelled
people to shop there, they were powerless to resist. Even better if they could work there and get an employee discount despite the
low pay.
Just when American workers were getting comfortable and were delivering productivity improvements, "corporate America" dropped
the ball and started doing massive outsourcing and importation of H-1B workers. To such a severe extent that only 1 in 3 US citizen
STEM graduates can actually find jobs these days.
Even top grads from top schools are ignored while the red carpet is rolled out
to foreign national OPT and H-1B visa recipients. US citizen are left submitting their resumes into black holes because the tech
firms have placed their HR function into bunkers with near zero accessibility to the professional community who wants to offer their
services.
The loss to the economy due to such is enormous. So many bright minds, in the prime of their lives, instead of contributing, are
sitting around trying to figure out where they're going to get their next meal.
XXX
10 hours ago remove link
Being your own boss sounds great, but in fact most people are not 'wired' for that. Which is a good thing, because any hierarchal
organization requires that a few be leaders, with the majority being led. That's why tribes have one chief, nations have one King
or President. It's why there is one judge who presides over a trial, why there is one teacher to a classroom, and why we have many
times more soldiers than generals.
That is simply the reality. The folks who go on about how we should all become entrepreneurs and work for ourselves as a solution
to the noxious employment situation we find ourselves in are ignoring that reality. A world of 'all chiefs and no Indians' just doesn't
work, because most people are unable to function that way. That doesn't make them inferior, it doesn't make them suckers for working
for 'the man'...that this is not currently working out too well is a function of the incompetent way we've been handling the whole
employment-thing, not because too many are employed by others.
The ratio of leaders vs. followers is the way it is because that's what is needed for these systems to WORK. Furthermore, you
find this in ALL of nature as well...the pack has ONE leader, the hive has ONE Queen, even among single-celled organisms, the mitochondria
have assumed the leadership role and now control and direct all other cellular functions. We see this in the evolution of out own
bodies, which consist of many different systems all operating under the leadership of organized neural cells in the brain. You will
of course notice that these biological systems have something in common...they all work for the good of the WHOLE organism, not just
a few parts. This is a missing piece in most human-run systems, and is likely a reason most people tend to mistrust them and want
out.
There is nothing wrong with being a 'worker bee'! Not everyone in the church choir can sell a million albums...does that mean
everyone else should just say the hell with it and disband their choirs? When company A makes one guy the CEO, should all the other
employees quit in protest and go form their own companies? Then what is the CEO going to run? And who will work for all those new
companies?
Anyone who thinks Americans have some kind of problem with 'work' needs to examine the MESSAGING our society is sending about
work. I think the problem really lies there. Because competition without cooperation is just warfare. And boy, is THIS a society
at war with itself or what?
XXX 12 hours ago
All large systems are hierarchical. Feudalism was hierarchical. So in that sense they are similar, although in corporations there
are usually a lot more levels and a lot more people are 'not serfs', but something slightly higher up.
Hierarchies (as far as we know) are the only way to 'scale'. Look at any large system and you will see a hierarchy (roads, Internet,
vascular system, government, military, and yes, corporations).
Hierarchical systems may have undesirable elements for some e.g. inequality, but until someone comes up with a different way to
organize and run a large system, it is the only way. And, it was not 'designed', it is simply the natural outcome. As natural as
the blood flowing in your veins. To 'blame' natural systems for perceived drawbacks is like blaming 'math'.
XXX
14 hours ago (Edited) remove link
This article indicates that we live within a system built and controlled by others and that our only choice is how we respond
to that environment. Someone else writes the rules that favor them and the rest of us just have to live with it.
It's a political economy. Changing the rules changes the economy.
Metalredneck , 14 hours ago
I'm sure the resemblance to feudalism is a coincidence. /s
US "resistance" is as fake as it can be. It consists mainly of Clinton wing of DemoRats (in
pocket of Wall Street) and neoliberal presstitutes in MSM.
Macron is seen as a former Rothschild banker who had the idea that he could 'modernise'
France in the neoliberal Brussels way. According to the latest poll 61% of the French reject
Macron's policies.
In less than two months, the yellow vests (" gilets jaunes " ) movement in
France has reshaped the political landscape in Europe. For a seventh straight week,
demonstrations continued across the country even after concessions from a cowed President
Emmanuel Macron while inspiring a wave of similar gatherings in neighboring states like Belgium
and the Netherlands. Just as el uture EU designer was fortunate enough to have friends in high
places. Schuman's clemency was granted by none other than General Charles de Gaulle himself,
the leader of the resistance during the war and future French President. Instantly, Schuman's
turncoat reputation was rehabilitated and his wartime activity whitewashed. Even though he had
knowingly voted full authority to Pétain, the retention of his post in the Vichy
government was veneered to have occurred somehow without his knowledge or consent.
... ... ...
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared
in Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, and more. Max
may be reached at [email protected]
Thierry Meyssan is reporting that Macron is more of a stooge for Henry Kravis (of the KKR
corporate raider firm) than for the Rothschilds. He also alleges that Kravis has been funding
ISIS/Daesh.
Rothschild made a comment the other day about the Italian government debt problem. French
banks have heavy exposure. France has troops in Syria; has the French army been leveraged
into a mercenary force for wealthy Zionists?
The article by Angela Nagle which is linked to is, however, absolutely excellent and I
thoroughly recommend reading it as a very powerful argument against unfettered
immigration.
Very perceptive to place "Resistance" between quotes. Resistance is non-existent in the
US. True resistance requires an educated working class; instead the US has a amassed one of
the most stupefied and brainwashed workers on the planet.
The Yellow Jackets movement isn't lost in the US, nor among those who support DJT. In
fact, until the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement, both grass roots organized,
recognize they have a common enemy in the status quo, they will continue to conquered by
it.
The merge of fiscal and social responsibility is something the NWO wants to avoid at all
costs while they implement their global currency and totalitarian rule. Globalists want to
replace God with the state.
France and the US, like most nations, are controlled by the parasitical zionist central
bankers and their deep state apparatchiks. They continue to squeeze the native populations
into poverty and servitude, while destroying their culture with open borders, facilitating
3rd world immigration. The zionist controlled MSM won't cover the Yellow Vest movement in
hopes to keep awareness low. Many would like to see it gain a foothold in the US.
Unfortunately, Americans have been subject to fluoridation of their water supply, unlike
France, and thus are docile. The pharmaceuticals and vaccines have rendered them zombies.
"... Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market. ..."
"... The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension fund go? ..."
"... Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled. Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership. ..."
"... family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300 to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery. ..."
"... Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo. ..."
"... Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs. ..."
"... So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context. ..."
"... Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this. I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via the capitalist countries. ..."
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality. They still struggle
for access to the basics
... ... ...
The disparities in wealth that we term "income inequality" are no accident, and they can't be fixed by fiddling at the edges of
our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom.
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access
to the most basic tools of life are almost nil.
... ... ...
Too often, the answer by those who have hoarded everything is they will choose to "give back" in a manner of their choosing –
just look at Mark Zuckerberg and his much-derided plan to "give away" 99% of his Facebook stock. He is unlikely to help change inequality
or poverty any more than "giving away" of $100m helped children in Newark schools.
Allowing any of the 100 richest Americans to choose how they fix "income inequality" will not make the country more equal or even
guarantee more access to life. You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools, even when you're the master; but more
to the point, who would tear down his own house to distribute the bricks among so very many others?
mkenney63 5 Dec 2015 20:37
Excellent article. The problems we face are structural and can only be solved by making fundamental changes. We must bring
an end to "Citizens United", modern day "Jim Crow" and the military industrial complex in order to restore our democracy. Then
maybe, just maybe, we can have an economic system that will treat all with fairness and respect. Crony capitalism has had its
day, it has mutated into criminality.
Kencathedrus -> Marcedward 5 Dec 2015 20:23
In the pre-capitalist system people learnt crafts to keep themselves afloat. The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Now
we have the church of Education promising a better life if we get into debt to buy (sorry, earn) degrees.
The whole system is messed up and now we have millions of people on this planet who can't function even those with degrees.
Barbarians are howling at the gates of Europe. The USA is rotting from within. As Marx predicted the Capitalists are merely paying
their own grave diggers.
mkenney63 -> Bobishere 5 Dec 2015 20:17
I would suggest you read the economic and political history of the past 30 years. To help you in your study let me recommend
a couple of recent books: "Winner Take all Politics" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson and "The Age of Acquiescence" by Steve Fraser.
It always amazes me that one can be so blind the facts of recent American history; it's not just "a statistical inequality", it's
been a well thought-out strategy over time to rig the system, a strategy engaged in by politicians and capitalists. Shine some
light on this issue by acquainting yourself with the facts.
Maharaja Brovinda -> Singh Jill Harrison 5 Dec 2015 19:42
We play out the prisoner's dilemma in life, in general, over and over in different circumstances, every day. And we always
choose the dominant - rational - solution. But the best solution is not based on rationality, but rather on trust and faith in
each other - rather ironically for our current, evidence based society!
Steven Palmer 5 Dec 2015 19:19
Like crack addicts the philanthropricks only seek to extend their individual glory, social image their primary goal, and yet
given the context they will burn in history. Philanthroptits should at least offset the immeasurable damage they have done through
their medieval wealth accumulation. Collaborative philanthropy for basic income is a good idea, but ye, masters tools.
BlairM -> Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 19:10
Well, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all those other economic
systems that have been tried from time to time.
I'd rather just have the freedom to earn money as I please, and if that means inequality, it's a small price to pay for not
having some feudal lord or some party bureaucrat stomping on my humanity.
brusuz 5 Dec 2015 18:52
As long as wealth can be created by shuffling money from one place to another in the giant crap shoot we call our economy,
nothing will change. Until something takes place to make it advantageous for the investor capitalists to put that money to work
doing something that actually produces some benefit to the society as a whole, they will continue their extractive machinations.
I see nothing on the horizon that is going to change any of that, and to cast this as some sort of a racial issue is quite superficial.
We have all gotten the shaft, since there is no upward mobility available to anyone. Since the Bush crowd of neocons took power,
we have all been shackled with "individual solutions to societal created problems."
Jimi Del Duca 5 Dec 2015 18:31
Friends, Capitalism is structural exploitation of ALL WORKERS. Thinking about it as solely a race issue is divisive. What we
need is CLASS SOLIDARITY and ORGANIZATION. See iww.org We are the fighting union with no use for capitalists!
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 18:04
You'd be better off reading Marx if you want to understand capitalism. I think you are ascribing the word to what you think
it should be rather than what it is.
It is essentially a class structure rather than any defined economic system. Neoliberal is essentially laissez faire capitalism.
It is designed to suborn nation states to corporate benefit.
AmyInNH -> tommydog
They make $40 a month. Working 7 days a week. At least 12 hour days. Who's fed you that "we're doing them a favor" BS?
And I've news for you regarding "Those whose skills are less adaptable to doing so are seeing their earnings decline." We have
many people who have 3 masters degrees making less than minimum wage. We have top notch STEM students shunned so corporations
can hire captive/cheaper foreign labor, called H1-Bs, who then wait 10 years working for them waiting for their employment based
green card. Or "visiting" students here on J1 visas, so the employers can get out of paying: social security, federal unemployment
insurance, etc.
Wake up and smell the coffee tommydog. They've more than a thumb on the scale.
I am a socialist. I decided to read this piece to see if Mr. Thrasher could write about market savagery without propounding the
fiction that whites are somehow exempt from the effects of it.
No, he could not. I clicked on the link accompanying his assertion
that whites who are high school dropouts earn more than blacks with college degrees, and I read the linked piece in full. The
linked piece does not in fact compare income (i.e., yearly earnings) of white high school dropouts with those of black college
graduates, but it does compare family wealth across racial cohorts (though not educational ones), and the gap there is indeed
stark, with average white family wealth in the six figures (full disclosure, I am white, and my personal wealth is below zero,
as I owe more in student loans than I own, so perhaps I am not really white, or I do not fully partake of "whiteness," or whatever),
and average black family wealth in the four figures.
The reason for this likely has a lot to do with home ownership disparities, which in turn are linked in significant part to
racist redlining practices. So white dropouts often live in homes their parents or grandparents bought, while many black college
graduates whose parents were locked out of home ownership by institutional racism and, possibly, the withering of manufacturing
jobs just as the northward migration was beginning to bear some economic fruit for black families, are still struggling to become
homeowners. Thus, the higher average wealth for the dropout who lives in a family owned home.
But this is not what Mr. Thrasher wrote. He specifically used the words "earn more," creating the impression that some white
ignoramus is simply going to stumble his way into a higher salary than a cultivated, college educated black person. That is simply
not the case, and the difference does matter.
Why does it matter? Because I regularly see middle aged whites who are broken and homeless on the streets of the town where
I live, and I know they are simply the tip of a growing mountain of privation. Yeah, go ahead, call it white tears if you want,
but if you cannot see that millions (including, of course, not simply folks who are out and out homeless, but folks who are struggling
to get enough to eat and routinely go without needed medication and medical care) of people who have "white privilege" are indeed
oppressed by global capitalism then I would say that you are, at the end of the day, NO BETTER THAN THE WHITES YOU DISDAIN.
If you have read this far, then you realize that I am in no way denying the reality of structural racism. But an account of
economic savagery that entirely subsumes it into non-economic categories (race, gender, age), that refuses to acknowledge that
blacks can be exploiters and whites can be exploited, is simply conservatism by other means. One gets the sense that if we have
enough black millionaires and enough whites dying of things like a lack of medical care, then this might bring just a little bit
of warmth to the hearts of people like Mr. Thrasher.
Call it what you want, but don't call it progressive. Maybe it is historical karma. Which is understandable, as there is no
reason why globally privileged blacks in places like the U.S. or Great Britain should bear the burden of being any more selfless
or humane than globally privileged whites are or have been. The Steven Thrashers of humanity are certainly no worse than many
of the whites they cannot seem to recognize as fully human are.
But nor are they any better.
JohnLG 5 Dec 2015 17:23
I agree that the term "income inequality" is so vague that falls between useless and diversionary, but so too is most use of
the word "capitalism", or so it seems to me. Typically missing is a penetrating analysis of where the problem lies, a comprehensibly
supported remedy, or large-scale examples of anything except what's not working. "Income inequality" is pretty abstract until
we look specifically at the consequences for individuals and society, and take a comprehensive look at all that is unequal. What
does "capitalism" mean? Is capitalism the root of all this? Is capitalism any activity undertaken for profit, or substantial monopolization
of markets and power?
Power tends to corrupt. Money is a form of power, but there are others. The use of power to essentially cheat, oppress or kill
others is corrupt, whether that power is in the form of a weapon, wealth, the powers of the state, or all of the above. Power
is seductive and addictive. Even those with good intensions can be corrupted by an excess of power and insufficient accountability,
while predators are drawn to power like sharks to blood. Democracy involves dispersion of power, ideally throughout a whole society.
A constitutional democracy may offer protection even to minorities against a "tyranny of the majority" so long as a love of justice
prevails. Selective "liberty and justice" is not liberty and justice at all, but rather a tyranny of the many against the few,
as in racism, or of the few against the many, as by despots. Both forms reinforce each other in the same society, both are corrupt,
and any "ism" can be corrupted by narcissism. To what degree is any society a shining example of government of, for, and by the
people, and to what degree can one discover empirical evidence of corruption? What do we do about it?
AmyInNH -> CaptainGrey 5 Dec 2015 17:15
You're too funny. It's not "lifting billions out of poverty". It's moving malicious manufacturing practices to the other side
of the planet. To the lands of no labor laws. To hide it from consumers. To hide profits.
And it is dying. Legislatively they choke off their natural competition, which is an essential element of capitalism. Monopoly
isn't capitalism. And when they bribe legislators, we don't have democracy any more either.
Jeremiah2000 -> Teresa Trujillo 5 Dec 2015 16:53
Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out
your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market.
The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension
fund go?
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:45
Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government
also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled.
Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency
of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.
The words "OWN" and "ASSETS" are the key descriptors of the definition of wealth. But these words are not well understood by
the vast majority of Americans or for that matter, global citizens. They are limited to the vocabulary used by the wealthy ownership
class and financial publications, which are not widely read, and not even taught in our colleges and universities.
The wealthy ownership class did not become wealthy because they are "three times as smart." Still there is a valid argument
that the vast majority of Americans do not pay particular attention to the financial world and educate themselves on wealth building
within the current system's limited past-savings paradigm. Significantly, the wealthy OWNERSHIP class use their political power
(power always follows property OWNERSHIP) to write the system rules to benefit and enhance their wealth. As such they have benefited
from forging trade policy agreements which further concentrate OWNERSHIP on a global scale, military-industrial complex subsidies
and government contracts, tax code provisions and loopholes and collective-bargaining rules – policy changes they've used their
wealth to champion.
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:44
Unfortunately, when it comes to recommendations for solutions to economic inequality, virtually every commentator, politician
and economist is stuck in viewing the world in one factor terms – human labor, in spite of their implied understanding that the
rich are rich because they OWN the non-human means of production – physical capital. The proposed variety of wealth-building programs,
like "universal savings accounts that might be subsidized for low-income savers," are not practical solutions because they rely
on savings (a denial of consumption which lessens demand in the economy), which the vast majority of Americans do not have, and
for those who can save their savings are modest and insignificant. Though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through
the "stock market exchanges," purchased with their earnings as labor workers (savings), their stock holdings are relatively minuscule,
as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners. Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans
own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent
of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don't affect the incomes of most retirees.
As for taxpayer-supported saving subsidies or other wage-boosting measures, those who have only their labor power and its precarious
value held up by coercive rigging and who desperately need capital ownership to enable them to be capital workers (their productive
assets applied in the economy) as well as labor workers to have a way to earn more income, cannot satisfy their unsatisfied needs
and wants and sufficiently provide for themselves and their families. With only access to labor wages, the 99 percenters will
continue, in desperation, to demand more and more pay for the same or less work, as their input is exponentially replaced by productive
capital.
As such, the vast majority of American consumers will continue to be strapped to mounting consumer debt bills, stagnant wages
and inflationary price pressures. As their ONLY source of income is through wage employment, economic insecurity for the 99 percent
majority of people means they cannot survive more than a week or two without a paycheck. Thus, the production side of the economy
is under-nourished and hobbled as a result, because there are fewer and fewer "customers with money." We thus need to free economic
growth from the slavery of past savings.
I mentioned that political power follows property OWNERSHIP because with concentrated capital asset OWNERSHIP our elected representatives
are far too often bought with the expectation that they protect and enhance the interests of the wealthiest Americans, the OWNERSHIP
class they too overwhelmingly belong to.
Many, including the author of this article, have concluded that with such a concentrated OWNERSHIP stronghold the wealthy have
on our politics, "it's hard to see where this cycle ends." The ONLY way to reverse this cycle and broaden capital asset OWNERSHIP
universally is a political revolution. (Bernie Sanders, are you listening?)
The political revolution must address the problem of lack of demand. To create demand, the FUTURE economy must be financed
in ways that create new capital OWNERS, who will benefit from the full earnings of the FUTURE productive capability of the American
economy, and without taking from those who already OWN. This means significantly slowing the further concentration of capital
asset wealth among those who are already wealthy and ensuring that the system is reformed to promote inclusive prosperity, inclusive
opportunity, and inclusive economic justice.
yamialwaysright 5 Dec 2015 16:13
I was interested and in agreement until I read about structured racism. Many black kidsin the US grow up without a father in
the house. They turn to anti-social behaviour and crime. Once you are poor it is hard to get out of being poor but Journalists
are not doing justice to a critique of US Society if they ignore the fact that some people behave in a self-destructive way. I
would imagine that if some black men in the US and the UK stuck with one woman and played a positive role in the life of their
kids, those kids would have a better chance at life. People of different racial and ethnic origin do this also but there does
seem to be a disproportionate problem with some black US men and some black UK men. Poverty is one problem but growing up in poverty
and without a father figure adds to the problem.
What the author writes applies to other countries not just the US in relation to the super wealthy being a small proportion
of the population yet having the same wealth as a high percentage of the population. This in not a black or latino issue but a
wealth distribution issue that affects everyone irrespective of race or ethnic origin. The top 1%, 5% or 10% having most of the
wealth is well-known in many countries.
nuthermerican4u 5 Dec 2015 15:59
Capitalism, especially the current vulture capitalism, is dog eat dog. Always was, always will be. My advice is that if you
are a capitalist that values your heirs, invest in getting off this soon-to-be slag heap and find other planets to pillage and
rape. Either go all out for capitalism or reign in this beast before it kills all of us.
soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:32
Our antiquated class structure demonstrates the trickle up of Capitalism and the need to counterbalance it with progressive
taxation.
In the 1960s/1970s we used high taxes on the wealthy to counter balance the trickle up of Capitalism and achieved much greater
equality.
Today we have low taxes on the wealthy and Capitalism's trickle up is widening the inequality gap.
We are cutting benefits for the disabled, poor and elderly so inequality can get wider and the idle rich can remain idle.
They have issued enough propaganda to make people think it's those at the bottom that don't work.
Every society since the dawn of civilization has had a Leisure Class at the top, in the UK we call them the Aristocracy and
they have been doing nothing for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone
else doing all the work.
Feudalism - exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism - exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
The system itself provides for the idle rich and always has done from the first civilisations right up to the 21st Century.
The rich taking from the poor is always built into the system, taxes and benefits are the counterbalance that needs to be applied
externally.
Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 15:31
I often chuckle when I read some of the right wing comments on articles such as this. Firstly, I question if readers actually
read the article references I've highlighted, before rushing to comment.
Secondly, the comments are generated by cifers who probably haven't set the world alight, haven't made a difference in their
local community, they'll have never created thousands of jobs in order to reward themselves with huge dividends having and as
a consequence enjoy spectacular asset/investment growth, at best they'll be chugging along, just about keeping their shit together
and yet they support a system that's broken, other than for the one percent, of the one percent.
A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies issued this week analyzed the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans
and found that "the wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the
United States". That means that 100 families – most of whom are white – have as much wealth as the 41,000,000 black folks walking
around the country (and the million or so locked up) combined.
Similarly, the report also stated that "the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino
population" of the nation. Here again, the breakdown in actual humans is broke down: 186 overwhelmingly white folks have more
money than that an astounding 55,000,000 Latino people.
family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300
to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans
to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:26
It is the 21st Century and most of the land in the UK is still owned by the descendants of feudal warlords that killed people
and stole their land and wealth.
When there is no land to build houses for generation rent, land ownership becomes an issue.
David Cameron is married into the aristocracy and George Osborne is a member of the aristocracy, they must both be well acquainted
with the Leisure Class.
I can't find any hard work going on looking at the Wikipedia page for David Cameron's father-in-law. His family have been on
their estate since the sixteenth century and judging by today's thinking, expect to be on it until the end of time.
George Osborne's aristocratic pedigree goes back to the Tudor era:
"he is an aristocrat with a pedigree stretching back to early in the Tudor era. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, is the
17th holder of a hereditary baronetcy that has been passed from father to son for 10 generations, and of which George is next
in line."
If we have people at the bottom who are not working the whole of civilisation will be turned on its head.
"The modern industrial society developed from the barbarian tribal society, which featured a leisure class supported
by subordinated working classes employed in economically productive occupations. The leisure class is composed of people exempted
from manual work and from practicing economically productive occupations, because they belong to the leisure class."
The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, by Thorstein Veblen. It was written a long time ago but
much of it is as true today as it was then. The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight.
DBChas 5 Dec 2015 15:13
"income inequality" is best viewed as structural capitalism. It's not as if, did black and brown people and female people somehow
(miraculously) attain the economic status of the lower-paid, white, male person, the problem would be solved--simply by adjusting
pay scales. The problem is inherent to capitalism, which doesn't mean certain "types" of people aren't more disadvantaged for
their "type." No one is saying that. For capitalists, it's easier to rationalize the obscene unfairness (only rich people say,
"life's not fair") when their "type" is regarded as superior to a different "type," whether that be with respect to color or gender
or both.
Over time--a long time--the dominant party (white males since the Dark Ages, also the life-span of capitalism coincidentally
enough) came to dominance by various means, too many to try to list, or even know of. Why white males? BTW, just because most
in power and in money are white males does not mean ALL white males are in positions of power and wealth. Most are not, and these
facts help to fog the issue.
Indeed, "income inequality," is not an accident, nor can it be fixed, as the author notes, by tweaking (presumably he means
capitalism). And he's quite right too in saying, "You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools..." I take that
ALSO to mean, the problem can't be fixed by way of what Hedges has called a collapsing liberal establishment with its various
institutions, officially speaking. That is, it's not institutional racism that's collapsing, but that institution is not officially
recognized as such.
HOWEVER, it IS possible, even when burdened with an economics that is capitalism, to redistribute wealth, and I don't just
mean Mark Zuckerberg's. I mean all wealth in whatever form can be redistributed if/when government decides it can. And THIS TIME,
unlike the 1950s-60s, not only would taxes on the wealthy be the same as then but the wealth redistributed would be redistributed
to ALL, not just to white families, and perhaps in particular to red families, the oft forgotten ones.
This is a matter of political will. But, of course, if that means whites as the largest voting block insist on electing to
office those without the political will, nothing will change. In that case, other means have to be considered, and just a reminder:
If the government fails to serve the people, the Constitution gives to the people the right to depose that government. But again,
if whites as the largest voting block AND as the largest sub-group in the nation (and women are the largest part of that block,
often voting as their men vote--just the facts, please, however unpleasant) have little interest in seeing to making necessary
changes at least in voting booths, then...what? Bolshevism or what? No one seems to know and it's practically taboo even to talk
about possibilities. Americans did it once, but not inclusively and not even paid in many instances. When it happens again, it
has to happen with and for the participation of ALL. And it's worth noting that it will have to happen again, because capitalism
by its very nature cannot survive itself. That is, as Marx rightly noted, capitalism will eventually collapse by dint of its internal
contradictions.
mbidding Jeremiah2000 5 Dec 2015 15:08
Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might
find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo.
Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere
in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that
you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have
a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt
to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs.
Consider as well that you don't have transportation to get a job that would improve your circumstances. You earn too much to
qualify for meaningful levels of food support programs and fall into the insurance gap for subsidies because you live in a state
that for ideological reasons refuses to expand Medicaid coverage. Your local schools are a disgrace but you can't take advantage
of so-called school choice programs (vouchers, charters, and the like) as you don't have transportation or the time (given your
employer's refusal to set fixed working hours for minimum wage part time work) to get your kids to that fine choice school.
You may have a fridge and a stove, but you have no food to cook. You may have access to running water and electricity, but
you can't afford to pay the bills for such on account of having to choose between putting food in that fridge or flushing that
toilet. You can't be there reliably for your kids to help with school, etc, because you work constantly shifting hours for crap
pay.
Get back to me after six months to a year after living in such circumstances and then tell me again how Americans don't really
live in poverty simply because they have access to appliances.
Earl Shelton 5 Dec 2015 15:08
The Earned Income Tax Credit seems to me a good starting point for reform. It has been around since the 70s -- conceived by
Nixon/Moynihan -- and signed by socialist (kidding) Gerald Ford -- it already *redistributes* income (don't choke on the term,
O'Reilly) directly from tax revenue (which is still largely progressive) to the working poor, with kids.
That program should be massively expanded to tax the 1% -- and especially the top 1/10 of 1% (including a wealth tax) -- and
distribute the money to the bottom half of society, mostly in the form of work training, child care and other things that help
put them in and keep them in the middle class. It is a mechanism already in existence to correct the worst ravages of Capitalism.
Use it to build shared prosperity.
oKWJNRo 5 Dec 2015 14:40
So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those
who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap
if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context.
We can probably all agree that Capitalism has brought about widespread improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions,
for example, compared to the feudal system that preceded it... But it also disproportionately benefits the upper echelons of Capitalist
societies and is wholly unequal by design.
Capitalism depends upon the existence of a large underclass that can be exploited. This is part of the process of how surplus
value is created and wealth is extracted from labour. This much is indisputable. It is therefore obvious that capitalism isn't
an ideal system for most of us living on this planet.
As for the improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions etc that Capitalism has fostered... Most of these were
won through long struggles against the Capitalist hegemony by the masses. We would have certainly chosen to make these improvements
to our landscape sooner if Capitalism hadn't made every effort to stop us. The problem today is that Capitalism and its powerful
beneficiaries have successfully convinced us that there is no possible alternative. It won't give us the chance to try or even
permit us to believe there could be another, better way.
Martin Joseph -> realdoge 5 Dec 2015 14:33
Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to
the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic
systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this.
I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via
the capitalist countries.
VWFeature 5 Dec 2015 14:29
Markets, economies and tax systems are created by people, and based on rules they agree on. Those rules can favor general prosperity
or concentration of wealth. Destruction and predation are easier than creation and cooperation, so our rules have to favor cooperation
if we want to avoid predation and destructive conflicts.
In the 1930's the US changed many of those rules to favor general prosperity. Since then they've been gradually changed to
favor wealth concentration and predation. They can be changed back.
The trick is creating a system that encourages innovation while putting a safety net under the population so failure doesn't
end in starvation.
A large part of our current problems is the natural tendency for large companies to get larger and larger until their failure
would adversely affect too many others, so they're not allowed to fail. Tax law, not antitrust law, has to work against this.
If a company can reduce its tax rate by breaking into 20 smaller (still huge) companies, then competition is preserved and no
one company can dominate and control markets.
Robert Goldschmidt -> Jake321 5 Dec 2015 14:27
Bernie Sanders has it right on -- we can only heal our system by first having millions rise up and demand an end to the corruption
of the corporations controlling our elected representatives. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
moonwrap02 5 Dec 2015 14:26
The effects of wealth distribution has far reaching consequences. It is not just about money, but creating a fair society -
one that is co-operative and cohesive. The present system has allowed an ever divide between the rich and poor, creating a two
tier society where neither the twain shall meet. The rich and poor are almost different species on the planet and no longer belong
to the same community. Commonality of interest is lost and so it's difficult to form community and to have good, friendly relationships
across class differences that are that large.
"If capitalism is to be seen to be fair, the same rules are to apply to the big guy as to the little guy,"
Sorry. I get it now. You actually think that because the Washington elite has repealed Glass-Steagel that we live in a unregulated
capitalistic system.
This is so far from the truth that I wasn't comprehending that anyone could think that. You can see the graph of pages published
in the Federal Register here. Unregulated capitalism? Wow.
Dodd Frank was passed in 2010 (without a single Republican vote). Originally it was 2,300 pages. It is STILL being written
by nameless bureaucrats and is over 20,000 pages. Unregulated capitalism? Really?
But the reality is that Goliath is conspiring with the government to regulate what size sling David can use and how many stones
and how many ounces.
So we need more government regulations? They will disallow David from anything but spitwads and only two of those.
neuronmaker -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:16
Do you understand the concept of corporations which are products of capitalism?
The legal institutions within each capitalist corporations and nations are just that, they are capitalist and all about making
profits.
The law is made by the rich capitalists and for the rich capitalists. Each Legislation is a link in the chain of economic slavery
by capitalists.
Capitalism and the concept of money is a construction of the human mind, as it does not exist in the natural world. This construction
is all about using other human beings like blood suckers to sustain a cruel and evil life style - with blood and brutality as
the core ideology.
Marcedward -> MarjaE 5 Dec 2015 14:12
I would agree that our system of help for the less-well-off could be more accessible and more generous, but that doesn't negate
that point that there is a lot of help out there - the most important help being that totally free educational system. Think about
it, a free education, and to get the most out of it a student merely has to show up, obey the rules, do the homework and study
for tests. It's all laid out there for the kids like a helicopter mom laying out her kids clothes. How much easier can we make
it? If people can't be bothered to show up and put in effort, how is their failure based on racism
tommydog -> martinusher 5 Dec 2015 14:12
As you are referring to Carlos Slim, interestingly while he is Mexican by birth his parents were both Lebanese.
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:12
Why isn't that capitalism? It's raw capitalism on steroids.
Zara Von Fritz -> Toughspike 5 Dec 2015 14:12
It's an equal opportunity plantation now.
Robert Goldschmidt 5 Dec 2015 14:11
The key to repairing the system is to identify the causes of our problems.
Here is my list:
The information technology revolution which continues to destroy wages by enabling automation and outsourcing.
The reformation of monopolies which price gouge and block innovation.
Hitting ecological limits such as climate change, water shortages, unsustainable farming.
Then we can make meaningful changes such as regulation of the portion of corporate profit that are pay, enforcement of national
and regional antitrust laws and an escalating carbon tax.
Zara Von Fritz -> PostCorbyn 5 Dec 2015 14:11
If you can believe these quality of life or happiness indexes they put out so often, the winners tend to be places that have
nice environments and a higher socialist mix in their economy. Of course there are examples of poor countries that practice the
same but its not clear that their choice is causal rather than reactive.
We created this mess and we can fix it.
Zara Von Fritz -> dig4victory 5 Dec 2015 14:03
Yes Basic Income is possibly the mythical third way. It socialises wealth to a point but at the same time frees markets from
their obligation to perpetually grow and create jobs for the sake of jobs and also hereford reduces the subsequent need for governments
to attempt to control them beyond maintaining their health.
Zara Von Fritz 5 Dec 2015 13:48
As I understand it, you don't just fiddle with capitalism, you counteract it, or counterweight it. A level of capitalism, or
credit accumulation, and a level of socialism has always existed, including democracy which is a manifestation of socialism (1
vote each). So the project of capital accumulation seems to be out of control because larger accumulations become more powerful
and meanwhile the power of labour in the marketplace has become less so due to forces driving unemployment. The danger is that
capital's power to control the democratic system reaches a point of no return.
Jeremiah2000 -> bifess 5 Dec 2015 13:42
"I do not have the economic freedom to grow my own food because i do not have access to enough land to grow it and i do not
have the economic clout to buy a piece of land."
Economic freedom does NOT mean you get money for free. It means that means that if you grow food for personal use, the federal
government doesn't trash the Constitution by using the insterstate commerce clause to say that it can regulate how much you grow
on your own personal land.
Economic freedom means that if you have a widget, you can choose to set the price for $10 or $100 and that a buyer is free
to buy it from you or not buy it from you. It does NOT mean that you are entitled to "free" widgets.
"If capitalism has not managed to eradicate poverty in rich first world countries then just what chance if there of capitalism
eradicating poverty on a global scale?"
The average person in poverty in the U.S. doesn't live in poverty:
In fact, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones, and a healthy majority-58.2 percent-have computers.
Fully 96.1 percent of American households in "poverty" have a television to watch, and 83.2 percent of them have a video-recording
device in case they cannot get home in time to watch the football game or their favorite television show and they want to record
it for watching later.
Refrigerators (97.8 percent), gas or electric stoves (96.6 percent) and microwaves (93.2 percent) are standard equipment in
the homes of Americans in "poverty."
More than 83 percent have air-conditioning.
Interestingly, the appliances surveyed by the Census Bureau that households in poverty are least likely to own are dish washers
(44.9 percent) and food freezers (26.2 percent).
However, most Americans in "poverty" do not need to go to a laundromat. According to the Census Bureau, 68.7 percent of households
in poverty have a clothes washer and 65.3 percent have a clothes dryer.
"... By far the biggest act of wage slavery rebellion, don't buy shit. The less you buy, the less you need to earn. Holidays by far the minority of your life should not be a desperate escape from the majority of your life. Spend less, work less and actually really enjoy living more. ..."
"... How about don't shop at Walmart (they helped boost the Chinese economy while committing hari kari on the American Dream) and actually engaging in proper labour action? Calling in sick is just plain childish. ..."
"... I'm all for sticking it to "the man," but when you call into work for a stupid reason (and a hangover is a very stupid reason), it is selfish, and does more damage to the cause of worker's rights, not less. I don't know about where you work, but if I call in sick to my job, other people have to pick up my slack. I work for a public library, and we don't have a lot of funds, so we have the bear minimum of employees we can have and still work efficiently. As such, if anybody calls in, everyone else, up to and including the library director, have to take on more work. ..."
"Phoning in sick is a revolutionary act." I loved that slogan. It came to me, as so many good things did, from Housmans, the radical
bookshop in King's Cross. There you could rummage through all sorts of anarchist pamphlets and there I discovered, in the early 80s,
the wondrous little magazine Processed World. It told you basically how to screw up your workplace. It was smart and full of small
acts of random subversion. In many ways it was ahead of its time as it was coming out of San Francisco and prefiguring Silicon Valley.
It saw the machines coming. Jobs were increasingly boring and innately meaningless. Workers were "data slaves" working for IBM ("Intensely
Boring Machines").
What Processed World was doing was trying to disrupt the identification so many office workers were meant to feel with their management,
not through old-style union organising, but through small acts of subversion. The modern office, it stressed, has nothing to do with
human need. Its rebellion was about working as little as possible, disinformation and sabotage. It was making alienation fun. In
1981, it could not have known that a self-service till cannot ever phone in sick.
I was thinking of this today, as I wanted to do just that. I have made myself ill with a hangover. A hangover, I always feel,
is nature's way of telling you to have a day off. One can be macho about it and eat your way back to sentience via the medium of
bacon sandwiches and Maltesers. At work, one is dehydrated, irritable and only semi-present. Better, surely, though to let the day
fall through you and dream away.
Having worked in America, though, I can say for sure that they brook no excuses whatsoever. When I was late for work and said
things like, "My alarm clock did not go off", they would say that this was not a suitable explanation, which flummoxed me. I had
to make up others. This was just to work in a shop.
This model of working – long hours, very few holidays, few breaks, two incomes needed to raise kids, crazed loyalty demanded by
huge corporations, the American way – is where we're heading. Except now the model is even more punishing. It is China. We are expected
to compete with an economy whose workers are often closer to indentured slaves than anything else.
This is what striving is, then: dangerous, demoralising, often dirty work. Buckle down. It's the only way forward, apparently,
which is why our glorious leaders are sucking up to China, which is immoral, never mind ridiculously short-term thinking.
So again I must really speak up for the skivers. What we have to understand about austerity is its psychic effects. People must
have less. So they must have less leisure, too. The fact is life is about more than work and work is rapidly changing. Skiving in
China may get you killed but here it may be a small act of resistance, or it may just be that skivers remind us that there is meaning
outside wage-slavery.
Work is too often discussed by middle-class people in ways that are simply unrecognisable to anyone who has done crappy jobs.
Much work is not interesting and never has been. Now that we have a political and media elite who go from Oxbridge to working for
a newspaper or a politician, a lot of nonsense is spouted. These people have not cleaned urinals on a nightshift. They don't sit
lonely in petrol stations manning the till. They don't have to ask permission for a toilet break in a call centre. Instead, their
work provides their own special identity. It is very important.
Low-status jobs, like caring, are for others. The bottom-wipers of this world do it for the glory, I suppose. But when we talk
of the coming automation that will reduce employment, bottom-wiping will not be mechanised. Nor will it be romanticised, as old male
manual labour is. The mad idea of reopening the coal mines was part of the left's strange notion of the nobility of labour. Have
these people ever been down a coal mine? Would they want that life for their children?
Instead we need to talk about the dehumanising nature of work. Bertrand Russell and Keynes thought our goal should be less work,
that technology would mean fewer hours.
Far from work giving meaning to life, in some surveys 40% of us say that our jobs are meaningless. Nonetheless, the art of skiving
is verboten as we cram our children with ever longer hours of school and homework. All this striving is for what exactly? A soul-destroying
job?
Just as education is decided by those who loved school, discussions about work are had by those to whom it is about more than
income.
The parts of our lives that are not work – the places we dream or play or care, the space we may find creative – all these are
deemed outside the economy. All this time is unproductive. But who decides that?
Skiving work is bad only to those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
So go on: phone in sick. You know you want to.
friedad 23 Oct 2015 18:27
We now exist in a society in which the Fear Cloud is wrapped around each citizen. Our proud history of Union and Labor, fighting
for decent wages and living conditions for all citizens, and mostly achieving these aims, a history, which should be taught to
every child educated in every school in this country, now gradually but surely eroded by ruthless speculators in government, is
the future generations are inheriting. The workforce in fear of taking a sick day, the young looking for work in fear of speaking
out at diminishing rewards, definitely this 21st Century is the Century of Fear. And how is this fear denied, with mind blowing
drugs, regardless if it is is alcohol, description drugs, illicit drugs, a society in denial. We do not require a heavenly object
to destroy us, a few soulless monsters in our mist are masters of manipulators, getting closer and closer to accomplish their
aim of having zombies doing their beckoning. Need a kidney, no worries, zombie dishwasher, is handy for one. Oh wait that time
is already here.
Hemulen6 23 Oct 2015 15:06
Oh join the real world, Suzanne! Many companies now have a limit to how often you can be sick. In the case of the charity I
work for it's 9 days a year. I overstepped it, I was genuinely sick, and was hauled up in front of Occupational Health. That will
now go on my record and count against me. I work for a cancer care charity. Irony? Surely not.
AlexLeo -> rebel7 23 Oct 2015 13:34
Which is exactly my point. You compete on relevant job skills and quality of your product, not what school you have attended.
Yes, there are thousands, tens of thousands of folks here around San Jose who barely speak English, but are smart and hard
working as hell and it takes them a few years to get to 150-200K per year, Many of them get to 300-400K, if they come from strong
schools in their countries of origin, compared to the 10k or so where they came from, but probably more than the whining readership
here.
This is really difficult to swallow for the Brits back in Britain, isn't it. Those who have moved over have experiences the
type of social mobility unthinkable in Britain, but they have had to work hard and get to 300K-700K per year, much better than
the 50-100K their parents used to make back in GB. These are averages based on personal interactions with say 50 Brits in the
last 15 + years, all employed in the Silicon Valley in very different jobs and roles.
Todd Owens -> Scott W 23 Oct 2015 11:00
I get what you're saying and I agree with a lot of what you said. My only gripe is most employees do not see an operation from
a business owner or managerial / financial perspective. They don't understand the costs associated with their performance or lack
thereof. I've worked on a lot of projects that we're operating at a loss for a future payoff. When someone decides they don't
want to do the work they're contracted to perform that can have a cascading effect on the entire company.
All in all what's being described is for the most part misguided because most people are not in the position or even care to
evaluate the particulars. So saying you should do this to accomplish that is bullshit because it's rarely such a simple equation.
If anything this type of tactic will leaf to MORE loss and less money for payroll.
weematt -> Barry1858 23 Oct 2015 09:04
Sorry you just can't have a 'nicer' capitalism.
War ( business by other means) and unemployment ( you can't buck the market), are inevitable concomitants of capitalist competition
over markets, trade routes and spheres of interests. (Remember the war science of Nagasaki and Hiroshima from the 'good guys'
?)
"..capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt". (Marx)
You can't have full employment, or even the 'Right to Work'.
There is always ,even in boom times a reserve army of unemployed, to drive down wages. (If necessary they will inject inflation
into the economy)
Unemployment is currently 5.5 percent or 1,860,000 people. If their "equilibrium rate" of unemployment is 4% rather than 5% this
would still mean 1,352,000 "need be unemployed". The government don't want these people to find jobs as it would strengthen workers'
bargaining position over wages, but that doesn't stop them harassing them with useless and petty form-filling, reporting to the
so-called "job centre" just for the sake of it, calling them scroungers and now saying they are mentally defective.
Government is 'over' you not 'for' you.
Governments do not exist to ensure 'fair do's' but to manage social expectations with the minimum of dissent, commensurate
with the needs of capitalism in the interests of profit.
Worker participation amounts to self managing workers self exploitation for the maximum of profit for the capitalist class.
Exploitation takes place at the point of production.
" Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the
revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wages system!'"
Karl Marx [Value, Price and Profit]
John Kellar 23 Oct 2015 07:19
Fortunately; as a retired veteran I don't have to worry about phoning in sick.However; during my Air Force days if you were
sick, you had to get yourself to the Base Medical Section and prove to a medical officer that you were sick. If you convinced
the medical officer of your sickness then you may have been luck to receive on or two days sick leave. For those who were very
sick or incapable of getting themselves to Base Medical an ambulance would be sent - promptly.
Rchrd Hrrcks -> wumpysmum 23 Oct 2015 04:17
The function of civil disobedience is to cause problems for the government. Let's imagine that we could get 100,000 people
to agree to phone in sick on a particular date in protest at austerity etc. Leaving aside the direct problems to the economy that
this would cause. It would also demonstrate a willingness to take action. It would demonstrate a capability to organise mass direct
action. It would demonstrate an ability to bring people together to fight injustice. In and of itself it might not have much impact,
but as a precedent set it could be the beginning of something massive, including further acts of civil disobedience.
wumpysmum Rchrd Hrrcks 23 Oct 2015 03:51
There's already a form of civil disobedience called industrial action, which the govt are currently attacking by attempting
to change statute. Random sickies as per my post above are certainly not the answer in the public sector at least, they make no
coherent political point just cause problems for colleagues. Sadly too in many sectors and with the advent of zero hours contracts
sickies put workers at risk of sanctions and lose them earnings.
Alyeska 22 Oct 2015 22:18
I'm American. I currently have two jobs and work about 70 hours a week, and I get no paid sick days. In fact, the last time
I had a job with a paid sick day was 2001. If I could afford a day off, you think I'd be working 70 hours a week?
I barely make rent most months, and yes... I have two college degrees. When I try to organize my coworkers to unionize for
decent pay and benefits, they all tell me not to bother.... they are too scared of getting on management's "bad side" and "getting
in trouble" (yes, even though the law says management can't retaliate.)
Unions are different in the USA than in the UK. The workforce has to take a vote to unionize the company workers; you can't
"just join" a union here. That's why our pay and working conditions have gotten worse, year after year.
rtb1961 22 Oct 2015 21:58
By far the biggest act of wage slavery rebellion, don't buy shit. The less you buy, the less you need to earn. Holidays
by far the minority of your life should not be a desperate escape from the majority of your life. Spend less, work less and actually
really enjoy living more.
Pay less attention to advertising and more attention to the enjoyable simplicity of life, of real direct human relationships,
all of them, the ones in passing where you wish a stranger well, chats with service staff to make their life better as well as
your own, exchange thoughts and ideas with others, be a human being and share humanity with other human beings.
Mkjaks 22 Oct 2015 20:35
How about don't shop at Walmart (they helped boost the Chinese economy while committing hari kari on the American Dream)
and actually engaging in proper labour action? Calling in sick is just plain childish.
toffee1 22 Oct 2015 19:13
It is only considered productive if it feeds the beast, that is, contribute to the accumulation of capital so that the beast
can have more power over us. The issue here is the wage labor. The 93 percent of the U.S. working population perform wage labor
(see BLS site). It is the highest proportion in any society ever came into history. Under the wage labor (employment) contract,
the worker gives up his/her decision making autonomy. The worker accepts the full command of his/her employer during the labor
process. The employer directs and commands the labor process to achieve the goals set by himself. Compare this, for example, self-employed
providing a service (for example, a plumber). In this case, the customer describes the problem to the service provider but the
service provider makes all the decisions on how to organize and apply his labor to solve the problem. Or compare it to a democratically
organized coop, where workers make all the decisions collectively, where, how and what to produce. Under the present economic
system, a great majority of us are condemned to work in large corporations performing wage labor. The system of wage labor stripping
us from autonomy on our own labor, creates all the misery in our present world through alienation. Men and women lose their humanity
alienated from their own labor. Outside the world of wage labor, labor can be a source self-realization and true freedom. Labor
can be the real fulfillment and love. Labor together our capacity to love make us human. Bourgeoisie dehumanized us steeling our
humanity. Bourgeoisie, who sold her soul to the beast, attempting to turn us into ever consuming machines for the accumulation
of capital.
patimac54 -> Zach Baker 22 Oct 2015 17:39
Well said. Most retail employers have cut staff to the minimum possible to keep the stores open so if anyone is off sick, it's
the devil's own job trying to just get customers served. Making your colleagues work even harder than they normally do because
you can't be bothered to act responsibly and show up is just plain selfish.
And sorry, Suzanne, skiving work is nothing more than an act of complete disrespect for those you work with. If you don't understand
that, try getting a proper job for a few months and learn how to exercise some self control.
TettyBlaBla -> FranzWilde 22 Oct 2015 17:25
It's quite the opposite in government jobs where I am in the US. As the fiscal year comes to a close, managers look at their
budgets and go on huge spending sprees, particularly for temp (zero hours in some countries) help and consultants. They fear if
they don't spend everything or even a bit more, their spending will be cut in the next budget. This results in people coming in
to do work on projects that have no point or usefulness, that will never be completed or even presented up the food chain of management,
and ends up costing taxpayers a small fortune.
I did this one year at an Air Quality Agency's IT department while the paid employees sat at their desks watching portable
televisions all day. It was truly demeaning.
oommph -> Michael John Jackson 22 Oct 2015 16:59
Thing is though, children - dependents to pay for - are the easiest way to keep yourself chained to work.
The homemaker model works as long as your spouse's employer retains them (and your spouse retains you in an era of 40% divorce).
You are just as dependent on an employer and "work" but far less in control of it now.
Zach Baker 22 Oct 2015 16:41
I'm all for sticking it to "the man," but when you call into work for a stupid reason (and a hangover is a very stupid
reason), it is selfish, and does more damage to the cause of worker's rights, not less. I don't know about where you work, but
if I call in sick to my job, other people have to pick up my slack. I work for a public library, and we don't have a lot of funds,
so we have the bear minimum of employees we can have and still work efficiently. As such, if anybody calls in, everyone else,
up to and including the library director, have to take on more work. If I found out one of my co-workers called in because
of a hangover, I'd be pissed. You made the choice to get drunk, knowing that you had to work the following morning. Putting it
into the same category of someone who is sick and may not have the luxury of taking off because of a bad employer is insulting.
I think the Internet and the infotech revolution in general have been largely negative in
their impact on the world. Ian Welsh has a blog post that largely sums up my views on the
issue.
Contrary to what many people say I think large organizations like governments and
corporations have significantly more power now than before and ordinary people have less
power. The Internet has made it easier to get information but you have to sift through tons
of junk to get to anything decent. For every website like Naked Capitalism there are
thousands pushing nonsense or trying to sell you stuff.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use
what good is it? At best it makes you more well-rounded, interesting and harder to fool but
in political terms knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you more effective. In the past people
didn't have access to nearly as much information but they were more willing and able to
organize and fight against the powerful because it was easier to avoid detection/punishment
(that is where stuff like widespread surveillance tech comes in) and because they still had a
vibrant civic life and culture.
I actually think people are more atomized now than in the past and the Internet and other
technologies have probably fueled this process. Despite rising populism, the Arab Spring,
Occupy, the Yellow Jackets in France, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the DSA
this is all a drop in the bucket compared to just the massive social movements of the 1960s
much less earlier periods. Robert Putnam argued that television, the Internet and other
technologies likely helped to produce the collapse of civic life in the United States by
"individualizing" people's leisure time and personally I think Putnam is right. Civic life
today is very weak and I think the Internet is partially to blame.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use
what good is it?
Agreed. If anything these more knowledgeable people had a greater audience prior to the
internet. Whether you were a journalist, a great economist, a great author, or a great orator
you need to persist and show intellect and talent to have your message heard wide and
broad.
(This is probably a little idealistic, but I think there is truth there.)
Now you need very little of this. If your most famous asset is your attractive body you
can attract a greater audience than great scholars and politicians.
I can't speak much on authoritarianism since whatever form it takes on today is wildly
different from what it was in the past. Unfortunately, it is hard to convince many people
living in western societies that they are living in an authoritarian system because their
metal images are goose-stepping soldiers and Fraktur print posters.
I suppose the way I can assure myself that we are living in an authoritarian society is by
analyzing the endless propaganda spewed from countless, high-viewership media and
entertainment outlets. It is quite simple, if the media and entertainment narratives are
within a very narrow intellectual window (with lots of 600 lb. gorillas sitting in corners)
than the culture and politics are being defined by powerful people with a narrow range of
interests. This is not to say that forming public opinion or preferring particular political
views is a new thing in Western media and entertainment, just that its application, IMO, is
far more effective and subtle (and becoming more-so by the day) than it ever was in, say,
NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union.
I'd put my money down that most educated Germans during NAZI rule were well aware that
propaganda was being utilized to "manufacture consent" but they participated and accepted
this despite the content for pragmatic/selfish reasons. Much of the NAZI propaganda played on
existing German/European cultural narratives and prejudices. Leaveraging existing ideology
allowed the party to necessitate their existence by framing the German as juxtaposed against
the impure and unworthy. Again, ideologies that existed independent of the party not within
it. Goebbels and company were just good at utilizing the technology of the time to amplify
these monstrosities.
I question that being the case today. It is far more complicated. Technology is again the
primary tool for manipulation, but it is possible that current technology is allowing for
even greater leaps in reason and analysis. The windows for reflection and critical thought
close as soon as they are opened. Seems more like the ideology is manufactured on the fly.
For example, the anti-Russia narrative has some resonance with baby boomers, but how the hell
is it effective with my generation (millennial) and younger? The offhand references to Putin
and Russian operatives from my peers are completely from left field when considering our life
experience. People in my age group had little to say about Russia three years ago. It says
volumes on the subtle effectiveness of Western media machines if you can re-create the cold
war within two years for an entire generation.
In addition and related to above, the West's understanding of "Freedom of Speech" is dated
by about 100 years. Governments are no longer the sole source of speech suppression (more
like filtering and manipulation), and the supremacy of the free-market coupled with the
erroneously perceived black-and-white division between public and private have convinced the
public (with nearly religious conviction) that gigantic media and entertainment organizations
do not have to protect the free speech of citizens because they are not government.
Public/Private is now an enormous blob. With overlapping interests mixed in with any
antagonisms. It is ultimately dictated by capital and its power within both government and
business. Cracking this nut will be a nightmare.
Yes, this is an authoritarian world, if measured by the distance between the populace and
its governing powers, but it is an authoritarianism operating in ways that we have never seen
before and using tools that are terribly effective.
I agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad
enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively
forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the
immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with
existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that
image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily
Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and
dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read
much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour
Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
The American labor market is increasingly unequal, characterized by extraordinary returns to
work at the top of the market but rising precarity and instability at the bottom of the market.
Research on precarious work and its consequences has overwhelmingly focused on the economic
dimension of precarity, epitomized by low and stagnant wages.
But, the rise in precarious work has also involved a major shift in the temporal dimension
of work such that many workers now experience routine instability in their work schedules. This
temporal instability represents a fundamental and under-appreciated manifestation of the risk
shift from firms to workers and their families.
To date, a lack of suitable existing data has precluded empirical investigation of how such
precarious scheduling practices affect the health and wellbeing of workers. We use an
innovative approach to collect survey data from a large and strategically selected segment of
the US workforce: hourly workers in the service sector. These data reveal relationships between
exposure to routine instability in work schedules and psychological distress, poor sleep
quality, and unhappiness.
While low wages are also associated with these outcomes, unstable and un-predictable
schedules are much more strongly associated. Further, while precarious schedules affect worker
wellbeing in part through the mediating influence of household economic insecurity, a much
larger proportion of the association is driven by work-life conflict. The temporal dimension of
work is central to the experience of precarity and an important social determinant of worker
wellbeing.
The evidence of social decay in America is becoming more visible. As other countries
continue to show increases in life expectancy, the US continues its deterioration.
Life expectancy in the US fell to 78.6 years in 2017, a o.1 year fall from 2016 and a 0.3
year decline from the peak.
Overdose deaths reached a new high in 2017, topping 70,000, while the suicide rate
increased by 3.7%, the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics reports.
Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC director, called the trend tragic and troubling. "Life expectancy
gives us a snapshot of the Nation's overall health and these sobering statistics are a wakeup
call that we are losing too many Americans, too early and too often, to conditions that are
preventable," he wrote in a statement.
While this assessment is technically correct, it is too superficial in seeing the rising
rate of what Angus Deaton and Ann Case called "deaths of despair" as a health problem, rather
than symptoms of much deeper societal ills. Americans take antidepressants at a higher rate
than any country in the world. The average job tenure is a mere 4.4 years. In my youth, if you
changed jobs in less than seven or eight years, you were seen as an opportunist or probably
poor performer. The near impossibility of getting a new job if you are over 40 and the fact
that outside hot fields, young people can also find it hard to get work commensurate with their
education and experience, means that those who do have jobs can be and are exploited by their
employers. Amazon is the most visible symbol of that, working warehouse workers at a deadly
pace, and regularly reducing even white collar males regularly to tears.
On top of that, nuclear families, weakened communities, plus the neoliberal expectation that
individuals be willing to move to find work means that many Americans have shallow personal
networks, and that means less support if one suffers career or financial setbacks.
But the big driver, which the mainstream press is unwilling to acknowledge, is that highly
unequal societies are unhealthy societies. We published this section from a Financial Times
comment by Michael Prowse in 2007, and it can't be
repeated often enough :
Those who would deny a link between health and inequality must first grapple with the
following paradox. There is a strong relationship between income and health within countries.
In any nation you will find that people on high incomes tend to live longer and have fewer
chronic illnesses than people on low incomes.
Yet, if you look for differences between countries, the relationship between income and
health largely disintegrates. Rich Americans, for instance, are healthier on average than
poor Americans, as measured by life expectancy. But, although the US is a much richer country
than, say, Greece, Americans on average have a lower life expectancy than Greeks. More
income, it seems, gives you a health advantage with respect to your fellow citizens, but not
with respect to people living in other countries .
Once a floor standard of living is attained, people tend to be healthier when three
conditions hold: they are valued and respected by others; they feel 'in control' in their
work and home lives; and they enjoy a dense network of social contacts. Economically unequal
societies tend to do poorly in all three respects: they tend to be characterised by big
status differences, by big differences in people's sense of control and by low levels of
civic participation .
Unequal societies, in other words, will remain unhealthy societies – and also
unhappy societies – no matter how wealthy they become. Their advocates – those
who see no reason whatever to curb ever-widening income differentials – have a lot of
explaining to do.
The stats first. They tell a clear story: Americans now live shorter lives than men and
women in most of the rest of the developed world. And that gap is growing.
Back in 1990, shouts
a new study published last week in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical
Association, the United States ranked just 20th on life expectancy among the world's 34
industrial nations. The United States now ranks 27th -- despite spending much more on health
care than any other nation.
Americans, notes an editorial the
journal ran to accompany the study, are losing ground globally "by every" health measure.
Why such poor performance? Media reports on last week's new
State of U.S. Health study hit all the usual suspects: poor diet, poor access to
affordable health care, poor personal health habits, and just plain poverty.
In the Wall Street Journal, for instance, a chief wellness officer in Ohio opined
that if Americans exercised more and ate and smoked less, the United States would surely
start moving up in the global health rankings.
But many epidemiologists -- scientists who study health outcomes -- have their doubts.
They point out that the United States ranked as one of the world's healthiest nations in the
1950s, a time when Americans smoked heavily, ate a diet that would horrify any 21st-century
nutritionist, and hardly ever exercised.
Poor Americans, then as now, had chronic problems accessing health care. But poverty,
epidemiologists note, can't explain why fully insured middle-income Americans today have
significantly worse health outcomes than middle-income people in other rich nations.
The University of Washington's Dr. Stephen Bezruchka
has been tracking these outcomes since the 1990s. The new research published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, Bezruchka told Too Much last week, should worry
Americans at all income levels.
"Even if we are rich, college-educated, white-skinned, and practice all the right health
behaviors," he notes, "similar people in other rich nations will live longer."
A dozen years ago, Bezruchka
published in Newsweek the first mass-media commentary, at least in the United States, to
challenge the conventional take on poor U.S. global health rankings.
To really understand America's poor health standing globally, epidemiologists like
Bezruchka posit, we need to look at "the social determinants of health," those social and
economic realities that define our daily lives.
None of these determinants matter more, these researchers contend, than the level of a
society's economic inequality, the divide between the affluent and everyone else. Over 170
studies worldwide have so far linked income inequality to health outcomes. The more
unequal a society, the studies show, the more unhealthy most everyone in it -- and not the
poor alone.
Just how does inequality translate into unhealthy outcomes? Growing numbers of researchers
place the blame on stress. The more inequality in a society, the more stress on a daily
level. Chronic stress, over time, wears down our immune systems and leaves us more vulnerable
to disease.
Data the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Thursday show life
expectancy fell by one-tenth of a year, to 78.6 years, pushed down by the sharpest annual
increase in suicides in nearly a decade and a continued rise in deaths from powerful opioid
drugs like fentanyl. Influenza, pneumonia and diabetes also factored into last year's
increase.
Economists and public-health experts consider life expectancy to be an important measure
of a nation's prosperity. The 2017 data paint a dark picture of health and well-being in the
U.S., reflecting the effects of addiction and despair, particularly among young and
middle-aged adults, as well as diseases plaguing an aging population and people with lower
access to health care
Life expectancy is 84.1 years in Japan and 83.7 years in Switzerland, first and second in
the most-recent ranking by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The
U.S. ranks 29th..
White men and women fared the worst, along with black men, all of whom experienced
increases in death rates. Death rates rose in particular for adults ages 25 to 44, and
suicide rates are highest among people in the nation's most rural areas. On the other hand,
deaths declined for black and Hispanic women, and remained the same for Hispanic men .
Earlier this century, the steady and robust decline in heart-disease deaths more than
offset the rising number from drugs and suicide, Dr. Anderson said. Now, "those declines
aren't there anymore," he said, and the drug and suicide deaths account for many years of
life lost because they occur mostly in young to middle-aged adults.
While progress against deaths from heart disease has stalled, cancer deaths -- the
nation's No. 2 killer -- are continuing a steady decline that began in the 1990s, Dr.
Anderson said. "That's kind of our saving grace," he said. "Without those declines, we'd see
a much bigger drop in life expectancy."
Suicides rose 3.7% in 2017, accelerating an increase in rates since 1999, the CDC said.
The gap in deaths by suicide widened starkly between cities and the most rural areas between
1999 and 2017, the data show. The rate is now far higher in rural areas. "There's a much
wider spread," Dr. Hedegaard said.
"This is extremely discouraging," Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American
Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said of the suicide-rate increase. Studies show that
traumas such as economic difficulties or natural disasters, along with access to lethal means
including guns and opioid drugs, and lack of access to care can affect suicide rates, she
said. More accurate recording of deaths may also have added to the numbers, she said.
Japan leads the pack in life expectancy and pretty much every other measure of social well
being. Yet when its financial bubbles were bigger than the ones in the US pre our crisis, and
it's on its way to having a lost three decades of growth. On top of that, Japan has one of the
worst demographic crunches in the world, in terms of the aging of its population. So how it is
that Japan is coping well with decline, while the US is getting sicker in many ways (mental
health, obesity, falling expectancy)?
It's easy to hand-wave by saying "Japanese culture," but I see the causes as more specific.
The Japanese have always given high employment top priority in their economic planning.
Entrepreneurs are revered for creating jobs, not for getting rich. Similarly, Japan was long
criticized by international economist types for having an inefficient retail sector (lots of
small local shops), when they missed the point: that was one way of increasing employment, plus
Japanese like having tight local communities.
After their crisis, Japanese companies went to considerable lengths to preserve jobs, such
as by having senior people taking pay cuts and longer term, lowering the already not that large
gap between entry and top level compensation. The adoption of second-class workers (long-term
temps called "freeters") was seen as less than ideal, since these workers would never become
true members of the company community, but it was better than further reducing employment.
Contrast that to our crisis response. We reported in 2013 that
the top 1% got 121% of the income gains after the crisis. The very top echelon did better
at the expense of everyone else. Longer term, lower-income earners have fallen behind. From a
2017 MarketWatch story, quoting a World Economic Forum report: "America has experienced 'a
complete collapse of the bottom 50 percent income share in the U.S. between 1978 to 2015.'"
There is a lot of other data that supports the same point: inequality continues to widen in
America. The areas that are taking the worst hits are states like West Virginia and Ohio that
have been hit hard by deindustrialization. But the elites are removed in their glamorous cities
and manage not to notice the conditions when they transit through the rest of America. They
should consider themselves lucky that America's downtrodden are taking out their misery more on
themselves than on their betters.
God, this is so depressing to read. The worse aspect of it is that it never had to be this
way but that these deaths were simply 'collateral damage' to the social and economic changes
in America since the 1970s – changes by choice. This seems to be a slow motion move to
replicate what Russia went through back in the 1990s which led to the unnecessary, premature
deaths of millions of its people. Dmitry Orlov has a lot to say about the subject of collapse
and there is a long page in which Orlov talks about how Russia got through these bad times
while comparing it with America as he lives there now. For those interested, it is at-
What gets me most is how these deaths are basically anonymous and are not really
remembered. When AIDS was ravishing the gay community decades ago, one way they got people to
appreciate the numbers of deaths was the AIDS Memorial Quilt which ended up weighing over 50
tons. It is a shame that there can not be an equivalent project for all these deaths of
despair.
There were pictures in the Wall Street Journal article I didn't pull over due to copyright
issues, but it did show people commemorating these deaths Captions:
People in Largo, Fla., hold candles at a vigil on Oct. 17 to remember the thousands who
succumbed to opioid abuse in their community.
More than 1,000 backpacks containing belongings of suicide victims and letters with
information about them are scattered across a lawn during a demonstration at the University
of Tennessee at Chattanooga on March 22.
But to your point, these seem isolated and are not getting press coverage at anywhere near
the level of the AIDS crisis.
It focuses too much on peak oil. As if the social collapse of the United States (and the
Soviet Union) was some kind of natural consequence of resources dryinf out instead of a
premeditated looting.
Orlov's posts on how Russians survived the collapse is a small masterpiece. I read it a
couple of years back and it affected me greatly. I just reread it, thanks, Rev Kev, and it
seems even more relevant now.
Small gems: Money becomes useless: items or services that can be swapped are paramount.
Bottles of alcohol, fresh homegrown veggies (and pot), I re-fashion your old suit and you fix
my broken window.
Social networks keep you alive. Know and be on good terms with your neighbors. Communal
gardens keep you fed.
War-hardened men (and the women who love them), who thrive on violence abound. They will
either be hired as security or rove about as free-lancers. A community is better able either
to hire them, or defend against them.
Our ancestors lived and thrived without: central heating, electric lights, hot and cold
running water, flush toilets, garbage collection, the Internet. We can too; it just takes
forethought and planning. Densely packed cities without these amenities are hell.
Cultivate an attitude of disdain for the 'normal' things that society values, especially
if you are a middle-aged male; career, large house and SUV, foreign vacations, a regular
salary. Enjoy contemplating nature. When the former disappear, you have the latter to fall
back upon. And consider a second career as a recycler of abandoned buildings, or a distiller
of potatoes. (Think of all the Medieval structures built from crumbling Roman edifices.)
Russians, in many ways, had more resilience built in to their system: housing was
State-owned, so there was less homelessness. Private automobiles were relatively rare, but
public transportation was wide-spread and remained in good-running order. Minimal universal
health care existed.
Cease from trying, futilely, to change the System. Ain't gonna happen. Instead, prepare to
survive, if only just, the coming dismantling.
> Once a floor standard of living is attained, people tend to be healthier when three
conditions hold: they are valued and respected by others; they feel 'in control' in their
work and home lives; and they enjoy a dense network of social contacts.
"Sapolsky: We belong to multiple hierarchies, and you may have the worst job in your
corporation and no autonomy and control and predictability, but you're the captain of the
company softball team that year and you'd better bet you are going to have all sorts of
psychological means to decide it's just a job, nine to five, that's not what the world is
about. What the world's about is softball. I'm the head of my team, people look up to me, and
you come out of that deciding you are on top of the hierarchy that matters to you."
iirc, there was a perspective of some economists that infinite groaf could be carried by
the creative, emergent, and infinite wants of homo sapiens. But that creates compounding
deprivations, never enough time, money, resources. With the 2:1 ratio of loss aversion, what
is compounded are bad affects.
That 'dense network of social contacts' means smaller groups with symmetric interactions. The multiple
dominance heirarchies is the healthy version of creative emergence, but supplying needs, not
creating wants.
I think that one of the most valuable tools used by government in the Great Depression was
the CCC, WPA, and TVA set of programs that provided jobs to people while they created
valuable infrastructure and art. How many of those people could go back to the dams or state
parks and tell their spouses and kids that "I helped build that." During a time of despair,
it was a way of making people believe they had value.
Today, it would be viewed as a waste of money that could be better spent on the military
or another tax cut for the wealthy.
I'd mentioned some wrongheaded policies of Sequoia NP of 90 years ago yesterday, and they
seem ridiculous in retrospect, and we no longer treat natural places as ad hoc zoos, where
everybody gets to see the dancing bears @ a given hour.
Our methodology as far as our rapport with fire was just as stupid, but we've really done
nothing to repair our relationship with trees and the forests they hang out in.
There's an abundance of physical labor needed to clear out the duff, the deadfalls and
assorted debris from huge swaths of guaranteed employment until the job is done, which could
take awhile.
There's really few graft possibilities though, we're talking chainsaws, Pulaskis, never
ending burn pile action and lots of sweat equity. If KBR wanted to be in charge of
backcountry camps housing crews, that'd be ok, they'd be doing something useful for a
change.
Yes, why do you think video games appeal so much to young males? Because of the pixels?
What these gamers are really after is the ability to excel in a niche hierarchy. It doesn't
(usually) appeal to females as much as more traditional kinds of success but it serves a
psychological need.
A traitorous ruling class that has sold out its workers in favor of foreign workers.
And it's very lucrative – the Walton's fortune was made by being an agent of
communist Chinese manufacturers. In direct competition with US manufacturers. Does this not
seem like treason to you?
The word 'communist' in relation to the Chinese government and party is void of content.
'Communist' in the current Chinese context is legacy branding, nothing more. Its use in this
comment is inflammatory, as is the too-loose bandying of 'treason'. The Waltons are loyal to
their class (however fierce their disputes may be with rival oligarch factions), and since
the state exists to serve the interests of their class, how can they be traitors to the
state?
"Communist" is what they call themselves. They're totalitarians. Which is what most people
think "communist" means – because all countries that called themselves communist used
authoritarian rule. Methinks you might be a marxist idealist. Offended by the misuse of your
ideal State word by totalitarians.
Similarly, I used "treason" in the sense of acting against the interests of the citizens,
not in the sense of a crime against the state. You clearly believe the state to be
representative of only the ruling class. And I don't disagree wrt the USA and its imperial
machine. Which would make the State treasonous, according to the sense of the word I
used.
One could always say communism is an end point developed through a process preceded by
socialism and before that capitalism which replaces feudalism. The idea being Chinese
Communists, the rich Chinese have bug out spots for a reason, believe Mao and the Soviets
moved too quickly skipping a Marxist historical epoch.
The Communist Party officially is always a vanguard for the future society not the
Communist society. Phrases such as "under communism" aren't Soviet features as much as they
are propaganda from the West.
When the Reds were the only game in town, the greedy class joined the CCP, but since 1991,
they skipped signing up, leaving believers in control. What the party congress believes is
probably important.
As far as branding goes, all Communists are branded because the are all vanguard parties,
not parties of blocs or even current populations. Star Trek is the only communist society.
The Soviet thinkers definitely wrote about what an Ideal society would look like, the nature
of work, and self and societal improvement.
Overthrowing a long established government shouldn't be done for light and transient
reasons, and Xi has seemed to be concerned with the demands of the party congress. The party
at large doesn't have a single voice to rally behind which makes it difficult to overthrow a
government.
the word is "communist". The gov't isn't anything of the sort these days. Isn't the
chinese gov't of today "fascist". just like the national socialists of the german stripe?
They are the state that may be lord over controller of private institutions, and ruler of
other state institutions, all intermixed into what is "the chinese economy". They allow the
private wealth creation in a controlled sense. that is state function serving private wealth.
and if you are a party loyal, private wealth may come to you some day too.
It is just another part of the world trend "everyone is turning into full fledged
fascists"
No wonder people in the states are dying earlier.. to get back on topic
Last night, my wife and I took our boys to meet Santa at my older son's school. Elementary
school in Mississippi. The town is an outer suburb of Memphis. A mile east of the town you
are in rural Mississippi. I noticed 2 or 3 parents with visible drug addiction issues. These
folks were still people. Want their kids to see Santa and have a better life. The country
doesn't care.
I'll guess that you're near Byhalia. Happy memories of visiting family there from late
forties through sixties. Wonder what its like now – how the economic changes have
affected it.
Byhalia is a little further down highway 78. Kids from Byhalia drive up to Olive Branch to
go to a McDonald's and other fast food. Things may be changing because they just completed an
outer interstate loop that passes close by Byhalia. Byhalia was just in news a couple months
ago because a kid died during a football game. People were up in arms about no doctor at game
and a 30 to 40 minute drive to closest hospital. There aren't any doctors offices in Byhalia.
Then toxicology report came back. Kid had cocaine in his system. Holly Springs and Byhalia
area are big drug smuggling area. Close to Memphis and it's distribution network, but across
state line in poor rural Mississippi. NBA players linked to this area and smuggling
networks.
I'm always amazed @ the suicide by gun numbers, as it strikes me as a not so fool proof
way of checking out, exacerbated by perhaps dying slowly in a painful way?
Oh, and bloody, very much so.
Fentanyl seems an easier way out, you just drift into the ether and leave a presentable
corpse for everybody you knew, who all wonder if they could have done something to stop it
from happening, posthaste.
It's cheap and fairly efficient, and the drug way out can be tricky. Silent film legend,
Lupe Valez, is the famed example of suicide by drugs gone wrong. She still died but not on
her own terms because the sleeping pills she took didn't react well with her last meal.
How many people have tried to check out and had it not work is something to consider.
The level of denial people are capable of can be daunting.
1). My dentist who I think is Republican told me when I brought up Medicare for all said
"I don't think we can afford Medicare for all." This was not an immediate response to my
raising the topic, but something he told me after several visits and having thought about
what I had said and around the time Sanders got media coverage introducing a Medicare for all
bill (I was getting a crown and required many visits). Talking to your dentist can be a one
sided conversation for obvious reasons, but I thought "don't you mean we can't afford NOT to
have Medicare for all?"
2). A co-worker of mine who is African American. When I said U.S. life expectancy is
falling, this is a sign of extreme policy failure and should affect how we rate the ACA (read
that here, of course!) replied "You're assuming health has an impact on life expectancy." I
was stunned and didn't know what to say for a second and finally said "yes, absolutely."
These are the types that are more than happy to hand the place over to the next Bolsonaro
if only to protect the status gap between themselves and those beneath them.
They also "hand the place over" when the Bolsonaro types tell everyone they have the
solution and the opposition party is tainted by austerity and corruption.
"You're assuming health has an impact on life expectancy"
I have absolutely no idea how I would respond to this either. Was this comment by this
person some kind of built in knee-jerk response to criticism of the ACA/Obama?
actually you are assuming health coverage, even if it was real coverage for what one
needed, has that much of an impact on life expectancy and from what I've read it probably
doesn't compared to things like poverty *regardless* of health coverage. Because the greatest
link to say heart attacks is with poverty (not diet etc.)
At this point though it doesn't even make sense to talk about the ACA circa now and say
it's Obama's ACA, it wasn't that great to begin with. But Trump has made it worse.
My dentist who I think is Republican told me when I brought up Medicare for all said
"I don't think we can afford Medicare for all."
When I brought up Medicare for All to my dentist, after listening to him describe some of
his ER work where he claims to routinely see people who have intentionally damaged their
teeth in order to obtain painkillers (which he is not allowed to proscribe to them
regardless), he said he would never want to have the kind of inferior health care they have
"in Europe." He seemed genuinely surprised when I reported that my wife had done most of a
pregnancy in Italy in the mid-90s and got pre-natal care that was better than anything she
ever got in this country.
My dentist is definitely a Repub. And he socializes with other medical professionals,
which I presume gives him a very distorted image of the health care system. I often hear him
railing against the idiotic dictates of insurance companies and he seems genuinely proud
that, unlike the inscrutable and BS pricing of hospitals, dentists have to have
straightforward pricing because many people do pay 100% out of pocket (so he says).
This is a part of the 10% that is going to be very hard to reach. But I tell him
socialists need dental care too and so he will always have work even after we take over.
Suicide can be a rational and sensible choice.
Bluntly, if the quality of your life is shitty and not going to improve why stick around?
That the reason so many people's lives are bad enough that they decide death is preferable to
life is societal doesn't change their circumstances.
If you are old and sick, barely surviving financially or in poor health and unable to afford
care suicide might look like your best alternative.
The "Hemlock Society" has been around for quite a while, that its membership is growing in
the short term says a great deal about America.
Suicide is never rational. It is arrogance that one could weigh the pros and cons of
suicide like they think the have all the pertinent information. The only truth is that we
have no idea what happens when we die or if there is some kind of experience that continues
in a form that might not be a personal consciousness. Also, why don't you see the decision to
die is made under duress and therefor invalid like signing a contract with a gun pointed at
your head? There were several times in my life that I determined "the quality of [my] life is
shitty and not going to improve [so] why stick around", but yet, I became better off going
through the struggle. As a result I have made others lives better with the understanding I
have gained going through the Shaman's journey.
By considering suicide you are considering trading a known (suffering) for an unknown
(Death). In what way can that be considered rational?
The sad fact is that we spend our whole lives avoiding suffering and never take the time
to understand it. Opioids, all drugs, are a route to avoid suffering, to avoid looking at our
trauma. Materialism is about avoiding our suffering. Suicide is materialistic because it
supposes there is a mind that we can stop.
But even in the Buddhist centers I visit it has turned away from the spiritual and people
go there not to understand their suffering, but rather only to escape it.
American society does not have an economic problem, it has a spiritual problem.
I respect your view that suicide is an arrogant act and that suffering is an unavoidable
part of life. I totally agree with the latter philosophy. You suffer, and you wade through it
and come out on the other side as a better person. Forged in fire, so to speak.
Plus, I am, by nature, an optimist. There is always something to look forward to, every
morning.
But, a few years ago, I suffered a cascade of bodily failures, whose symptoms were at
first ignored, then misdiagnosed, resulting in my taking medications that made me worse off.
At one point, for two months, I had constant nerve pain (comparable to having teeny barbed
wire wrapped around my torso and and being zapped by an electric charge every few seconds.)
Plus back pain. I could not eat, and when I did, I vomited. I lost 20 pounds. I could not
sleep for more than hour at a time, and that hour happened only once a day. I walked only
with the aid of two walking sticks. I was totally constipated for a month (gross, but this
condition just adds to one's misery.) There was no end in sight and my condition just kept
worsening with each round of new medication.
I did not seriously contemplate suicide. But I did give some thought to what I would do if
I had to face life without sleep, without food, without the ability to walk, and death came
up as one of the better solutions. Fortunately, I changed doctors.
I empathize with your struggles, and I have contemplated suicide myself, but contemplating
death is part of the shaman's journey. I do not think that suicide is arrogant, I think it is
a misunderstanding.
IMHO, medical doctors will disrupt this journey. They should be consulted but with the
understanding that they know very little about the balance of the body and what is needed to
heal.
Truth is, we will die. The greater the suffering the easier to find out "who" that is
suffering.
I get in fights with my therapist all the time about this. She is always advocating for ME
to change when I feel if she wants to help us all she should be helping us change the
system.
Well roles like therapist are part of what props up the system and they get paid for
precisely that.
I mean if we are just living our lives we see that things are both individual and
systematic. And some things are strongly systematic (economic problems), and others probably
have a significantly personal component (phobias etc.). And so we have to exist with both
being true, but if we are drowning in economic problems the rest doesn't matter. But
therapists have a specific role to individualize all problems. But if people are just doing
therapy to get stuff off their chest, who can blame them. Enough people are, although it's
not how therapists like to see their role.
The train goes right by Chester, Pa, and you can see decay along the tracks all along
BosWash. Except for Biden, a corrupt tool who hasn't figured out how to cash in, the elites
don't take the train.
Remember the Kingsman movie where the president was going to let all the dopers die? Think
Trump.
Not only is the WH response to the opioid problem merely cosmetic, they (and NIH) refuse
to link it to the economics of human obsolescence. How convenient. As jobs die, the workers
do too – less welfare burden. That is fascist thinking, and it is evident today.
Finally, let us recall that all public health leaders are Trump appointees – i.e.,
incompetent. CDC too refuses to link suicide to the economy. It's bad politics. They can do
this because there are no national standards for reporting deaths as suicides or even drug
overdoses. It is entirely up to the elected coroner. Thus 10s of thousands of suicides are
reported as natural or accidental either intentionally to ease the grief of family members or
because they lack the manpower to investigate suspicious deaths. Note the bump in accidental
deaths. Driving your car into a concrete abutment or over a cliff might be an accident, but
more often than not, the driver was pickled (Irish courage) and the death was
intentional.
So, until we do a better job of measuring the causes of death, the administration can
continue to blame the deaths on moral weakness rather than its cruel economic policies.
Sadly, I believe if suicide attempts were taken into account, the picture would even look
far bleaker, and likely include far more Metro areas. In those Metro areas there are likely
far less gun/rifle owners (reportedly the most successful method), far quicker ambulance
response times, and significant expenditures have been made, and actions taken, to thwart
attempts on transit lines and bridges, along with committing suicidal persons to locked down
psychiatric facilities (which then adds further financial burden, significant employment
issues, and possibly ugly, forced medication side effects); while doing absolutely nothing
whatsoever to address the causes.
What a sickening blotch on the US , with such wealth and power – sovereign in
its own currency – that it's citizens are increasingly attempting and committing
suicide because they can no longer afford to live in any manner that's considered humane.
That, while its Fourth Estate deliberately obscures the deadly problem – which
cannot be cured by forcing Pharma™, Therapy™, and Psychiatric Confinement™
at it, when a predatory crippling of economic stability is the entire cause – and
refuses to hold the Government and Elites accountable.
I would commend to all Beth Macy's riveting book "
Dopesick : Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America ."
Equal parts nicely written investigative reporting and painful personal stories. I'd
thought that the "opioid epidemic" meme was hyperbolic. I was wrong.
"... The original "New Deal," which included massive public works infrastructure projects, was introduced by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s amid the Great Depression. Its purpose was to stave off a socialist revolution in America. It was a response to a militant upsurge of strikes and violent class battles, led by socialists who were inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution ..."
"... Since the 2008 crash, first under Bush and Obama, and now Trump, the ruling elites have pursued a single-minded policy of enriching the wealthy, through free credit, corporate bailouts and tax cuts, while slashing spending on social services. ..."
"... To claim as does Ocasio-Cortez that American capitalism can provide a new "New Deal," of a green or any other variety, is to pfile:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Historyromote an obvious political fiction." ..."
"The original "New Deal," which included massive public works infrastructure projects,
was introduced by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s amid the Great
Depression. Its purpose was to stave off a socialist revolution in America. It was a response
to a militant upsurge of strikes and violent class battles, led by socialists who were
inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution that had occurred less than two decades before.
American capitalism could afford to make such concessions because of its economic
dominance. The past forty years have been characterized by the continued decline of American
capitalism on a world stage relative to its major rivals. The ruling class has responded to
this crisis with a social counterrevolution to claw back all gains won by workers. This has
been carried out under both Democratic and Republican administrations and with the assistance
of the trade unions.
Since the 2008 crash, first under Bush and Obama, and now Trump, the ruling elites have
pursued a single-minded policy of enriching the wealthy, through free credit, corporate
bailouts and tax cuts, while slashing spending on social services.
To claim as does Ocasio-Cortez that American capitalism can provide a new "New Deal," of a
green or any other variety, is to pfile:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Historyromote an obvious political fiction."
"... "As the heat of packed-together bodies fogged the windows, passengers beat on the walls and clawed at the doors in a scene from a real-life horror story," ..."
Spending time in Western Europe, as I have done the last several months, provides some
serious perspective on America's decline. In most European countries, like Germany for example,
public transportation works efficiently and there is a social safety net. While homelessness is
a problem, it's nowhere near as rampant as in the US and usually seems to be associated with
addiction. People in Europe are generally much healthier and happier, housing and food and
higher education are affordable and people don't spend all their time working – they are
able to take vacations and enjoy life in a way the vast majority of Americans are not.
Europeans are typically entitled to lengthy paid maternity leave, whereas in the US working
class women are forced to return to work in as little as
two weeks . Read more 130,000 homeless
children, empty food banks predicted this Christmas
Meanwhile, New York's Subway system is decaying due to disinvestment and corruption. Last
summer a train stalled, leaving passengers in the dark with no air conditioning for an hour.
"As the heat of packed-together bodies fogged the windows, passengers beat on the walls and
clawed at the doors in a scene from a real-life horror story,"reported
the New York Times. In Washington DC, the nation's capital, the Metro is always late and
totally unreliable, with train fires
becoming a regular occurrence while Amtrak trains experience routine derailments . These
are just some examples of infrastructure decay. The list goes on: bridges are crumbling,
schools are shuttered. In Baltimore dozens of schools had no heat
during record freezing temperatures this winter. The only thing America's leadership seems
capable of investing in is prisons and war.
In America, the old devour the young. Young Americans are struggling under the weight of
$1.4 trillion in student loan debt. But don't let that confuse you about the state of
America's elderly. They too aren't taken care of. In many European countries people are
entitled to pensions and they can retire comfortably. In the US some have to
work until they die as Social Security isn't enough to live on and Medicare doesn't quite
cover all of their medical needs. As for healthcare, as many as
45,000 people a year die because they cannot access it.
And then there is the issue of water. There are
over 3,000 counties across America whose water supplies have lead levels higher than in
Flint, Michigan, and nothing substantial is being done to address the problem.
Haves and
Have nots
All this is taking place in a nation where inequality continues to climb. There are counties
a few miles apart from one another where the life expectancy drops by 20 years.
Researchers say the life expectancy gap, as high as
20.1 years between rich and poor counties, resembles the gap seen between low-income
countries versus rich countries. In other words, there are pockets of the US that have the
characteristics of third world countries. It seems that the US in many ways, after having
destroyed other parts of the world, has turned inward on itself, sacrificing its most
vulnerable citizens at the altar of capitalism.
Bernie Sanders made an issue of this during his presidential bid, often noting in his stump
speeches the dramatic difference in lifespan in McDowell County, West Virginia, where men live
to about 64, and six hours away in Fairfax, Virginia, where the average lifespan shoots up to
82.
This makes for absolutely horrifying, chills-down-your-spine reading. A modern corporate horror story - worthy of a 'Black Mirror'
episode. Phenomenal reporting by Ariana Tobin and Peter Gosselin. Thank you for exposing this. I hope this puts an end to this
at IBM and makes every other company and industry doing this in covert and illegal ways think twice about continuing.
Agree..a well written expose'. I've been a victim of IBM's "PIP" (Performance Improvement Plan) strategy, not because of my real
performance mind you, but rather, I wasn't billing hours between projects and it was hurting my unit's bottom line. The way IBM
instructs management to structure the PIP, it's almost impossible to dig your way out, and it's intentional. If you have a PIP
on your record, nobody in IBM wants to touch you, so in effect you're already gone.
I see the PIP problem as its nearly impossible to take the fact that we know PIP is a scam to court. IBM will say its an issue
with you, your performance nose dived and your manager tried to fix that. You have to not only fight those simple statements,
but prove that PIP is actually systematic worker abuse.
Cindy, they've been doing this for at least 15-20 years, or even longer according to some of the previous comments. It is
in fact a modern corporate horror story; it's also life at a modern corporation, period.
After over 35 years working there, 19 of them as a manager sending out more of those notification letters than I care to remember,
I can vouch for the accuracy of this investigative work. It's an incredibly toxic and hostile environment and has been for the
last 5 or so years. One of the items I was appraised on annually was how many US jobs I moved offshore. It was a relief when I
received my notification letter after a two minute phone call telling me it was on the way. Sleeping at night and looking myself
in the mirror aren't as hard as they were when I worked there.
IBM will never regain any semblance of their former glory (or profit) until they begin to treat employees well again.
With all the offshoring and resource actions with no backfill over the last 10 years, so much is broken. Customers suffer almost
as much as the employees.
I don't know how in the world they ended up on that LinkedIn list. Based on my fairly recent experience there are a half dozen
happy employees in the US, and most of them are C level.
Well done. It squares well with my 18 years at IBM, watching resource action after resource action and hearing what my (unusually
honest) manager told me. Things got progressively worse from 2012 onward. I never realized how stressful it was to live under
the shadow of impending layoffs until I finally found the courage to leave in 2015. Best decision I've made.
IBM answers to its shareholders, period. Employees are an afterthought - simply a means to an end. It's shameful. (That's not
to say that individual people managers feel that way. I'm speaking about IBM executives.)
Well, they almost answer to their shareholders, but that's after the IBM executives take their share. Ginni's compensation is
tied to stock price (apparently not earnings) and buy backs maintain the stock price.
If the criteria for layoff is being allegedly overpaid and allegedly a poor performer, then it follows that Grinnin' Jenny should
have been let go long ago.
Just another fine example of how people become disposable.
And, when it comes to cost containment and profit maximization, there is no place for ethics in American business.
Businesses can lie just as well as politicians.
Millennials are smart to avoid this kind of problem by remaining loyal only to themselves. Companies certainly define anyone
as replaceable - even their over-paid CEO's.
The millennials saw what happen to their parents and grandparents getting screwed over after a life time of work and loyalty.
You can't blame them for not caring about so called traditional American work ethics and then they are attacked for not having
them when the business leaders threw away all those value decades ago.
Some of these IBM people have themselves to blame for cutting their own economic throats for fighting against unions, putting
in politicians who are pro-business and thinking that their education and high paying white collar STEM jobs will give them economic
immunity.
If America was more of a free market and free enterprise instead of being more of a close market of oligarchies and monopolies,
and strong government regulations, companies would think twice about treating their workforce badly because they know their workforce
would leave for other companies or start up their own companies without too much of a hassle.
Under the old IBM you could not get a union as workers were treated with dignity and respect - see the 3 core beliefs. Back
then a union would not have accomplished anything.
Doesn't matter if it was the old IBM or new IBM, you wonder how many still actually voted against their economic interests in
the political elections that in the long run undermine labor rights in this country.
So one shouldn't vote? Neither party cares about the average voter except at election time. Both sell out to Big Business - after
all, that's where the big campaign donations come from. If you believe only one party favors Big Business, then you have been
watching to much "fake news". Even the unions know they have been sold out by both and are wising up. How many of those jobs were
shipped overseas the past 25 years.
No, they should have been more active in voting for politicians who would look after the workers' rights in this country for the
last 38 years plus ensuring that Congressional people and the president would not be packing the court system with pro-business
judges. Sorry, but it is the Big Business that have been favoring the Republican Party for a long, long time and the jobs have
been shipped out for the last 38 years.
"... It's no coincidence whatsoever that Diane Gherson, mentioned prominently in the article, blasted out an all-employees email crowing about IBM being a great place to work according to (ahem) LinkedIn. I desperately want to post a link to this piece in the corporate Slack, but that would get me fired immediately instead of in a few months at the next "resource action." It's been a whole 11 months since our division had one, so I know one is coming soon. ..."
"... I used to say when I was there that: "After every defeat, they pin medals on the generals and shoot the soldiers". ..."
"... 1990 is also when H-1B visa rules were changed so that companies no longer had to even attempt to hire an American worker as long as the job paid $60,000, which hasn't changed since. This article doesn't even mention how our work visa system facilitated and even rewarded this abuse of Americans. ..."
"... Well, starting in the 1980s, the American management was allowed by Reagan to get rid of its workforce. ..."
"... It's all about making the numbers so the management can present a Potemkin Village of profits and ever-increasing growth sufficient to get bonuses. There is no relation to any sort of quality or technological advancement, just HR 3-card monte. They have installed air bearing in Old Man Watson's coffin as it has been spinning ever faster ..."
"... Corporate America executive management is all about stock price management. Their bonus's in the millions of dollars are based on stock performance. With IBM's poor revenue performance since Ginny took over, profits can only be maintained by cost reduction. Look at the IBM executive's bonus's throughout the last 20 years and you can see that all resource actions have been driven by Palmisano's and Rominetty's greed for extravagant bonus's. ..."
"... Also worth noting is that IBM drastically cut the cap on it's severance pay calculation. Almost enough to make me regret not having retired before that changed. ..."
"... Yeah, severance started out at 2 yrs pay, went to 1 yr, then to 6 mos. and is now 1 month. ..."
"... You need to investigate AT&T as well, as they did the same thing. I was 'sold' by IBM to AT&T as part of he Network Services operation. AT&T got rid of 4000 of the 8000 US employees sent to AT&T within 3 years. Nearly everyone of us was a 'senior' employee. ..."
dragonflap• 7
months ago I'm a 49-year-old SW engineer who started at IBM as part of an acquisition in 2000. I got laid off in 2002 when IBM
started sending reqs to Bangalore in batches of thousands. After various adventures, I rejoined IBM in 2015 as part of the "C" organization
referenced in the article.
It's no coincidence whatsoever that Diane Gherson, mentioned prominently in the article, blasted out an all-employees email
crowing about IBM being a great place to work according to (ahem) LinkedIn. I desperately want to post a link to this piece in the
corporate Slack, but that would get me fired immediately instead of in a few months at the next "resource action." It's been a whole
11 months since our division had one, so I know one is coming soon.
The lead-in to this piece makes it sound like IBM was forced into these practices by inescapable forces. I'd say not, rather
that it pursued them because a) the management was clueless about how to lead IBM in the new environment and new challenges so
b) it started to play with numbers to keep the (apparent) profits up....to keep the bonuses coming. I used to say when I was
there that: "After every defeat, they pin medals on the generals and shoot the soldiers".
And then there's the Pig with the Wooden Leg shaggy dog story that ends with the punch line, "A pig like that you don't eat
all at once", which has a lot of the flavor of how many of us saw our jobs as IBM die a slow death.
IBM is about to fall out of the sky, much as General Motors did. How could that happen? By endlessly beating the cow to get
more milk.
IBM was hiring right through the Great Depression such that It Did Not Pay Unemployment Insurance. Because it never laid people
off, Because until about 1990, your manager was responsible for making sure you had everything you needed to excel and grow....and
you would find people that had started on the loading dock and had become Senior Programmers. But then about 1990, IBM starting
paying unemployment insurance....just out of the goodness of its heart. Right.
1990 is also when H-1B visa rules were changed so that companies no longer had to even attempt to hire an American worker
as long as the job paid $60,000, which hasn't changed since. This article doesn't even mention how our work visa system facilitated
and even rewarded this abuse of Americans.
I found that other Ex-IBMer's respect other Ex-IBMer's work ethics, knowledge and initiative.
Other companies are happy to get them as a valueable resource. In '89 when our Palo Alto Datacenter moved, we were given two
options: 1.) to become a Programmer (w/training) 2.) move to Boulder or 3.) to leave.
I got my training with programming experience and left IBM in '92, when for 4 yrs IBM offerred really good incentives for leaving
the company. The Executives thought that the IBM Mainframe/MVS z/OS+ was on the way out and the Laptop (Small but Increasing Capacity)
Computer would take over everything.
It didn't. It did allow many skilled IBMers to succeed outside of IBM and help built up our customer skill sets. And like many,
when the opportunity arose to return I did. In '91 I was accidentally given a male co-workers paycheck and that was one of the
reasons for leaving. During my various Contract work outside, I bumped into other male IBMer's that had left too, some I had trained,
and when they disclosed that it was their salary (which was 20-40%) higher than mine was the reason they left, I knew I had made
the right decision.
Women tend to under-value themselves and their capabilities. Contracting also taught me that companies that had 70% employees
and 30% contractors, meant that contractors would be let go if they exceeded their quarterly expenditures.
I first contracted with IBM in '98 and when I decided to re-join IBM '01, I had (3) job offers and I took the most lucrative
exciting one to focus on fixing & improving DB2z Qry Parallelism. I developed a targeted L3 Technical Change Team to help L2 Support
reduce Customer problems reported and improve our product. The instability within IBM remained and I saw IBM try to eliminate
aging, salaried, benefited employees. The 1.) find a job within IBM ... to 2.) to leave ... was now standard.
While my salary had more than doubled since I left IBM the first time, it still wasn't near other male counterparts. The continual
rating competition based on salary ranged titles and timing a title raise after a round of layoffs, not before. I had another
advantage going and that was that my changed reduced retirement benefits helped me stay there. It all comes down to the numbers
that Mgmt is told to cut & save IBM. While much of this article implies others were hired, at our Silicon Valley Location and
other locations, they had no intent to backfill. So the already burdened employees were laden with more workloads & stress.
In the early to mid 2000's IBM setup a counter lab in China where they were paying 1/4th U.S. salaries and many SVL IBMers
went to CSDL to train our new world 24x7 support employees. But many were not IBM loyal and their attrition rates were very high,
so it fell to a wave of new-hires at SVL to help address it.
It's all about making the numbers so the management can present a Potemkin Village of profits and ever-increasing growth
sufficient to get bonuses. There is no relation to any sort of quality or technological advancement, just HR 3-card monte. They
have installed air bearing in Old Man Watson's coffin as it has been spinning ever faster
Corporate America executive management is all about stock price management. Their bonus's in the millions of dollars are
based on stock performance. With IBM's poor revenue performance since Ginny took over, profits can only be maintained by cost
reduction. Look at the IBM executive's bonus's throughout the last 20 years and you can see that all resource actions have been
driven by Palmisano's and Rominetty's greed for extravagant bonus's.
Bravo ProPublica for another "sock it to them" article - journalism in honor of the spirit of great newspapers everywhere that
the refuge of justice in hard times is with the press.
Also worth noting is that IBM drastically cut the cap on it's severance pay calculation. Almost enough to make me regret
not having retired before that changed.
You need to investigate AT&T as well, as they did the same thing. I was 'sold' by IBM to AT&T as part of he Network Services
operation. AT&T got rid of 4000 of the 8000 US employees sent to AT&T within 3 years. Nearly everyone of us was a 'senior' employee.
As a permanent old contractor and free-enterprise defender myself, I don't blame IBM a bit for wanting to cut the fat. But
for the outright *lies, deception and fraud* that they use to break laws, weasel out of obligations... really just makes me want
to shoot them... and I never even worked for them.
Where I worked, In Rochester,MN, people have known what is happening for years. My last years with IBM were the most depressing
time in my life.
I hear a rumor that IBM would love to close plants they no longer use but they are so environmentally polluted that it is cheaper
to maintain than to clean up and sell.
One of the biggest driving factors in age discrimination is health insurance costs, not salary. It can cost 4-5x as much to
insure and older employee vs. a younger one, and employers know this. THE #1 THING WE CAN DO TO STOP AGE DISCRIMINATION IS TO
MOVE AWAY FROM OUR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INSURANCE SYSTEM. It could be single-payer, but it could also be a robust individual market
with enough pool diversification to make it viable. Freeing employers from this cost burden would allow them to pick the right
talent regardless of age.
The American business have constantly fought against single payer since the end of World War II and why should I feel sorry
for them when all of a sudden, they are complaining about health care costs? It is outrageous that workers have to face age discrimination;
however, the CEOs don't have to deal with that issue since they belong to a tiny group of people who can land a job anywhere else.
Single payer won't help. We have single payer in Canada and just as much age discrimination in employment. Society in general
does not like older people so unless you're a doctor, judge or pharmacist you will face age bias. It's even worse in popular culture
never mind in employment.
Thanks for the great article. I left IBM last year. USA based. 49. Product Manager in one of IBMs strategic initiatives, however
got told to relocate or leave. I found another job and left. I came to IBM from an acquisition. My only regret is, I wish I had
left this toxic environment earlier. It truely is a dreadful place to work.
The methodology has trickled down to smaller companies pursuing the same net results for headcount reduction. The similarities
to my experience were painful to read. The grief I felt after my job was "eliminated" 10 years ago while the Recession was at
its worst and shortly after my 50th birthday was coming back. I never have recovered financially but have started writing a murder
mystery. The first victim? The CEO who let me go. It's true. Revenge is best served cold.
Well written . people like me have experienced exactly what you wrote. IBM is a shadow of it's former greatness and I have
advised my children to stay away from IBM and companies like it as they start their careers. IBM is a corrupt company. Shame on
them !
I suspect someone will end up hunt them down with an axe at some point. That's the only way they'll probably learn. I don't
know about IBM specifically, but when Carly Fiorina ran HP, she travelled with and even went into engineering labs with an armed
security detail.
Was let go after 34 years of service. Mine Resource Action latter had additional lines after '...unless you are offered ...
position within IBM before that date.' , implying don't even try to look for a position. They lines were ' Additional business
controls are in effect to manage the business objectives of this resource action, therefore, job offers within (the name of division)
will be highly unlikely.'.
I've worked for a series of vendors for over thirty years. A job at IBM used to be the brass ring; nowadays, not so much.
I've heard persistent rumors from IBMers that U.S. headcount is below 25,000 nowadays. Given events like the recent downtime
of the internal systems used to order parts (5 or so days--website down because staff who maintained it were let go without replacements),
it's hard not to see the spiral continue down the drain.
What I can't figure out is whether Rometty and cronies know what they're doing or are just clueless. Either way, the result
is the same: destruction of a once-great company and brand. Tragic.
Well, none of these layoffs/ageist RIFs affect the execs, so they don't see the effects, or they see the effects but attribute
them to some other cause.
(I'm surprised the article doesn't address this part of the story; how many affected by layoffs are exec/senior management?
My bet is very few.)
I was a D-banded exec (Director-level) who was impacted and I know even some VPs who were affected as well, so they do spread
the pain, even in the exec ranks.
That's different than I have seen in companies I have worked for (like HP). There RIFs (Reduction In Force, their acronym for
layoff) went to the director level and no further up.
Under neoliberlaism the idea of loyalty between a corporation and an employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests.
Notable quotes:
"... Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking ..."
"... With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with the surplus of labor ..."
"... This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing software, I will never again recommend IBM products ..."
"... The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests. ..."
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my choice and never felt mistreated because
I had no expectation of lifetime employment, especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business.
The company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales expense including the firing
of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative
was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing,
movement of work around the globe was already commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty",
that two-way relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking .
I was always prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date. I stayed because
of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation.
The "resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about people not having money to buy
their goods and services plus what are they going to do with the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough
doing what you already know. Perhaps companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in previous year, and my last PBC appraisal
was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily
made IBM a less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing more. I cannot/would not
recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many old white guys" that has become so
common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable
as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If you worked hard, and tried, we would
bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new
one. Our people were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age discrimination. I was terminated by
a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE
CAUSE (NYDHR's emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in or is engaging in
the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that
representatives of the college made statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys". Witnesses said these statements were made
by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in favor of younger, cheaper workers;
way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job. This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan Revolution era where deregulation is
lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized. We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge
Republicans at every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing tax codes that reward
outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the
Supreme Court with radical ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years of basically
uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous for workers and our quality of life. As goes your
middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs.. too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You
nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to match a part in a play. In the 60s
and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than
actually build a credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud salespeople. (I
work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many, many layoff programs over 20 years
now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived
through what this article so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I have seen
age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it is rampant throughout the company. Promotions,
bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions
to levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how they treat us so they think they
can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone
knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or more. I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I do have a problem with how IBM also
likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40 intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the
guts to tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas workers come in...c'mon just be
honest with your workers. High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you can have the last laugh on a company
like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits – a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two – which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing software, I will never again recommend
IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM
as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire.
Even though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because
of my experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family."
The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck
from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything.
The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck
from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything.
The idea of loyalty between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests.
It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs to continually assess their skills and their value to
their employer. If they are not commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new employer.
Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed, or if they can hire someone who can do your
job just as well for less pay. That is free enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with a younger you? If all that they
accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for
the same work, why is firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves and not expect their employer to
do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their employees based on age, gender, race, religion,
etc. is a political question. Morally, I don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when
the government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes and that is a fact that has been proven
for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and skilled workers creates opportunities
for those that wish to be employed and for those that wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and
had a monopoly on telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was deregulated, cell phones,
internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate raiders just took over the companies,
sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages
for the workers have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like Germany and the Scandinavian
countries where the workers have good wages and a far better standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians
told Trump that they will not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan. The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare
of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation.
And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations, corporate scandals were far and few, businesses
did not go under so quickly, prices of goods and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably
live off them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In Under Reagan, the jobs were
allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent,
and the economic conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the first president to have
a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That
is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from, lots of mom and pop stores, strong
government regulation of the economy, able to live off your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system
to back you up against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation concerned more about earnings per
share than employees, customers, or social responsibility. In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the
US - can't believe a word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that
applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than
there used to be and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that there is a shortage of STEM workers.
For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If
companies would openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM workers", we could at least
start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor
pool as possible, unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral is in the toilet. Bonuses for the
rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation
for years. Adjusting for inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at least 1/2 have
quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now we have one or two and if someone is sick or on
vacation, our support structure is to hope nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation
of being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to find a different job, leaving
the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay, vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc.
The younger people are generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a busier colleague.
I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with
30-40 year guys who are on their way out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may differ from firm to firm, but this is
going on in every large tech company old enough to have a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years
at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing
that could have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to economics, like increased vacation
times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age
related discrimination laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers with the skills and younger workers
without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are
given and there is a national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national medical insurance program for everyone.
Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world, but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983 F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their
violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor
law, and also refused to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester County. It
is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them
for $170 million on a botched upgrade of the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my manager being that my team lead
thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months
shy of 55. Younger coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two years later - ironically in a customer
support position for the very product I helped develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being reinstated, a couple years into it I
realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email
describing a "Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30. I still dislike the
job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer
have to despair over numerous week long 24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare options with another person leaving the
company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had, and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical
benefit account the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of it. That would have
funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their
not having to give me that had something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at Fidelity, where it associates my departure
date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no
choice in the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both disingenuous and offensive. That
said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor that they discovered that IBM was
"holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told about. This might be similar or same story .
These practices are "interesting". And people still wonder why there are so many deadly amok
runs at US companies? What do they expect when they replace old and experienced workers with
inexperienced millenials, who often lack basic knowledge about their job? Better performance?
This will run US tech companies into the ground. This sort of "American" HR management is
gaining ground here in Germany as well, its troubling. And on top they have to compete against
foreign tech immigrants from middle eastern and asian companies. Sure fire recipe for social
unrest and people voting for right-wing parties.
I too was a victim of IBM's underhanded trickery to get rid of people...39 years with IBM,
a top performer. I never got a letter telling me to move to Raleigh. All i got was a phone
call asking me if i wanted to take the 6 month exception to consider it. Yet, after taking the
6 month exception, I was told I could no longer move, the colocation was closed. Either I find
another job, not in Marketing support (not even Marketing) or leave the company. I received no
letter from Ginni, nothing. I was under the impression I could show up in Raleigh after the
exception period. Not so. It was never explained....After 3 months I will begin contracting
with IBM. Not because I like them, because I need the money...thanks for the article.
dropped in 2013 after 22 years. IBM stopped leading in the late 1980's, afterwards it
implemented "market driven quality" which meant listen for the latest trends, see what other
people were doing, and then buy the competition or drive them out of business. "Innovation that
matters": it's only interesting if an IBM manager can see a way to monetize it.
That's a low standard. It's OK, there are other places that are doing better. In fact, the
best of the old experienced people went to work there. Newsflash: quality doesn't change with
generations, you either create it or you don't.
Sounds like IBM is building its product portfolio to match its desired workforce. And of
course, on every round of layoffs, the clear criterion was people who were compliant and
pliable - who's ready to follow orders ? Best of luck.
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
If anything, IBM is behind the curve. I was terminated along with my entire department from a
major IBM subcontractor, with all affected employees "coincidentally" being over 50. By
"eliminating the department" and forcing me to sign a waiver to receive my meager severance,
they avoided any legal repercussions. 18 months later on the dot (the minimum legal time
period), my workload was assigned to three new hires, all young. Interestingly, their
combined salaries are more than mine, and I could have picked up all their work for about
$200 in training (in social media posting, something I picked up on my own last year and am
doing quite well, thank you).
And my former colleagues are not alone. A lot of friends of mine have had similar
outcomes, and as the article states, no one will hire people my age willingly in my old
capacity. Luckily again, I've pivoted into copywriting--a discipline where age is still
associated with quality ("dang kids can't spell anymore!"). But I'm doing it freelance, with
the commensurate loss of security, benefits, and predictability of income.
So if IBM is doing this now, they are laggards. But because they're so big, there's a much
more obvious paper trail.
One of the most in-depth, thoughtful and enlightening pieces of journalism I've seen. Having
worked on Capitol Hill during the early 1980's for the House and Senate Aging Committees, we
worked hard to abolish the remnants of mandatory retirement and to strengthen the protections
under the ADEA. Sadly, the EEOC has become a toothless bureaucracy when it comes to age
discrimination cases and the employers, as evidenced by the IBM case, have become
sophisticated in hiding what they're doing to older workers. Peter's incredibly well
researched article lays the case out for all to see. Now the question is whether the
government will step up to its responsibilities and protect older workers from this kind of
discrimination in the future. Peter has done a great service in any case.
The US tech sector has mostly ignored US citizen applicants, of all ages, since the early
2000s. Instead, preferring to hire foreign nationals. The applications of top US citizen
grads are literally thrown in the garbage (or its electronic equivalent) while companies like
IBM have their hiring processes dominated by Indian nationals. IBM is absolutely a
poster-child for H-1B, L-1, and OPT visa abuse.
Bottom line is we have entered an era when there are only two classes who are protected in
our economy; the Investor Class and the Executive Class. With Wall Street's constant demand
for higher profits and increased shareholder value over all other business imperatives, rank
and file workers have been relegated to the class of expendable resource. I propose that all
of us over fifty who have been riffed out of Corporate America band together for the specific
purpose of beating the pants off them in the marketplace. The best revenge is whooping their
youngster butts at the customer negotiating table. By demonstrating we are still flexible and
nimble, yet with the experience to avoid the missteps of misspent youth, we prove we can
deliver value well beyond what narrow-minded bean counters can achieve.
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my
choice and never felt mistreated because I had no expectation of lifetime employment,
especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business. The
company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales
expense including the firing of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well
documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of
a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing, movement of work around the globe was already
commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way
relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking. I was always
prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date.
I stayed because of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation. The
"resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired
me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about
people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with
the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready
for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not
anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough doing what you already know. Perhaps
companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in
previous year, and my last PBC appraisal was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not
the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily made IBM a
less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing
more. I cannot/would not recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many
old white guys" that has become so common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort
of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any
more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If
you worked hard, and tried, we would bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or
business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new one. Our people
were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just
one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age
discrimination. I was terminated by a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The
EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE CAUSE (NYDHR's
emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in
or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for
NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that representatives of the college made
statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys".
Witnesses said these statements were made by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a
dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in
favor of younger, cheaper workers; way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers
today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job.
This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan
Revolution era where deregulation is lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized.
We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge Republicans at
every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing
tax codes that reward outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust
unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the Supreme Court with radical
ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years
of basically uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous
for workers and our quality of life. As goes your middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs..
too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to
match a part in a play. In the 60s and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom
IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than actually build a
credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud
salespeople. (I work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many,
many layoff programs over 20 years now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the
Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived through what this article
so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I
have seen age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it
is rampant throughout the company. Promotions, bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good
reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions to
levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how
they treat us so they think they can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually
are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or
more.
I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I
do have a problem with how IBM also likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40
intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the guts to
tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas
workers come in...c'mon just be honest with your workers.
High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you
can have the last laugh on a company like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits – a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two – which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing
software, I will never again recommend IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if
IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron
Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire. Even
though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because of my
experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family." The way I saw it,
every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost)
even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty
between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a
motel and its guests. It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs
to continually assess their skills and their value to their employer. If they are not
commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new
employer. Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed,
or if they can hire someone who can do your job just as well for less pay. That is free
enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with
a younger you? If all that they accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what
this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for the same work, why is
firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves
and not expect their employer to do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true
whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their
employees based on age, gender, race, religion, etc. is a political question. Morally, I
don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when the
government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates
more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes
and that is a fact that has been proven for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and
skilled workers creates opportunities for those that wish to be employed and for those that
wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and had a monopoly on
telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was
deregulated, cell phones, internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires
while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate
raiders just took over the companies, sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What
quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages for the workers
have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like
Germany and the Scandinavian countries where the workers have good wages and a far better
standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians told Trump that they will
not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan.
The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The
economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined
low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And
the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations,
corporate scandals were far and few, businesses did not go under so quickly, prices of goods
and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably live off
them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In
Under Reagan, the jobs were allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were
reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent, and the economic
conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the
first president to have a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican
Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are
economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from,
lots of mom and pop stores, strong government regulation of the economy, able to live off
your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system to back you up
against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into
office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation
concerned more about earnings per share than employees, customers, or social responsibility.
In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the US - can't believe a
word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job
stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly
white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than there used to be
and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that
there is a shortage of STEM workers. For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer
science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If companies would
openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM
workers", we could at least start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the
lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor pool as possible,
unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral
is in the toilet. Bonuses for the rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets
millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation for years. Adjusting for
inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at
least 1/2 have quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now
we have one or two and if someone is sick or on vacation, our support structure is to hope
nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation of
being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to
find a different job, leaving the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay,
vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc. The younger people are
generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a
busier colleague. I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they
are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with 30-40 year guys who are on their way
out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may
differ from firm to firm, but this is going on in every large tech company old enough to have
a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from
being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the
satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing that could
have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to
economics, like increased vacation times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that
older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age related discrimination
laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers
with the skills and younger workers without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's
the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are given and there is a
national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same
light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national
medical insurance program for everyone. Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world,
but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983
F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The
New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor law, and also refused
to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester
County. It is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to
America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them for $170 million on a botched upgrade of
the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my
manager being that my team lead thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was
included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months shy of 55. Younger
coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a
decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two
years later - ironically in a customer support position for the very product I helped
develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being
reinstated, a couple years into it I realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the
job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email describing a
"Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30.
I still dislike the job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty
for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer have to despair over numerous week long
24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare
options with another person leaving the company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had,
and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical benefit account
the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of
it. That would have funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm
eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their not having to give me that had
something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at
Fidelity, where it associates my departure date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that
money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no choice in
the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both
disingenuous and offensive. That said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's
terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor
that they discovered that IBM was "holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told
about. This might be similar or same story.
Great article. And so so close to home. I worked at IBM for 23 years until I became yet
another statistic -- caught up in one of their many "RA's" -- Resource Actions. I also can
identify with the point about being encouraged to find a job internally yet hiring managers
told to not hire. We were encouraged to apply for jobs outside the US -- Europe mainly -- as
long as we were willing to move and work at the prevailing local wage rate. I was totally
fine with that as my wife had been itching for some time for a chance to live abroad. I
applied for several jobs across Europe using an internal system IBM set up just for that
purpose. Never heard a word. Phone calls and internal e-mails to managers posting jobs in the
internal system went unanswered. It turned out to be a total sham as far as I was concerned.
IBM has laid off hundreds of thousands in the last few decades. Think of the MILLIONS of
children, spouses, brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, and other family members of laid-off
people that were affected. Those people are or will be business owners and in positions to
make technology decisions. How many of them will think "Yeah, right, hire IBM. They're the
company that screwed daddy/mommy". I fully expect -- and I fully hope -- that I live to see
IBM go out of business. Which they will, sooner or later, as they are living off of past
laurels -- billions in the bank, a big fat patent portfolio, and real estate that they
continue to sell off or rent out. If you do hire IBM, you should fully expect that they'll
send some 20-something out to your company a few weeks after you hire them, that person will
be reading "XYZ for Dummys" on the plane on the way to your offices and will show up as your
IBM 'expert'.
the next Trump, a Trump with the rough edges sanded off, is going to seize that issue and
run with it, and lock in Republican power for another generation (as soon as they can figure
out how to package Medicare for All as supporting the free market. Don't laugh).
The Republicans will sell this to America as making American business more competitive oin
world commerce by lowering costs. Healthcare costs have to be eat up a huge portion of
American companies employee costs. By dumping these costs onto the government, American
business becomes more cost competitive around the world. (Not believing most of this myself,
but it's the argument the GOP will make.)
I never understood why Bernie never made this appeal to the US Chamber of Commerce.
Because the chamber of commerce likes the fact that workers will take more crap, and work
for less, if they know their family will lose access to heathcare if they dont. It creates a
servile, frightened workforce. Just the way the oligarchs like it.
You could "package Medicare for All as supporting the free market" by pointing out that it
would allow small businesses to compete with big ones by eliminating their need to arrange
for health insurance for their employees -- something that is much easier and more cost
effective for big businesses.
This case has been made by many. Watch the free movie Fix It online made by an American
businessman re what providing even crappy insurance to his employees affects his bottom
line.
Also frame it as equalizing the cost of doing business internationally. Any kind of
National Health scheme is a subsidy for that nations business class. How much of the "lower
labour costs" touted in support of 'outsourcing' American jobs is paid for by the other
countries government's assumption of their domestic medical funding?
This brings up the question of which business group has more 'influence' on the political
parties and thus government, international trade or domestic production?
And Medicare for All is single payer, not single provider, right? Which means that there
will be competition among hospital conglomerates and less room for under-the-table deals like
the one here where the biggest hospital company bought the biggest insurance company in the
state, and nobody could do anything about the fact that the insurance company suddenly would
not pay for any doctor other than their own because the ACA had an antitrust waiver for
medical insurance companies.
The middle class in America has been declining for decades, and we continue to get even more
evidence of the catastrophic damage that has already been done.
According to the Social Security
Administration, the median yearly wage in the United States is just $30,533 at this point.
That means 50 percent of all American workers make at least that much per year, but that also
means that 50 percent of all American workers make that much or less per year. When you divide
$30,533 by 12, you get a median monthly wage of just over $2,500. But of course nobody can
provide a middle class standard of living for a family of four for just $2,500 a month, and we
will discuss this further below. So in most households at least two people are working, and in
many cases multiple jobs are being taken on by a single individual in a desperate attempt to
make ends meet. The American people are working harder than ever, and yet the middle class just
continues to erode .
The deeper we dig into the numbers provided by the Social Security Administration, the more
depressing they become. Here are just a few examples from their official website
-34 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-48 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-59 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-68 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
At this moment, the federal poverty level for a family of five is $29,420 , and yet about half the workers in
the entire country don't even make that much on a yearly basis.
So can someone please explain to me again why people are saying that the economy is "doing
well"?
Many will point to how well the stock market has been doing, but the stock market has not
been an accurate barometer for the overall economy in a very, very long time.
And the stock market has already fallen
nearly 1,500 points since the beginning of the month. The bull market appears to be over
and the bears are licking their chops.
No matter who has been in the White House, and no matter which political party has
controlled Congress, the U.S. middle class has been systematically eviscerated year after year.
Many that used to be thriving may still even call themselves "middle class", but that doesn't
make it true.
You would think that someone making "the median income" in a country as wealthy as the
United States would be doing quite well. But the truth is that $2,500 a month won't get you
very far these days.
First of all, your family is going to need somewhere to live. Especially on the east and
west coasts, it is really hard to find something habitable for under $1,000 a month in 2018.
If you live in the middle of the country or in a rural area, housing prices are significantly
cheaper. But for the vast majority of us, let's assume a minimum of $1,000 a month for
housing costs.
Secondly, you will also need to pay your utility bills and other home-related expenses.
These costs include power, water, phone, television, Internet, etc. I will be extremely
conservative and estimate that this total will be about $300 a month.
Thirdly, each income earner will need a vehicle in order to get to work. In this example
we will assume one income earner and a car payment of just $200 a month.
So now we are already up to $1,500 a month. The money is running out fast.
Next, insurance bills will have to be paid. Health insurance premiums have gotten
ridiculously expensive in recent years, and many family plans are now well over $1,000 a
month. But for this example let's assume a health insurance payment of just $450 a month and
a car insurance payment of just $50 a month.
Of course your family will have to eat, and I don't know anyone that can feed a family of
four for just $500 a month, but let's go with that number.
So now we have already spent the entire $2,500, and we don't have a single penny left over
for anything else.
But wait, we didn't even account for taxes yet. When you deduct taxes, our fictional
family of four is well into the red every month and will need plenty of government
assistance.
This is life in America today, and it isn't pretty.
In his most recent article, Charles Hugh Smith estimated that an income of at
least $106,000 is required to maintain a middle class lifestyle in America today. That
estimate may be a bit high, but not by too much.
Yes, there is a very limited sliver of the population that has been doing well in recent
years, but most of the country continues to barely scrape by from month to month. Out in
California, Silicon Valley has generated quite a few millionaires, but the state also has the
highest poverty in the entire nation. For every Silicon Valley millionaire, there are thousands
upon thousands of poor people living in towns such as
Huron, California
Nearly 40 percent of Huron residents -- and almost half of all children -- live below the
poverty line, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That's more than double the statewide rate
of 19 percent reported last month, which is the highest in the U.S. The national average is
12.3 percent.
"We're in the Appalachians of the West," Mayor Rey Leon said. "I don't think enough
urgency is being taken to resolve a problem that has existed for way too long."
Multiple families and boarders pack rundown homes, only about a quarter of residents have
high school diplomas and most lack adequate health care in an area plagued with diabetes and
high asthma rates in one the nation's most polluted air basins.
One recent study found that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is the largest that it
has been
since the 1920s , and America's once thriving middle class is evaporating right in front of
our eyes.
We could have made much different choices as a society, but we didn't, and now we are going
to have a great price to pay for our foolishness...
Sometimes things where I work feel like that. I'm the only admin at a school with 120 employees and 450 students. It's both
challenging, fun, and can be frustrating. The team I work with is very nice and supportive and on those rare occasions I need
help we have resources to get it (Juniper contract, a consulting firm helped me build out a redundant cluster and a SAN, etc).
I can see that if the environment wasn't so great I could feel similar to the way you did.
I'm glad you got out, and I'm glad you've been able to tell us that it can get better.
The truth is I actually like going to work; I think if you're in a position where you dread work you should probably work on
getting out of there. Good for you though sticking it out so long. You learned a lot and learned how to juggle things under pressure
and now you have a better gig partially because of it (I'm guessing).
WoW, just WOW. Glad you got out. Sounds like this ISP does not understand that the entire revenue stream is based on aging hardware.
If they are not willing to keep it updated, which means keeping the staff at full strength and old equipment replaced it will
all come to a halt. Your old boss sounds like she is a prime example of the Peter principle.
We do VoIP and I researched the Calix product line for ISP's after reading your post. Always wondered how they still supported
legacy TDM. Like the old Hank Williams song with a twist, "Us geeks will Survive". Cheers
TDM is still a big thing since the old switches used to cost 400k plus. Now that metaswitch is less than 200k, it's less of a
thing, but tdm for transport is rock solid and you can buy a ds3 from one co or headend to another for very cheap to transport
lines compared to the equivalent in data.
I talk to friends. Smart people I look up to and trust. The answer?
-the problem is you. Your expectations are too high
-no job is perfect. Be happy you have one and can support your family.
Oh man, this... I feel your pain. Only you know your situation, man (or woman). Trust your judgement, isolate emotional responses
and appraise objectively. Rarely, if ever, does anyone know better than you do.
It's true that no job is perfect, but there's a difference between "this one person in the office is kind of grumpy and annoys
me", "I have one coworker that's lazy and management doesn't see it", or "we have to support this really old computer, because
replacing the equipment that uses it is way too expensive" and "I get treated like shit every day, my working hours are too long,
and they won't get anyone to help me".
First I'd like to say. I have 4 kids and a wife. It was discussed during the interview that I work to live. And expect to work
40 hours unless it's an emergency.
For the first 6 months or so I'd work on weekdays after hours on simple improvements. This then stopped and shifted to working
on larger projects (via home labs) on the weekends (entire weekends lost) just to feel prepared to administer Linux kvm, or our
mpls Network (that I had zero prior experience on)
This started effecting my home life. I stopped working at home and discussed with my wife. Together we decided if the company
was willing to pay significantly more ($20k a year) I would invest the needed time after hours into the company.
I brought this to my boss and nothing happened. I got a 4% raise. This is when I capped the time I spent at home on NEEDED
things and only focused on what I wanted out of IT (network engineering) and started digging into GNS3 a bit more
Disappointed there was no mention of thenfirend who supported your decision, and kept telling you to get out!! Haha! Just playing
buddy! Glad you got out...and that place can fuck themselves!!
Really happy for you man! You deserve to be treated better!
I'm unemployed right now and the interviews have temporarily slowed down, but I'm determined not to take "just anything" to
get by, as doing so can adversely affect my future prospects.
I've been reading this whole thread and can relate, as I'm in a similar position. But wanted to comment, based on experience,
that you are correct about taking 'just anything' will adversely affect your future prospects. After moving to Central NY I was
unemployed for a while and took a helpdesk position (I was a Senior Systems Analyst/Microsoft Systems Administrator making good
money 18 years ago!) That stuck with me as they see it on my resume...and have only been offered entry level salaries every since.
That, and current management in a horrible company, ruined my career!! So be careful...
Congrats, but a 5 month gap on the resume won't fly for 99.9% of our perspective employers. There better be a damn good reason
other than complaining about burnout on the lined up interview. I resigned without another opportunity lined up and learned a
9 month lesson the hard way. Never jump ship without anything lined up. If not for you, then for your family.
SA's typically wear many hats at small or large organizations. Shoot, we even got a call from an employee asking IT if they can
jump start their car 😫.
It's a thankless job and resources are always lacking. The typical thinking is, IT does not make money for the company, they
spend it. This always put the dept. on the back burner until something breaks of course.
I've bee through 7 jobs in the last 12 years, I'm surprised people still hire me lol. I'm pretty comfortable where I am now though,
I also have a family.
These companies that think managed printer contracts are expensive are nuts. They are about even with toner replacement costs.
We buy our own xerox machines and have our local xerox rep manage them for us. Whoever had that hair brained idea needs slapped.
I had 12 years of what you had, OP. Same job, same shit you described on a daily basis... I can tell you right now it's not you
or your expectations too high... some companies are just sick from the top to the bottom and ISP's... well they are magnets both
for ppl who work too hard and for ppl who love to exploit the ones who work too hard in order to get their bonuses... After realising
that no matter how hard I worked, the ppl in charge would never change anything to make work better both for workers, company
and Customers... I quit my job, spent a year living off my savings... then started my own business and never looked back. You
truly deserve better!
Very much tiring! Lol. I'm at 40 hours a week unless we have an outage, or compromised server(or want to learn something on my
own time). I'm up front at my interviews that "i work to live" and family is the most important thing to me.
I do spend quite a bit of personal time playing. With Linux KVM, (Linux in general since I'm a windows guy) difference between
LVM block storage with different file systems, no lvm with image files. Backups (lvm snapshots) - front end management - which
ultimately evolved to using proxmox. Since I manage iptv I read books about the mpeg stream to understand the pieces of it better.
I was actually hired as a "network engineer" (even though I'm more of a systems guy) so I actually WANT more network experience.
Bgp, ospf, mpls, qos in mpls, multicast, pim sparse mode.
So I've made a GNS3 lab with our ALU hardware in attempts to build our network to get some hands on experience.
One day while trying to enable router guard (multicast related) - I broke the hell out of multicast by enabling it on the incoming
vlan for our largest service area. Felt like an idiot so I stopped touching production until I could learn it (and still not there!)
Good to hear the "I work to live". I'm also applying the same, family first, but it can sadly be hard for some to understand :-(
I feel like employers should have different expectations with employee that have family VS those that that don't. And even
then, I would completely understand a single person without family that enjoy life the more he can and doesn't want to work more
than what is on its contract since.
I really don't know how it works in employers mind.
The work load is high, but I've learned to deal with it. I ordered 7 servers about 9 months ago and they were just deployed last
month. Prioritizing is life!
What pushed me over the ledge was. Me spending my time trying to improve solutions to save time, and being told not gonna happen.
The light in the tunnel gets further and further away.
The international working classes are racists. They are misogynists. Xenophobic transphobes.
They do not think the way we want them to. Some of them actually still believe in God. And they are
white supremacists. Anti-Semites. Gun-toting, Confederate-flag-flying rednecks. Most of them
have never even heard of terms like "intersectionality," "TERF," and so on.
They do not respect the corporate media. They think that news sources like the Washington
Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and so on, are basically propaganda
outlets for the global corporations and oligarchs who own them, and thus are essentially no
different from FOX, whose pundits they believe every word of.
Their minds are so twisted by racism and xenophobia that they can't understand how global
capitalism, the graduated phase-out of national sovereignty, the privatization of virtually
everything, the debt-enslavement of nearly everyone, and the replacement of their so-called
"cultures" with an ubiquitous, smiley-faced, gender-neutral, non-oppressive,
corporate-friendly, Disney simulation of culture are actually wonderfully progressive steps
forward on the road to a more peaceful, less offensive world.
Now this has been proved in numerous studies with all kinds of charts and graphs and so on.
And not only by the corporate statisticians, and the corporate media, and liberal think tanks.
Why, just this week, Mehdi Hasan, in an exasperated
jeremiad in the pages of The Intercept , that bastion of fearless, adversarial journalism
owned by billionaire Pierre Omidyar, proved, once again, that Donald Trump was elected because
PEOPLE ARE GODDAMN RACISTS!
"... By cutting interest rates to near zero and pumping trillions -- yes, you read that right -- into the economy, the Federal Reserve essentially put a trampoline under the stock market. ..."
"... Only about half of American households have any exposure to the stock market, including 401(k)'s and retirement plans, and ownership of the shares of individual companies is clustered among upper-income families. ..."
Once a year or so, the economist Diane Swonk ventures into the basement of her 1891 Victorian house outside Chicago and opens
a plastic box containing the items that mean the most to her: awards, wedding pictures, the clothes she was wearing at the World
Trade Center on the day it was attacked. But what she seeks out again and again is a bound diary of the events of the financial crisis
and their aftermath.
"It's useful to go back and see what a chaotic time it was and how terrifying it was," she said. "That time is seared in my mind.
I looked at it again recently, and all the pain came flooding back."
A decade later, things are eerily calm. The economy, by nearly any official measure,
is robust . Wall Street is
flirting with new highs . And the housing market, the epicenter of the crash, has recovered in many places. But like the diary
stored in Ms. Swonk's basement, the scars of the financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession are still with us, just below the
surface.
The most profound of these is that the uneven nature of the recovery compounded a long-term imbalance in the accumulation of wealth.
As a consequence, what it means to be secure has changed. Wealth, real wealth, now comes from investment portfolios, not salaries.
Fortunes are made through an initial public offering, a grant of stock options, a buyout or another form of what high-net-worth individuals
call a liquidity event.
Data from the Federal Reserve show that over the last decade and a half, the proportion of family income from wages has dropped
from nearly 70 percent to just under 61 percent. It's an extraordinary shift, driven largely by the investment profits of the very
wealthy. In short, the people who possess tradable assets, especially stocks, have enjoyed a recovery that Americans dependent on
savings or income from their weekly paycheck have yet to see. Ten years after the financial crisis, getting ahead by going to work
every day seems quaint, akin to using the phone book to find a number or renting a video at Blockbuster.
The financial crisis didn't just kill the dream of getting rich from your day job. It also put an end to a fundamental belief
of the middle class: that owning a home was always a good idea because prices moved in only one direction -- up. The bubble, while
it lasted, gave millions in the middle class a sense of validation of their financial acumen, and made them feel as if they had done
the Right Thing.
In theory, if you lost your job, or suffered some other kind of financial setback, you could always sell into a real estate market
that was forever rising. Ever-higher home prices became a steam valve, and the "greater fool" theory substituted for any conventional
measure of value.
The kindling for the fire that consumed Wall Street and nearly the entire economy was mortgages that should never have been taken
out in the first place. Homeowners figured the more house the better, whether or not their income could support the monthly payment,
while greedy banks and middlemen were all too happy to encourage them.
When the bubble burst, the bedrock investment for many families was wiped out by a combination of falling home values and too
much debt. A decade after this debacle, the typical middle-class family's net worth is still more than $40,000 below where it was
in 2007, according to the Federal Reserve. The damage done to the middle-class psyche is impossible to price, of course, but no one
doubts that it was vast.
Advertisement
Banks were hurt, too, but aside from the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the pain proved transitory. Bankers themselves were never
punished for their sins. In one form or another -- the Troubled Asset Relief Program, quantitative easing, the Fed's discount window
-- the financial sector was supported in spectacular fashion.
Like the bankers, shareholders and investors were also bailed out. By cutting interest rates to near zero and pumping trillions
-- yes, you read that right -- into the economy, the Federal Reserve essentially put a trampoline under the stock market. The subsequent
bounce produced a windfall, but only for a limited group of beneficiaries. Only about half of American households have any exposure
to the stock market, including 401(k)'s and retirement plans, and ownership of the shares of individual companies is clustered among
upper-income families.
For homeowners, there wasn't much of a rescue package from Washington, and eight million succumbed to foreclosure. Sometimes,
eviction came in the form of marshals with court orders; in other cases, families quietly handed over the keys to the bank and just
walked away. Although home prices in hot markets have fully recovered, many homeowners are still underwater in the worst-hit states
like Florida, Arizona and Nevada. Meanwhile,
more Americans are renting and have little prospect of ever owning a home.
Worsening the picture, the post-crisis era has been marked by an increased disparity in wealth between white, Hispanic and African-American
members of the middle class. That's according to an analysis of Fed data by the Pew Research Center, which found that families in
the latter two groups were more dependent on housing as their principal form of investment. Not only were both minority groups harder
hit by foreclosures, but Hispanics were also twice as likely as other Americans to be living in Sun Belt states where the housing
crash was most severe.
In 2016, net worth among white middle-income families was 19 percent below 2007 levels, adjusted for inflation. But among blacks,
it was down 40 percent, and Hispanics saw a drop of 46 percent. For many, old-fashioned hard work has simply not been a viable path
out of this hole. After unemployment peaked in the fall of 2009, it took years for joblessness to return to pre-recession levels.
Slack in the labor market left the employed and unemployed alike with little leverage to demand raises, even as corporate profits
surged.
Maybe it was inevitable that when half the population watches its wages stagnate while the other half gets rich in the market,
the result is President Donald Trump and Brexit.
"It peeled away the facade and revealed an anger that had been building for decades," said Ms. Swonk, who is chief economist at
Grant Thornton in Chicago. "The crisis was horrific, but its legacy pushed us over the edge in terms of the discontent."
It also made inequality and the One Percent an urgent topic, and made
unlikely celebrities
of wonky intellectuals such as the economist Thomas Piketty. His best seller, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," published
in 2013, was 816 data-laden pages that laid out a grim diagnosis. Mr. Piketty argued that the decades after World War II, when the
divisions between the classes narrowed and opportunities to move up the economic ladder expanded -- that is, when the middle class
as we knew it was formed -- may actually have been an aberration. Society, Mr. Piketty wrote, risks a return to the historical norm
of a yawning gap between rich and poor.
Whether or not he is right, the concentration of wealth that is a legacy of the financial crisis will make itself felt far into
the future. Younger Americans, in particular, will be marked by the experience of 2008 much as the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression
haunted the generations who lived through it in the last century. Not only were they unable to accumulate assets in the lean years
of the early recovery, but they also missed out on the recent stock market rally that benefited their older and richer peers.
A recent study
by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that while all birth cohorts lost wealth during the Great Recession, Americans
born in the 1980s were at the "greatest risk for becoming a lost generation for wealth accumulation."
For those fortunate enough to still possess wealth after the crisis, the future looks very different. With the security provided
by assets, rather than just income, they and especially their children are on a glide path for a gilded financial future.
"Over and over, you see that family wealth is an important determinant of opportunity for the next generation, over and above
income," said Fabian T. Pfeffer, a sociologist at the University of Michigan. "Wealth serves as a private safety net that allows
you to behave differently and plan differently."
A wealthy person who loses a job can afford to be more choosy and wait for an opportunity suited to his or her skills and experience.
The risk of going to an expensive college and taking on debt is lower when there is parental wealth to fall back on.
Advertisement
Timothy Smeeding, who teaches public affairs and economics at the University of Wisconsin, put it more bluntly. "You can see dynasties
starting to form," he said.
Ten years have passed since the trauma of 2008, the nerves are still raw, and the pain still has a way of flaring up. Every time
she goes down into the basement and peruses her diary, Diane Swonk feels it anew.
"It is the diary of an economist, as well as a mother and a human being," Ms. Swonk said. It includes her published writings for
clients, as well as her feelings, thoughts and fears as the crisis unfolded. She also recorded her impression of key figures she
met during those fateful months, including Lawrence H. Summers, a top White House economic official at the time, and Ben S. Bernanke,
then the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
"The financial crisis became a delineator," she said. "There were those who could recoup their losses and those who could not.
Some people have amnesia, but we are still living with the wounds."
Nelson D. Schwartz has covered economics since 2012. Previously, he wrote about Wall Street and banking, and
also served as European economic correspondent in Paris. He joined The Times in 2007 as a feature writer for the Sunday Business
section.
(theverge.com)Sanders' Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act
(abbreviated "Stop BEZOS") -- along with Khanna's House of Representatives counterpart, the
Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act --
would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large
companies . The bill's text characterizes this as a "corporate welfare tax," and it would
apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If
workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8
housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits.
The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that
are de facto company employees.
"The alternative to driving for Uber is not a good job in a factory with a union wage or
working in a stable office job, it's slinging coffee at a Starbucks where you may or may not
get the hours you need," he said. "That is what people are shoring up. They're shoring up
getting enough hours, trying to make ends meet. Oftentimes, people talk about the gig economy
as 'supplementary income' ...
It's not supplemental if you need it to pay for your kids' braces, or food, or
rent."
Hyman argued that this phenomenon could be traced back to the legions of undocumented
migrant laborers who built early computers, before those manufacturing jobs moved
overseas.
This recovery has not been great for workers. They have seen modest real wage gains over
the last five years, but these gains have not come close to making up the ground lost in the
recession and the first years of the recovery.
Nonetheless, real wages have been growing for most of the last five years. The last month
has been an exception to this pattern, not because nominal wages have grown less, but because
we had a large jump in energy prices, which has depressed real wage growth. Here's picture for
the last five years.
... ... ...
As can be seen, there is a very modest acceleration in the rate of average hourly wage
growth over this period from just over 2.0 percent in the middle of 2013 to 2.7 percent in the
most recent data. Real wage growth, which is the difference between the rate of wage growth and
the rate of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, has mostly been positive, with
the exception of a few months at the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 and last month.
The explanation for the much larger variation in the real wage than the nominal wage is the
variation in the rate of inflation over this period which is in turn overwhelmingly a function
of changes in world oil prices. A sharp drop in world oil prices in 2014 translated into much
lower energy prices for consumers in the United States. This meant very low, and even negative
inflation rates, in 2015. The result was a much more rapid rate of real wage growth.
World oil prices have partially rebounded in the last two years, going from lows near $40 a
barrel to current levels that are near $70. This has added to the inflation rate, pushing down
real wage growth, and actually leading to short periods of negative growth.
The issue here is not that nominal wages have stopped growing, it is just that changes in
world energy prices had led to a temporary drag on real wage growth, just as they provided a
temporary boost to real wage growth in 2015.
This story is worth pointing out in the context of recent comments about real wages
stagnating. This is true, but the cause is the rise in world oil prices, not something bad that
happened to the labor market.
The folks who want to blame Trump for stagnant wages are off the mark, unless they think he
is responsible for the rise in world oil prices. If the argument is that the tax cuts have not
led to more rapid wage growth, this is true, but we really should not have expected to see much
effect just yet. The tax cut story is that it will lead to more investment, which will in turn
lead to higher productivity. Higher productivity will in turn lead to higher wages.
The key in this story is investment. And so far, there is nothing to show here , indicating
that the tax cuts are only paying off for shareholders, not workers.
Anyhow, the point is that it's a bit silly to blame slower real wage growth on Trump. I'm
not about to become a Trumper, but the guy does 1000 things every day for which he should be
chased out of office. Let's focus on the real items, we don't have to make stuff up.
This column originally appeared on Dean Baker's blog: Beat the Press.
"... By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Squeezed: Why Our Families Can't Afford America ..."
"... You will not do as well as your parents ..."
"... Life is a struggle to keep up. Even if you achieve something, you will live in fear of losing it. America is not your land: it belongs to the ultra-rich. ..."
"... The Vanishing Middle Class ..."
"... Capital in the Twenty-First Century ..."
"... Global Wealth Report ..."
"... Professed as a right for individual freedom and empowerment, in reality it serves to suppress disobedience with shame. If you earn like shit -- it's gotta be because YOU are shit. Just try harder. Don't you see those OTHER kids that did well! ..."
"... I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme individualisation. ..."
"... die Plutonomisten und Bolshewisten! ..."
"... That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force that depress USA wages. ..."
"... We have been commodified since before we were even born, to the point where opportunities for what Lave and Wenger would call "legitimate peripheral participation" in the kinds of work that yield real, humane, benefits to our communities are scant to nonexistent for most of us. Something has gone deeply awry in this core social function at the worst possible time in human history. ..."
"... That was a wonderful post, very moving, thank you. These kind of testimonies are very important because they show the real human cost of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is truly a death cult. Please find an alternative to alcohol. Music, art, nature, etc. ..."
"... At least you are self aware. Most people are not. As for the Ship of Status, let it sink. Find a lifeboat where you feel comfortable and batten down for the Roaring (20)40s yet to come. Once you find something to work for, the bad habits will lose much of their hold on you. As long as you don't slide into alcoholism, you have a chance. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, the economic policy that is private sector "free market" driven, giving the owners of capital free, unfettered reign. Created by libertarians like Fredrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they sold it to the nation but failed to mention that little peccadillo about how privatization of government would usher in economic fascism. ..."
"... "An extreme form of laissez-faire individualism that developed in the writings of Hayek, Friedman and Nozick they are also referred to as libertarians. They draw on the natural rights tradition of John Locke and champion's full autonomy and freedom of the individual." ..."
"... What they meant was ECONOMIC freedom. They despise social freedom (democracy) because civil, labor, health, food safety, etc., rights and environmental protections put limits on their profits. ..."
"... The "maximizing shareholder value" myth turns people into psychopaths . The entire neoliberal economic policy of the past 40 years is based on the false assumption that self-interest is the driving evolution of humanity. We're not all psychopaths, turns out. We're social beings that have mainly used cooperation to get us through these thousands of years of existence. ..."
"... "If the IMF is to shake its image as an inward-looking, out-of-touch boys club, it needs to start taking the issue seriously. The effect of the male dominance in macroeconomics can be seen in the policy direction of the organisation: female economists are more likely to be in favour of Government-backed redistribution measures than their male counterparts. ..."
"... Of course, the parochial way in which economics is perceived by the IMF, as nothing more than the application of mathematical models, is nothing new. In fact, this is how mainstream economics frequently is taught in universities all over the world. Is it any wonder that the IMF has turned out as it is?" ..."
"... "Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so that they can go to work on Wall St. that there's no room in the course curriculum for the history of economic thought. ..."
"... So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media that are a travesty of what these people really said and if you don't read the history of economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and that's the way the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way. ..."
"... The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make people think that the economy is getting richer while the reality is they're getting poorer and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle class and the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them." ..."
"... "I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry 15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem." ..."
"... This is a stark and startling reality. This reality is outside the framework of understanding of economic struggle in America that is allowed by the corporate neoliberal culture/media. ..."
"... As the Precariat grows, having watched the .1% lie, cheat and steal – from them, they are more likely to also lie, cheat and steal in mortgage, employment and student loan applications and most importantly and sadly, in their dealings with each other. Everybody is turning into a hustler. ..."
"... Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the economy. ..."
"... "The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity of everyone else. ..."
"... The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with "capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy. ..."
"... The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society again. It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their loans. ..."
"... The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs ..."
"... An unexpected consequence of globalization is that a lot of people see how thing are done, elsewhere. ..."
"... Part of me doesn't feel sorry at all for the plight of middle-class Americans. When times were good they were happy to throw poor and working-class people under the bus. I remember when the common answer to complaints about factory closings was "you should have gotten an education, dummy." Now that the white-collar middle class can see that they are next on the chopping block they are finding their populist soul. ..."
The children of America's white-collar middle class viewed life from their green lawns and
tidy urban flats as a field of opportunity. Blessed with quality schools, seaside vacations and
sleepover camp, they just knew that the American dream was theirs for the taking if they hit
the books, picked a thoughtful and fulfilling career, and just, well, showed up.
Until it wasn't.
While they were playing Twister and imagining a bright future, someone apparently decided
that they didn't really matter. Clouds began to gather -- a "dark shimmer of constantly
shifting precariousness," as journalist Alissa Quart describes in her timely new book "
Squeezed:
Why Our Families Can't Afford America ."
The things these kids considered their birthright -- reputable colleges, secure careers, and
attractive residences -- were no longer waiting for them in adulthood.
Today, with their incomes flat or falling, these Americans scramble to maintain a semblance
of what their parents enjoyed. They are moving from being dominant to being dominated. From
acting to acted upon. Trained to be educators, lawyers, librarians, and accountants, they do
work they can't stand to support families they rarely see. Petrified of being pushed aside by
robots, they rankle to see financial titans and tech gurus flaunting their obscene wealth at
every turn.
Headlines gush of a humming economy, but it doesn't feel like a party to them -- and they've
seen enough to know who will be holding the bag when the next bubble bursts.
The "Middle Precariats," as Quart terms them, are suffering death by a thousand
degradations. Their new reality: You will not do as well as your parents . Life is
a struggle to keep up. Even if you achieve something, you will live in fear of losing it.
America is not your land: it belongs to the ultra-rich.
Much of Quart's book highlights the mirror image of the downwardly mobile middle class Trump
voters from
economically strained regions like the Midwest who helped throw a monkey wrench into
politics-as-usual. In her tour of American frustration, she talks to urbanites who lean liberal
and didn't expect to find themselves drowning in debt and disappointment. Like the
falling-behind Trump voters, these people sense their status ripped away, their hopes
dashed.
If climbing up the ladder of success is the great American story, slipping down it is the
quintessential tragedy. It's hard not to take it personally: the ranks of the Middle Precariat
are filled with shame.
They are somebodies turning into nobodies.
And there signs that they are starting to revolt. If they do, they could make their own mark
on the country's political landscape.
The Broken Bourgeoisie
Quart's book takes a sobering look at the newly unstable bourgeoisie, illustrating what
happens when America's off-the-rails inequality blasts over those who always believed they
would end up winners.
There's the Virginia accountant who forks over nearly 90% of her take home pay on care for
her three kids; the Chicago adjunct professor with the disabled child who makes less than
$24,000 a year; and the California business reporter who once focused on the financial
hardships of others and now faces unemployment herself.
There are Uber-driving teachers and law school grads reviewing documents for $20 an hour --
or less. Ivy Leaguers who live on food stamps.
Lacking unions, church communities and nearby close relatives to support them, the Middle
Precariats are isolated and stranded. Their labor has sputtered into sporadic contingency: they
make do with short-term contracts or shift work. (Despite the much-trumpeted low unemployment
rate, the New York Times
reports that jobs are often subpar, featuring little stability and security). Once upon a
time, only the working poor took second jobs to stay afloat. Now the Middle Precariat has
joined them.
Quart documents the desperate measures taken by people trying to keep up appearances,
relying on 24/7 "extreme day care" to accommodate unpredictable schedules or cobbling together
co-living arrangements to cut household costs. They strain to provide things like academic
tutors and sports activities for their kids who must compete with the children of the wealthy.
Deep down, they know that they probably can't pass down the cultural and social class they once
took for granted.
Quart cites a litany of grim statistics that measure the quality of their lives, like the
fact that a middle-class existence is now 30% more expensive than it was twenty years ago, a
period in which the price of health care and the cost of a four-year degree at a public college
nearly doubled.
Squeezed is especially detailed on the plight of the female Middle Precariat, like
those who have the effrontery to procreate or grow older. With the extra burdens of care work,
pregnancy discrimination, inadequate family leave, and wage disparities, (not to mention sexual
harassment, a subject not covered), women get double squeezed. For women of color, often
lacking intergenerational wealth to ease the pain, make that a triple squeeze.
The Middle Precariat in middle age is not a pretty sight: without union protection or a
reliable safety net they endure lost jobs, dwindled savings, and shattered identities. In one
of the saddest chapters, Quart describes how the pluckiest try reinvent themselves in their 40s
or 50s, enrolling in professional courses and certification programs that promise another shot
at security, only to find that they've been scammed by greedy college marketers and deceptive
self-help mavens who leave them more desperate than before.
Quart notes that even those making decent salaries in the United States now see themselves
barred from the club of power and wealth. They may have illiquid assets like houses and
retirement accounts, but they still see themselves as financially struggling. Earning $100,000
sounds marvelous until you've forked over half to housing and 30% to childcare. Each day is one
bit of bad luck away from disaster.
"The spectacular success of the 0.1 percent, a tiny portion of society, shows just how
stranded, stagnant, and impotent the current social system has made the middle class -- even
the 10 percent who are upper-middle class," Quart writes.
Quart knows that the problems of those who seem relatively privileged compared many may not
garner immediate sympathy. But she rightly notes that their stresses are a barometer for the
concentration of extreme wealth in some American cities and the widening chasm between the very
wealthy and everybody else.
The Dual Economy
The donor-fed establishment of both political parties could or would not see this coming,
but some prescient economists have been sounding the alarm.
In his 2016 book The Vanishing Middle Class ,
MIT economist Peter Temin detailed how the U.S. has been
breaking up into a "dual economy" over the last several decades, moving toward a model that
is structured economically and politically more like a developing nation -- a far cry from the
post-war period when the American middle class thrived.
In dual economies, the rich and the rest part ways as the once-solid middle class begins to
disappear. People are divided into separate worlds in the kinds of jobs they hold, the schools
their kids attend, their health care, transportation, housing, and social networks -- you name
it. The tickets out of the bottom sector, like a diploma from a first-rate university, grow
scarce. The people of the two realms become strangers.
French economist Thomas Picketty provided a stark formula for what happens capitalism is
left unregulated in his 2015 bestseller, Capital in the Twenty-First
Century . It goes like this: when the rate of return on the investments of the wealthy
exceeds the rate of growth in the overall economy, the rich get exponentially richer while
everyone becomes poorer. In more sensible times, like the decades following WWII, that rule was
mitigated by an American government that forced the rich pay their share of taxes, curbed the
worst predations of businesses, and saw to it that roads, bridges, public transit, and schools
were built and maintained.
But that's all a fading memory. Under the influence of political money, politicians no
longer seek a unified economy and society where the middle class can flourish. As Quart
observes, the U.S. is the richest and also the most unequal country in the world, featuring the
largest wealth inequality gap of the two hundred countries in the Global Wealth Report
of 2015.
Who is to Blame?
Over and over, the people Quart interviews tend to blame themselves for their situation --
if only they'd chosen a different career, lived in another city, maybe things wouldn't have
turned out this way. Sometimes they point the finger at robots and automation, though they
arguably have much
more to fear from the wealthy humans who own the robots.
But some are waking up to the fact it is the wealthy and their purchased politicians who
have systematically and deliberately stripped them of power. Deprivations like paltry employee
rights, inadequate childcare, ridiculously expensive health care, and non-existent retirement
security didn't just happen . Abstract words like deregulation and globalization
become concrete: somebody actually did this to you by promoting policies that leave you high
and dry.
As Quart indicates, understanding this is the first step to a change of consciousness, and
her book is part of this shift.
Out of this consciousness, many individuals and organizations are working furiously and
sometimes ingeniously to alter the negative trajectory of the Middle Precariat. Quart outlines
proposals and developments like small-scale debt consolidation, student debt forgiveness,
adequately subsidized day care, and non-traditional unions that could help.
America also has a track record of broad, fundamental solutions that have already proven to
work. Universal basic income may sound attractive, but we already have a program that could
improve the lot of the middle class if expanded: Social Security.
Right now, a worker stops having to pay Social Security tax on any earnings beyond $128,400
-- a number that is unreasonably low because the rich wish to keep it so. Just by raising that
cap, we could the lower the retirement age so that Americans in their 60s would not have greet
customers at Walmart. More opportunities would open up to younger workers.
The Middle Precariat could be forgiven for suspecting that the overlords of Silicon Valley
may have something other than altruism in mind when they tout universal basic income. Epic tax
evaders, they stand to benefit from pushing the responsibility for their low-paid workers and
the inadequate safety net and public services that they helped create onto ordinary
taxpayers.
Beyond basic income lies a basic fact: the American wealthy do not pay their share in taxes.
In fact, American workers pay
twice as much in taxes as wealthy investors. That's why infrastructure crumbles, schools
deteriorate, and sane health care and childcare are not available.
Most Americans realize that inequality has to be challenged through the tax code: a
2017 Gallup poll shows that the majority think that the wealthy and corporations don't pay
enough. Politicians, of course, ignore this to please their donors.
And so the Middle Precariat, like the Trump voters, is getting fed up with them.
From Depressed to Energized
Quart astutely points out that income inequality is being written into the law of the land.
Funded the efforts of billionaires like the Koch brothers, politicians have
altered laws and constitutions across the country to cement the dual economy through
everything from restricting voting rights to defunding public education.
Several Middle Precariats in Squeezed have turned to independent or renegade
candidates like Bernie Sanders who offer broad, substantial programs like debt-free college and
universal health care that address the fissures in their lives. They are listening to
candidates who are not afraid to say that markets should work for human beings, not the other
way around.
If Donald Trump's political rise "can be understood as an expression of the gulf between
middle-class citizens and America's ruling classes," as Quart observes, then the recent surge
of non-establishment Democratic candidates, especially democratic socialists, may be the next
phase of a middle class revolt.
Recent surprise victories in Pennsylvania and New York in the Democratic primaries by female
candidates openly embracing democratic socialism, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who
bested Democratic stalwart Joe Crowley by running for Congress on a platform of free Medicare
and public college tuition for all, may not be the blip that establishment Democrats hope. In
New York, democratic socialist Julia Salazar is looking to unseat long-time state senator
Martin Dilan. Actress
Cynthia Nixon , running against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, has just proclaimed herself
a democratic socialist and promises to raise taxes on the rich and boost funding for public
schools. Michelle Goldberg recently announced in the New York Times that "
The Millenial Socialists are Coming ," indicating the intense dislike of traditional
politics in urban centers. These young people do not think of things like debt-free college or
paid family leave as radical: they see it done elsewhere in the world and don't accept that it
can't be done in America.
Historically, the more affluent end of the middle class tends to identify with and support
the wealthy. After all, they might join their ranks one day. But when this dream dies, the
formerly secure may decide to throw their lot in with the rest of the Precariats. That's when
you have the chance for a real mass movement for change.
Of course, people have to recognize their common circumstances and fates. The urban denizens
of New York and San Francisco have to see what they have in common with middle class Trump
voters from the Rust Belt, as well as working class Americans and everybody else who is not
ultra-rich.
If the growing ranks of Precariats can work together, maybe it won't take a natural
catastrophe or a war or violent social upheaval to change America's unsustainable course of
gross inequality. Because eventually, something has to give.
I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme
individualization.
Professed as a right for individual freedom and empowerment, in reality it serves to
suppress disobedience with shame. If you earn like shit -- it's gotta be because YOU are
shit. Just try harder. Don't you see those OTHER kids that did well!
Part of the blame is on New Age with it's quazi-buddhist narrative: basically, everything
is perfect, and if you don't feel it that way, it's because you are tainted with envy or
weakness.
Thus what is in fact a heavily one-sided battle -- is presented as a natural order of
things.
I believe we need a new framework. A sort of mix of Marx and Freud: study of the
subconscious of the social economy. The rich not just HAPPEN to be rich. They WANT to be
rich. Which means that in some way they NEED others to be poor.
Of course, I'm generalizing. And some rich are just really good at what they do. These
rich will indeed trickle down, they will increase the well-being of people. But there are
others. People working in insurance and finance. And as their role in the economy grows -- as
does their role in politics, their power. They want to have more, while others would have
less.
But behind it all are not rational thoughts, not efficiency, but psychological trauma,
pain of the soul. Without addressing these matters, we will not be able to change the
world.
I'm sorry if my thoughts are somewhat fragmented. It's just something I've been thinking
of a lot since I started reading NC, discovering MMT and heterodox approaches in general.
The problem is the perception the Democratic Party is reliable as a partner. The culture
wasn't a problem in 2008 when the Democratic candidate was perceived as wanting to raise
taxes, pass universal health care, and end the wars.
====Part of the blame is on New Age with it's quazi-buddhist narrative: basically,
everything is perfect, and if you don't feel it that way, it's because you are tainted with
envy or weakness.
That's where I first heard of this theoretical link. I think that it's flat out right and
post-WWII psycho-babble has seeped into society in pernicious ways (along with everything
else, breakdown of nuclear family, etc). Unfortunately, can't prove it like Euclid.
"A sort of mix of Marx and Freud"– the " Frankfurt School " is a start, with the
realization of "the culture industry" as force majeure in the "heavily one-sided
battle." And ditto recommendation of "The Century of the Self."
Responding to Sergey P: I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme
individualisation.
There are really only two alternatives to individualism. There is Durkheim-ian "society,"
in which we are all in this together – interdependent. I think this is still an
appropriate lens for a lot of smaller cities and communities where people really do still
know each other and everyone wants the community to thrive. And, of course, it is the only
way to think about human society nested inside a finite Earth. But it can only work on a
larger scale through mediating "institutions" or "associations." All the evidence shows,
consistent with the piece, that precariousness by itself weakens social institutions –
people have less time and money to contribute to making them work well.
And then there is Marx-ian "class." Which is to say, we are not all individuals but we are
not all of one group. There are different groups with different interests and, not
infrequently, the interests of different groups are opposed – what is good for one is
bad for another – and if power is unequal between groups (either because some groups as
groups have more power than others or because individuals with more power all have the same
group affinity), then powerful groups will use that power to oppress others. In that case,
the only remedy is to try to systematically empower the weak and/or disempower the strong.
This also requires collective action – institutions, associations, government –
and it is again noted that our collective institutions, most notably unions, have been
seriously weakened in the last 40-60 years.
The real world doesn't always fit into neat categories. Trump's America First is an appeal
to the "society" of USAmerica. Maybe there will be some improvements for working people. But
the argument in the piece, perhaps not as clearly stated as I would like, is that the
interests of the (former) middle class – as a class – have diverged from the
interests of the upper class. Changing that equation requires collective action.
Naturally one must quote the great Frank Herbert from his novel Dune:
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them
free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
'We already have a program that could improve the lot of the middle class if expanded:
Social Security.'
Never mind expanding it -- even the existing Social Security program is less than 20%
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its trustees. Scandalously, these trustees owe
no fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. Old Frank wanted pensioners to be forever dependent on
his D party. How did that work out for us?
Take a look at the transmittal letter for the 2018 trustees report, released last month.
Two public trustee positions are "VACANT," just as they were in last year's transmittal
letter:
Just above these blank spaces is the signature of one Nancy Berryhill, "Acting
Commissioner of Social Security." But wait --
On March 6, 2018, the Government Accountability Office stated that as of November 17,
2017, Berryhill's status violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the time a
position can be filled by an acting official; "[t]herefore Ms. Berryhill was not authorized
to continue serving using the title of Acting Commissioner after November 16." Berryhill
declared, "Moving forward, I will continue to lead the agency from my position of record,
Deputy Commissioner of Operations."
By June 5th, Berryhill was still impersonating the Acting Commissioner, legally or
not.
Summing up, even the trustees' one-page transmittal letter shows that Social Security is
treated as a total and complete Third World joke by the US federal government.
Yeah, yeah. Gubmint can't do nuthin' rite. How about we take our government back from the
plutocrats and set SS on solid footing again. There are no impediments other than the will of
the people to use our power. Now that the Boomers are moving off all sorts of things, like
'thinking', and 'logic', will become prevalent again.
Never mind expanding it -- even the existing Social Security program is less than 20%
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its trustees. Scandalously, these trustees owe
no fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. Old Frank wanted pensioners to be forever dependent on
his D party. How did that work out for us?
Correct, then the system will eventually be totally reliant on taxes coming in. According
to 2011 OASDI
Trustees Report
Beginning in 2023, trust fund assets will diminish until they become exhausted in 2036.
Non-interest income is projected to be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 77
percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2036, and then to decline to
74 percent of scheduled benefits in 2085
The benefits are never going to go completely away, the benefits will decrease if nothing
is done. Things can be done to change this, such as an increasing the the cap on earnings,
raising new revenues, etc. This is not exactly an "end of the world" scenario for SSI.
Also, no one complained when the excess SSI tax collected "Social security trust fund" was
used to keep interest rates down by purchasing Government bonds.
The whole tax angle is a complete red herring. Raising the cap is not the answer.
FICA is "the most regressive tax" the country imposes. Eliminating FICA altogether, doing
away with the "trust fund" and the pretense that SS is not the government taking care of it's
elderly citizens but is workers taking care of themselves, is the answer. If the emphasis in
Quart's book on the rise of a new democratic socialism means anything, it means reconciling
with the notion that it is OK for the government to take measures to ensure the welfare of
the people. Pay-as-you-go SS can become simply the re-assumption of our collective
responsibility to take care of our own, as a society, not as individuals.
I would be fine with that if I could trust the Federal government to do the right thing.
The problem is that we have too many people invested in the system, and I don't trust the
Federal government to not screw people over in a new system. You know what will happen, they
will set up a two tiered system where people over a certain age will keep their benefits, and
the new people will get a system that is completely crapified or means tested.
Well-put The only way to eliminate the constant refrain of "but SS is (insert blithering
comment on entitlement spending), is to shift resources to people rather than armies for the
SuperRich.
So we should just ignore the fact that our own Govt has "borrowed" $2.8 Trillion, at
least, from the SS Trust Fund so far and can't (won't) pay it back?
This "borrowing" should be illegal and I believe that "Old Frank" would be rolling in his
grave if he knew that would happen.
And I sincerely doubt his intentions were to get SS on the books in order to keep us
beholden to the Dem Party. And if that were true it is obvious that his party doesn't agree.
If they did they wouldn't be assisting in gutting the program.
The whole concept of creating and maintaining a multi-trillion dollar "trust fund" was
irrevocably flawed. When the surplus payroll taxes were "invested" in government bonds, they
entered the government's general fund and were promptly spent. The money is gone. That's why
it's on the books as a debt owed to the Social Security administration. There are no actual
assets behind the fund. It's just one part of the government owing money to another part of
the government.
However, what would the alternative have been? Investing in the crap shoot known as the US
stock market? No thanks. Or setting the funds aside in a bank account, where they would cease
circulating through the economy? That wouldn't have worked either, as all dollars in
circulation would have eventually ended up there, causing massive deflation.
None of these are workable. We should have gone on a strictly pay-as-you-go basis. If
payroll taxes generated more revenue than was necessary, we should have cut payroll taxes
and/or raised benefits. And if they fall short, we should raise payroll taxes and/or cut
benefits.
Today, we cover about 95% of benefits with payroll taxes. The remainder comes from "trust
fund redemptions", where general fund monies are given to the SSA to cover the shortfall.
Given that our government is already running a deficit, this means more borrowing (or
money-printing, depending on how you look at things).
When the "trust fund" is depleted, but SSA will lack the legal authority to claim any more
general fund monies, but it would be quite easy for Congress to change the rules to simply
state that "any SSA shortfall will be covered by the general fund". And I predict they will
do so in 2034, as it would take less than a month of constituents complaining about reduced
benefits to force even the strictest of deficit hawks to cave.
Or maybe they'll get creative and instead raise rates on the interest that the trust fund
earns. Right now it's a 3% rate, but if Congress were to double or triple it, the trust fund
would last much longer. [As would the debt owed to the SSA.] Heck, if they multiplied the
interest rate by a factor of 11, then they could theoretically dispense with payroll taxes
entirely. Right?
Yes, SS has contributed NOT ONE PENNY to the deficit and the reason it accumulated a
surplus was so people could collect later. Now, they want to say that old surplus shouldn't
count. That's thievery.
tired old tripe and how much is the US military funded? I can answer that for you. It's
ZERO. 0% funded! Take your heterodox BS to a bunch of freshman impressionables – it is
only tolerated here because you are a fine writer and interesting as hell and know almost all
there is about economic liberalism.
Wow. So let's go full SSCodex for a bit and push this trend out to the limit.
While the unwashed masses remain a market for big Ag, big Pharma, big Auto, big (online)
Retail, and a few others, it seems like the predatory 'fund' segment of the FIRE elite has
moved on to devouring larger prey (capitalist autophagy?). The unbankable precariat are
beneath their notice now, like pennies on the sidewalk.
So in that case, the 1% of the 0.1% has evolved beyond 'exploitation' in any Marxist
sense. It is now indifferent to the very life or death of the precariat, at home or abroad,
still less their security or advancement. It needs them neither for consuming nor producing,
nor for building ziggurats.
(Just so long as the pitchforks aren't out – but that's what the credentialed minion
20% is for. And drones).
Here Disposables, have some more plastic and painkillers. Be assured the Alphas will be
live tweeting the Pandemic, or Chicxulub 2.0, from Elon's luxury robot-serviced survival
capsules (oh, you thought those were for use on Mars? Silly rabble!)
It's like that DKs mosh pit classic: "Uncounted millions whisked away / the rich will have
more room to play"
[I exaggerate, of course, for illustration. Slightly.]
I think you can extend this analysis to the current U.K. Conservative Party. Commentators
have started to notice that the Brexiteer wing of the party seems completely impervious to
claims Brexit will harm the economy. Are the Tories no longer the natural party of British
business, they ask?
Using your logic, we can say that a fund-interest-dominated Tory party simply has no
interest in or need for the "ordinary" bits of the British business community anymore. What
it wants are shorting and raiding opportunities, and from that vantage point a catastrophic
Brexit is very attractive. Put these interests in coalition with a voter base largely living
on guaranteed incomes and retirement funds of one sort or another and you have the surreal
spectacle of an entire governing party and its supporters who are no longer anchored to the
"real" economy at all. Yes, it's an exaggeration but it's an exaggeration that explains a few
things, I think.
You both need to read the 2005 leaked Citigroup "plutonomy memo", if you haven't yet. Very
bright minds called it a decade ago, that the global economy isn't even an economy any longer
in any traditional sense. This is part one: https://delong.typepad.com/plutonomy-1.pdf
Great link. From page one, Citigroup thinks the global imbalance is a great opportunity.
Nothing new here. For years I've been reading about stock and futures manipulations–and
vulture capitalists–that cause people to die or kill themselves. The rich don't care;
they see it as a way to make more money. And then you wonder why I've been talking revolution
for years as well?
Answer: Add the US wasting its blood and cash meddling in other countries' affairs.
"honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." bueller ?
Ironic as multilateralist/globalist/fan of US interventions George Soros supposedly
provided some of the seed money for the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
I just want to not die earlier than necessary because I can't afford health care. I'd also
like to stop worrying that I'll spend my golden years homeless and starving because of some
disaster headed my way. I gave up on status a long time ago, and am one of those mentioned
who has little pity for the top 10%.
Sounds like a good book. I shall have to pick it up from my library, since buying new
books is a stretch.
Nearly all income growth in the United States since the 1970s has gone into income
obtained by the rich other than wages and salaries, like capital gains, stock options,
dividends, partnership distributions, etc. To capture overall economic growth to which the
entire society has contributed, Social Security benefits should be tied to economic growth,
smoothed for the business cycle. If people believe benefit increases require tax increases,
the tax should be applied to all earnings, not just salary/wages. Raising the $128,400 cap on
income subject to SS taxes would thus increase taxes on the lower rungs of the upper middle
class but not really address the problem.
I apologise in advance for being blunt and oversimplifying the matter, but at the end of
the day, (in my very humble and possibly uninformed opinion) nothing short of a mass
beheading would work. The 0.1% doesn't really seem, uh, willing to let go of their often
ill-gotten billions, and when they do (i.e. charities and such), they often end up being some
kind of scam. I refuse to believe that the Zuckerberg-types operate their foundations out of
genuine philanthropy. Acquisitions and mergers like Disney buying Fox or Bayer gobbling up
Monsanto don't contribute anything to the well-being of the 99% either, and I think that's
and understatement.
If there's going to be some kind of revolution, it needs to happen before the logical
conclusion of rampaging capitalism. the OCP-type megacorp with its own private army. And, if
there indeed is a revolution, what's next?
Case in point: as a public school teacher who has been opposing so-called education reform
for two decades, I can assure you that the "venture/vulture philanthropy" model that infests
the education world has absolutely nothing to do with improving education, and everything to
do with busting the teachers unions, privatizing the schools and turning them into drilling
grounds for training young people to accept the subordination, surveillance, tedium and
absurdity that awaits them in the workplace. For those lucky enough to have jobs.
As a result of this phenomena, I periodically suggest a new term on the education blogs I
post on: "Malanthropy:" the process of of using tax exempt, publicly subsidized entities to
directly and indirectly support your financial and political interests, but which are harmful
to the public good"
Clear and compelling analysis, although still a little MMT challenged. About to turn 70, I
vividly remember living through a sudden sea change in American capitalism. In the late
1970s/early 80s, whatever undercurrents of patriotism and humanitarianism that remained
within the postwar economy (and had opened the space for the middle class) evaporated, and
almost overnight we were living in a culture without any sense of balance or proportion, a
virulent and violent mindset that maxed out everything and knew not the meaning of enough.
Not only the business world but also the personal world was infected by this virus, as
ordinary people no longer dreamed of achieving a healthy and stable family life but rather
became hellbent to "succeed" and get rich. Empathy, compassion, and commitment to social
justice was no longer cool, giving way to self-interest and self-promotion as the new
"virtues." Men, of course, led the way in this devolution, but there was a time in the 90s
when almost every other woman I knew was a real estate agent. I touched upon a small
male-oriented piece of this social devolution in an essay I wrote several years ago: Would
Paladin Have Shot Bin Laden? For those who might be intrigued, here's the link:
What was needed was a Wyatt Earp, not a Paladin ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgvxu8QY01s
). His standard procedure in the old West was to use his Colt revolver to pistol-whip an
offender. Short, sharp and effective.
But then again there was no way that Bin Laden was ever going to be taken prisoner. That bit
on his resume as being a contractor for the CIA was a bit embarrassing after all.
I remember the 50's and even under the hue of bright eyes saw that people were just as
hell bent to 'get ahead' in their careers as now and that competing with 'the Joneses' in
every crude way imaginable was the rage.
Perhaps more precise to say that in the early '80s, Capitalism reached a tipping point
where gravity overcame thrust and virtues with latent vice became vices with the optics of
virtue. That and the fact that the right actors always seem available -as if out of thin air,
but in reality very much part of cause and effect – for a given state of entropy.
No doubt what was somewhat latent in postwar American capitalism became obscenely blatant
in or around the Reagan era. It was all there before, of course, in former times like the
Gilded Age. But in the midsize, now rustbelt city I grew up in and continue to live in, the
upper middle class of my childhood and youth–the doctors, lawyers, corporate exec's,
etc.–lived a few blocks away from my working class neighborhood, had nicer homes, drove
caddys instead of chevys, and so forth, but their kids went to school with us working class
kids, went to the same movies and dances, hung out in the same places, and all of us,
generally, young and old, lived in essentially the same world. For example, my uncle, a
lawyer, made maybe 3 times what my dad, a factory clerk, made. THAT was the split between the
middle and upper middle class back then, at least in a fairly typical Midwestern city. THAT
was what drastically and suddenly changed in the late 70s/early 80s and has only intensified
thereafter.
Terrific article, but with so many "missing" words (words left out)–too many to
list, gratis–you make it a serious challenge to consider sharing with literate friends
on social media. Seriously, doesn't anyone re-read their work before "posting?"
Well, at least the missing words in this piece don't make sentences unintelligible. I've
seen that happen before.
It's such a shame for authors to put so much work time and effort into their articles, but
then allow the lack of an editor or final read-through to tarnish the entire work.
One thing that strikes me – a generation ago the talking-point robots of the right
could decry "socialized medicine" and all those people supposedly dying while waiting for an
operation in foreign, "socialized medicine" places. And they could largely get away with it
because relatively few people had personal acquaintances outside their own area.
But now, anyone active in social media probably can interact freely with people all over
the world and appreciate how pathetic things really are in the US.
I read on a sports-related forum where an English guy had been watching Breaking Bad and
commented offhand that he was amazed at the cost of medical treatment for Mr. White. This
turned into a discussion between Brits and Yanks about the NHS. And person after person
chimed in "yeah, NHS is not perfect but this kind of thing could never happen here." And you
saw the Americans – "yeah, our health care system really is a disgrace."
I'm not a big fan of the social media Borg in general, but here at least seems to be a
good effect. It might over time enable more people to wake up as to how jacked up certain
things are here.
I'd like to declare us a completely divided, conquered people.
In the last few weeks I've visited with many old friends all of them suffering in silence.
Each and every one falling further behind, on the brink of disaster, if not already there. No
matter their credentials, many highly credentialed with multiple degrees and or highly
experienced in several fields. All with ridiculously high work ethics. All feel maintaining
personal integrity is costing them an ability to 'get ahead'.
Many of these friends have multiple jobs, no debt, no car payment, some have insurance
which is killing them, medical bills which bury them if they ever have so much as basic
health issues, and they are thrifty, from the clothes they wear to the amount of rent they
commit themselves. And yet 'staying afloat', is but a dream trumped by guilt and
isolationism.
I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply
leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry
15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem.
A couple months back I gave my camper to an old acquaintance who had no record, found
himself homeless after being falsely accused of a crime and locked up for two months. And
another friend with full time management position, just gave up her apartment to move into a
tent in another friends back yard. Both of these people are bright, hard working, mid
forties, white, family peeps with great children. The very kind this article addresses.
The noose tightens and people are committing desperate acts. There is no solidarity. No
vision of a way out of this.
Watch a ten dollar parking ticket bring a grown man to terror in their eyes. And he
brought in a thousand bucks last week, but has been texting his landlord about past due rent
all afternoon.
I feel like I'm on the brink of a million episodes of " Falling Down ".
I don't think the 0.1% wanted to build a society like this, it is just the way the math
works. Somewhere around 1980 the integrity of the US was lost and it became possible for the
owning class to divorce themselves from their neighbors and arbitrage labor around the world.
Computers and telecommunications made it possible to manage a global supply chain and
Republicans changed the tax rules to make it easier to shut down businesses and move them
overseas.
A different way to view this: as the wealthy earn profits they can use some of their cash
to modify the rules to their benefit. Then they gain more cash which allows them to influence
voters and politicians to modify the rules even more in their favor.
If people organized they could change the rules in their favor, but that rarely happens.
We used to have unions (imperfect though they were) which lobbied for the working class.
I think the 1980s was when I found out my wealthy cousins, who owned a clothing factory in
Georgia, had moved it to–get ready for this–Borneo! And of course they are
Republicans.
The collective decisions to pull up the drawbridge, and a lot middle-class people have
supported these decisions are the major reason why there is a housing crisis and
higher-education is so expensive.
A lot of people, especially middle-class people, come out with pitchforks every time a new
housing development is proposed, screaming about how they don't want "those people" living
near them and will vehemently oppose anything that isn't single-family homes which has
resulted in the housing supply lagging behind demand, thus affordability issues.
These same people over the years have decided that tax-cuts are more important than
adequately funding higher education, so higher education has become a lot more expensive as
state support has dwindled.
As the saying goes you made you bed, now you get to sleep in it. Unfortunately so does the
younger generation who may not have anything to do with the horrible decision making of the
past.
The article stated Americans are "Petrified of being pushed aside by robots".
Maybe I associate with the wrong people, but I don't know any who fear being pushed aside
by robots.
But I do know of someone who was being laid off from a tech firm and was finding his job
moved overseas.
The deal management presented was, "you can leave now, with your severance package, or get
two more weeks pay by training your replacement who will be visiting from overseas."
He trained the new worker for the two weeks.
The American worker is being hit, not by robots, but by outsourcing to other countries and
by in-sourcing of labor from other countries.
Robots are expensive and will be avoided if a human can do the job cheaply enough.
That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer
does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force
that depress USA wages.
In the USA, we are witnessing labor arbitrage encouraged by both parties and much of the
media as they push USA wages toward world wide levels.
But not for the elite wage earners who gain from this system.
Agreed. The kind of pink collar and barely white collar employees this piece was focused
on are not presently threatened by "robots". They are threatened by outsourcing and wage
arbitrage.
That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer
does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force
that depress USA wages.
You may have a point there, and you are spot on that the vast bulk of job-loss is due to
job migration and import of cheaper labor. But regardless of the writer's intent or simple
laziness, don't be too fast to poo-poo the effect of Robots.
One problem is that we tend to measure job loss and gain without reference to the actual
job loosers and the fact that re-training for them may well be impossible or completely
ineffective or, at the very minimum, often extremely painful. So while automation may provide
as many new jobs as it takes away old ones, that is cold comfort indeed to the worker who
gets left behind.
Another, is that the fear of massive job loss to Robots is almost certainly warranted even
if not yet fully materialized.
When the "Steel Wave" of robot workers comes ashore, I'll be near the head of the queue to
join the "Robo Luddites." If the owners of the robot hordes won't pay a fair share of the
costs of their mechanominions worker displacement activities, then they should be made to pay
an equivalent share in heightened "Production Facility Security Costs." Ford Motors and the
River Rouge plant strike comes to mind.
See: http://98937119.weebly.com/strike-at-the-river-rouge-plant-1941.html
It'd be great to be right there with you on that fateful day, Ambrit :-) (And I've even
got my gun with the little white flag that pops out and has "Bang!" written on it, all oiled
up and ready to go). I suspect however that it will be a silent D Day that probably took
place some time ago.
Hard Briexit looks to be baked in the cake
Global Warming disaster looks to be baked in the cake
Water wars look to be baked in the cake.
Massive impoverishment in developed and so called third world nations alike and insane 'last
gasp' looting looks to be baked in the cake
[ ]
Why would all manner of robots, the ones too tiny to see along with human looking ones and
giant factories that are in reality themselves robots be the exception?
We'd be facing robots, so that flag would have to go "Bang" in binary code. (Might even
work. While they are trying to decipher the flag, we can switch their tubes of graphite
lubricant with tubes of carborundum.)
When the technologically capable humans have all died off, will the robots perish likewise
for lack of programmers?
"Robots" are software programs, do-it-yourself online appointments, voice recognition,
"press 1 now." What's the point of retraining? All you're good for is to make sure the plug
is in the wall.
The act of training the overseas replacement could become an act of sabotage. Think of the
ways that one could train the replacement to do the job incorrectly, more slowly than
necessary, or not at all.
In a lot of cases that doesn't require much 'intentional' effort. But the lure of cheap
labor seems to conquer all. I've seen software companies take loss after loss on off-shore
development team screw ups until they finally get it right. I even saw one such company go
out of business trying rather than just calling it quits and going back to what was left of
their core developers.
As I approach 40, having only realized in recent years that the constant soul-ache I've
lived with my whole life is not some inherent flaw in my being, but a symptom of a deeply ill
society, I desperately wish I could share in the glimmer of hope at the end of this post.
But I cannot. What drives me to despair is not the fragile, corrupt, and unsustainable
social/political/economic system we're inheriting; nor is it the poisoned and increasingly
harsh planet, nor the often silent epidemic of mental and emotional anguish that prevents so
many of us from becoming our best selves. I retain great faith in the resilience and
potential of the human spirit. And contrary to the stereotypes, I think my generation and
those who have come after are often more intellectually and emotionally mature than our
parents and grandparents. At the very least, we have a powerful sense of irony and highly
tuned BS detectors.
What drives me to despair is so pathetically prosaic that I want to laugh and cry all at
once as I type this. To put it as simply as I know how, a core function of all functional
human societies is apprenticeship, by which I mean the basic process whereby deep knowledge
and skills are transferred from the old to the young, where tensions between tradition and
change are contested and resolved, and where the fundamental human need to develop a sense of
oneself as a unique and valuable part of a community can flourish.
We have been commodified since before we were even born, to the point where opportunities
for what Lave and Wenger would call "legitimate peripheral participation" in the kinds of
work that yield real, humane, benefits to our communities are scant to nonexistent for most
of us. Something has gone deeply awry in this core social function at the worst possible time
in human history.
Sympathies from a fellow traveler – your experience sounds similar to mine. I'm a
little older and in my 20s I avoided getting a 'real' job for all the reasons you describe.
When I hit my 30s and saw what some of the guys who had been hanging out in the bar too long
looked like, and decided I ought to at least try it and see how it would go.
"Some quirk of my psychology means doing those things creates an irresistible urge in me
to slowly poison myself with alcohol and tobacco."
I think those things and drugs are conscience oblivators. Try gardening. Touch the earth.
Grow actual food. Not hemp. Back away from the education racket. Good luck. Quit the poison.
That was a wonderful post, very moving, thank you. These kind of testimonies are very
important because they show the real human cost of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is truly a
death cult. Please find an alternative to alcohol. Music, art, nature, etc.
Thank you for sharing your compelling story. As someone who could be your mother, it is
painful to me not only that this is your experience, but that you are so acutely aware of it.
No blinders. Hence, I guess, the need for alcohol.
You write beautifully. Hope is hard to come by sometimes.
At least you are self aware. Most people are not.
As for the Ship of Status, let it sink. Find a lifeboat where you feel comfortable and batten
down for the Roaring (20)40s yet to come. Once you find something to work for, the bad habits
will lose much of their hold on you. As long as you don't slide into alcoholism, you have a
chance.
Life was kinder just 40 years ago, not perfect but way more mellow than it is today. Kids
were listening to Peter Frampton and Stevie Wonder, not punk, grunge, rap and industrial
music. What changed? Neoliberalism, the economic policy that is private sector "free market"
driven, giving the owners of capital free, unfettered reign. Created by libertarians like Fredrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they sold it to the nation but failed to mention that
little peccadillo about how privatization of government would usher in economic fascism.
"An extreme form of laissez-faire individualism that developed in the writings of
Hayek, Friedman and Nozick they are also referred to as libertarians. They draw on the
natural rights tradition of John Locke and champion's full autonomy and freedom of the
individual."
What they meant was ECONOMIC freedom. They despise social freedom (democracy) because
civil, labor, health, food safety, etc., rights and environmental protections put limits on
their profits.
The "maximizing shareholder value" myth turns people into psychopaths
. The entire neoliberal economic policy of the past 40 years is based on the false assumption
that self-interest is the driving evolution of humanity. We're not all psychopaths, turns
out. We're social beings that have mainly used cooperation to get us through these thousands
of years of existence.
There's nothing wrong with wanting government to protect the public sector from predatory
capitalists. Otherwise, society's value system turns upside down sick people are more valued
than healthy violent are more valued to fill up the prison factories war becomes a permanent
business a filthy, toxic planet is good for the oil industry a corporate governance with no
respect for rights or environmental protections is the best capitalism can offer?
Thanks, but no thanks.
The easily manipulated right are getting the full assault. "Run for your lives! The
democratic socialists want to use the government bank for everyone, not just the 1%!!
They understand how the
economy really works and see through our lies!! Before you know it, everyone will be
enjoying a better quality of life! AAAAGHHH!!"
"If the IMF is to shake its image as an inward-looking, out-of-touch boys club, it
needs to start taking the issue seriously. The effect of the male dominance in macroeconomics
can be seen in the policy direction of the organisation: female economists are more likely to
be in favour of Government-backed redistribution measures than their male
counterparts.
Of course, the parochial way in which economics is perceived by the IMF, as nothing
more than the application of mathematical models, is nothing new. In fact, this is how
mainstream economics frequently is taught in universities all over the world. Is it any
wonder that the IMF has turned out as it is?"
Michael Hudson, as usual, was right:
"Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so
that they can go to work on Wall St. that there's no room in the course curriculum for the
history of economic thought.
So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media
that are a travesty of what these people really said and if you don't read the history of
economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and that's the way
the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way.
The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make
people think that the economy is getting richer while the reality is they're getting poorer
and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle class and
the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them."
Unfettered Fire and funemployed: deeply appreciate your lengthy and heartfelt posts. It's
a terribly small thing, but I have a suggestion to make that always helps me to feel a bit
better about things or should I say to feel a bit better about the possibility of things. If
you're game, and haven't already done so, search for the following free online book:
"Equality" by Edward Bellamy. Then do no more than read the introduction and first chapter
(and slightly into the second) to absorb by far the finest Socratic dialogue ever written
about capitalism, socialism, and the only nonviolent way to move from the former to the
latter–a way wide open to us, theoretically, right now. I know that's a hell of a
qualifier.
Why do modern intellectuals insist on inventing euphemisms for already known definitions?
The middle precariat is merely another term for the petty bourgeoisie. While they may have
possessed economic benefits like pensions and owned minuscule amounts of financial assets
they were never the dominant ruling class. Their socioeconomic status was always closer in
their livelihoods to the working class. After the working class was effectively being
dismantled starting in the 1970s, it has become the petty bourgeoisie's turn to be
systematically impoverished.
This is the primary economic development of our era of late capitalism. The question is,
what does it mean to be American if this country is no longer a land of opportunity?
Because the 'known definitions' do not apply anymore.
The middle has more in common with those below than those above. And here is the scary
reason: everyone is to be preyed upon by the wealth extractors who dominate our
politics/economy -- everyone. There is no social or educational allegieance, there is only a
resource to be ruthlessly plundered, people and their ability to earn and secure.
The so-called precariat lacks any sense of class consciousness and as a consequence are
incapable of any kind of solidarity. Nor do they perceive any predatory behavior in the
economic system. If the article is to be believed they blame themselves for their plight.
These traits which include the admiration and imitation of the rich are the hallmarks of the
petty bourgeoisie.
This disagreement over semantics is an example of the shallowness and superficiality of
new ideas. Marx already predicted that they'd be unceremoniously thrown into the underclass
in later stages of economic development at any rate.
The BigMedia & BigPols ignore the Type 1 Overqualified Underemployed cohort. Perhaps
hopefully someone like the new Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will discuss it, her recently
being of this cohort as an economist by degree working as a bartender. Instead we have
examples of BigMedia/BigPol crying about "STEM worker shortage" where there already are
countless underemployed STEM workers working Uber-ish type McJobs.
Afaict the only occupations (mostly) immune to Type 1 Overqualified Underemployment risk
here in Murica are medical pros: physicians/dentists/pharmacists & possibly nurses.
Otherwise there are stories of PhD Uber drivers, MBA strippers, & lawyers working Apple
store retail, especially in the first few years post 2008-GFC but still present now. In other
words, the US labor market "new economy" is resembling "old economy" of Latin America or
Russia (proverbial physicist selling trinkets on the Trans-Siberia railway).
"I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply
leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry
15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem."
This is a stark and startling reality. This reality is outside the framework of
understanding of economic struggle in America that is allowed by the corporate neoliberal
culture/media.
As the Precariat grows, having watched the .1% lie, cheat and steal – from them, they
are more likely to also lie, cheat and steal in mortgage, employment and student loan
applications and most importantly and sadly, in their dealings with each other.
Everybody is turning into a hustler.
As to dealings with institutions, this comment is apt.
I think this came from NC comments a couple of weeks ago. Apologies for not being able to
attribute it to its author:
"Why should the worker be subservient to the employer? Citizens owe NO LOYALTY, moral or
legal, to a someone else's money making enterprise. And that enterprise is strictly a product
of signed commercial legal documents. Commercial enterprise has no natural existence. It is a
man-made creation, and is a "privilege", not a "right"; just as a drivers license is a
privilege and not an absolute right."
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy. The Classical economist, Adam Smith, observed the world of small state, unregulated
capitalism around him.
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the
maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury
by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the
industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the
use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no
landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
How does this tie in with the trickledown view we have today?
Somehow everything has been turned upside down.
The workers that did the work to produce the surplus lived a bare subsistence
existence. Those with land and money used it to live a life of luxury and leisure.
The bankers (usurers) created money out of nothing and charged interest on it. The bankers
got rich, and everyone else got into debt and over time lost what they had through defaults
on loans, and repossession of assets.
Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the
parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had
shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity
of everyone else.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
How can we protect those powerful vested interests at the top of society?
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the
Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy.
The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society
again. It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the
money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let
bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their
loans.
The powerful vested interests held sway and economics was corrupted. Now we know what's wrong with neoclassical economics we can put the cost of living back
in.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees want more disposable income (discretionary spending).
Employers want to pay lower wages for higher profits
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food
+ other costs of living
The neoliberals obsessed about reducing taxes, but let the cost of living soar. The economists also ignore the debt that is papering over the cracks and maintaining
demand in the economy. This can never work in the longer term as you max. out on debt.
> These young people do not think of things like debt-free college or paid family leave
as radical: they see it done elsewhere in the world and don't accept that it can't be done in
America.
An unexpected consequence of globalization is that a lot of people see how thing are done,
elsewhere.
Part of me doesn't feel sorry at all for the plight of middle-class Americans. When times
were good they were happy to throw poor and working-class people under the bus. I remember
when the common answer to complaints about factory closings was "you should have gotten an
education, dummy." Now that the white-collar middle class can see that they are next on the
chopping block they are finding their populist soul.
At the end of the day we need to have solidarity between workers but this is a good
example of why you should never think that you are untouchable and why punching down is never
a good political strategy. There will always be somebody more powerful than you and after
they are done destroying the people at the bottom you will probably be next.
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
"... By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga . ..."
"... Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports . ..."
"... The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries. ..."
"... The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues: ..."
"... I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants. ..."
"... In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus. ..."
"... If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction. ..."
"... "Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force." ..."
"... never export their way out of poverty and misery ..."
By Enrico Verga,
a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he
concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His
articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many
other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .
International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force:
profit.
In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers
and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It
isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current
conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of
pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the
camel's back.
Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the
middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and
other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton,
and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top
of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.
A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by
Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of
Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits
of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of
figures like Clinton and Obama.
Further support for this thesis is furnished by the
New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its
analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream
Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.
And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American
counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the
analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic
fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that
currently grips Europe.
Migrants and the Shock Doctrine
What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?
Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their
managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and
expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods
(metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.
In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank
slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new
"happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock
doctrine."
The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for
mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became
famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't
adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the
scandal of
Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory
producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).
Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations
freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest)
labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can
bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing
for employment, then why bother?
The Doctrine in Practice
Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany
successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of
this achievement is the exploitation of workers
from the former East, as Reuters reports .
The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has
allowed many European businesses to
shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker
is much lower (
by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.
The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its
role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.
Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class
– and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they
are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes
illegally (
as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).
The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization,
while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a
journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi
continues:
This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic
crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate
bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by
pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the
diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a
miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.
Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an
explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is
financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of
voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way
– the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.
I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically
changing?" He replied:
I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen
recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself
forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an
influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just
think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic
migrants.
This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to
understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a
way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of
globalization.
In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on
which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily
focus.
What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?
At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the
(pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many
blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of
deputy Lia Quartapelle on
the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of
the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the
lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle
subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are
symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to
potential voters less interesting than other matters.
From Italy to America (where
Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that
she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of
exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.
We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces.
Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection
for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at
controlling international trade.
If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side
has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new
direction.
Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns
of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to
globalization.
If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other
differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and
keep our focus on what really matters.
From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must
acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but
that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION –
that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL
DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be
done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.
Fresno Dan,
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler
politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that.
Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in
the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must
continue.
I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate.
According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has
shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce
of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.
I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember
several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on
an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines:
'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure
fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems
unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those
chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or
established) that now control the EU and many world economies.
During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the
virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing
Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like
would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well
being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.
One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class
under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then
established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of
policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared
deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists
for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist
stuff from so-called working class parties,
And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet,
as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all
workers, whatever their own perceived status.
*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.
** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled
matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously
implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political
landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who
called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic
policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid
handsomely for their services.
I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never
saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into
this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into
racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading
when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US.
But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively
protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as
in construction.
I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think
a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the
expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage
thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of
the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption
(certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real
migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.
Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party
was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in
working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party
who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between
nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.
Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's
about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.
Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think
that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour
arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.
Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent
immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that
is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a
campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often
fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they
get right).
It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine,
collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments).
Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature
if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy,
rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in
your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are
done).
Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the
powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like
you.
Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to
say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It
makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in
contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.
But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time
in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)
"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world
IS a corrupt cesspool.
Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan
policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and
rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.
But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media
and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially
true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their
"it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.
Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more
vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often
from Europe.
However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti
Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely
ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves
and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on
Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs
union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour
markets when unfavourable conditions appear.
It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist
direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political
parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the
hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.
But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers
for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the
few over the many.
It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can
be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did
the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop.
First there would be color revolutions in western europe.
As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to
Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany
and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need
to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for
continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also
need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own
corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even
when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest
push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.
The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix
their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly
alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want
concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms
but not alone by far.
Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic
migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of
international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring
history) relective of a defensive mentality.
In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before
the next blow.
Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which
is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and
cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in
speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent
crash.
It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.
And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker
ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but
rather about more functional capitalism.
Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the
sort.
Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic
system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that
everyone would be under, wouldn't we?
Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one
set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while
they get the gentle rules.
For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that
everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate
different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the
more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the
fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of
Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to
destroy the system or did not care to support it.
Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in
Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting
the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin
friends. Just for fun.
Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO,
UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization,
Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."
Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national
sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique
of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there
is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him
to change his mind.
That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate
between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain
of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging
in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.
1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u
know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting
that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is
willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents
point :)
Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be
seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of
workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political
classifications obsolete.
This appears on the homepage, but not here.
In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.
Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this
video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by
Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who
reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.
To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and
pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with
something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern
political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have
been posted here, sorry Yves.
Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information
or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the
general welfare, writ large.
The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that
biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and
intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate,
regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and
rhetorical closure every time.
The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years
of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's
a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such,
all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the
record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts
that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that
parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy
flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger
entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the
human population.
Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military
senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated
proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the
healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the
prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of
inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that
cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.
Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive
levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose
guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half.
Divide and conquer rules.
It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near
power anywhere as far as I can tell:
"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want
protection for work and workers, "
Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights.
Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.
The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to
distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages,
some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they
have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even
though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.
Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home
country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist
shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic
migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against
them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower
or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this
happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is
nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce
surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself
wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly
that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist,
but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the
economic migrants because of this.
However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet
their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the
problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to
exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater
number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain
togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even
stronger.
Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly
noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and
not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of
the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each
other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come
for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.
You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class
who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."
Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?
If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would
enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or
would they have some choice in the matter?
When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers
produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are
actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to
another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your
logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would
suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.
When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but
instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are
straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the
capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work
toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will
either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect
the lives of workers.
When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false
equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and
instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public
figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred
to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the
article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article
and look them up before discussing the matter.
From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly
uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict
with the commitment to globalization."
To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he
should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers
American reflexes.
Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.
In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton
imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the
reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the
US.
The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to
look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia
and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer
countries.
Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.
Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point
out something.
Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and
peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining?
With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and
deplorables.
Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern
Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless
in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population,
especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using
fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I
would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry
about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.
"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth."
+10,000
I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich
countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we
live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of
inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to
live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this
economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world
countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do,
it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.
1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to
meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments
above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization
possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7
Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created
stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from
declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising
cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever
further.
2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political
parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and
left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national
sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in
current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods
and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that
even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is
a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the
alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9%
enablers.
I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.
I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can
benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said
policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within
the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with
the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor
policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the
ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.
So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the
workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used
to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think
we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.
It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the
labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most
from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the
working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their
profits.
A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of
enabling those overseas profits.
Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their
advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income
whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the
US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely
transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to
that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax
deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of
corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try
though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major
factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we
have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.
"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational
corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable
(i.e. cheapest) labor force."
FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US
in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here
to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we
view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then
fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary
extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some
sort of supranational
IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance
and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way
to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic
migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan
task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we
are at least moving in the right direction.
If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the
revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be
alleviated.
I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention
from this issue.
I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one,
for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try
to go through your points one by one.
"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"
Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of
them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can
have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an
analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if
we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the
Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent
have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an
imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it
certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant
role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely
clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of
course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization
and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american
drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame.
There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not
being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years
are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now,
could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the
extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing
onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.
If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a
rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their
needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a
country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries
close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems
to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of
this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the
US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are
much poorer will be able to either.
At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and
economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system,
which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in
instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite
small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes.
Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not
the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the
geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable
products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers
are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there
right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to
society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who
take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify
there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the
underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and
willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will
wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to
exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the
country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has
been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through
mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their
desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is
also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will
still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass
is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers
and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the
real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held
withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.
So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native
workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors
then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is
much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.
This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left
generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way
modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like
Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding
political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically
different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But
as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must
generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.
Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were
referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence
for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used
to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its
algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound
for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth.
While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it
will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of
the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its
exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs
nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US,
Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to
pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.
A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt
that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it
needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time
to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i
am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my
viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your
able to get something out of my response as well.
I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some
misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.
For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely
translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be
unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the
meantime.
You make two arguments.
The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article
speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues
with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are
economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get
US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply
some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.
I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are
suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge
that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say
things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country
workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist
system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current
conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting
more reactionary policies.
Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly
detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's
the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way
described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that
way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.
I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3),
as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might
in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run;
this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other
significant negative consequences.
Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question
of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital
reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long
run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness
to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.
I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the
impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing
in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in
which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his
arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this
misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so
analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the
article with arguments, not with vague epithets.
There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by
neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little
protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its
war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely
fabricated reasons.
Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are
decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the
consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate
intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist
policies.
One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable
of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already
destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental
contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who
protest about migrants must confront.
Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these
countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe
the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country,
for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human
fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions
of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity
and prosecuted so they are not repeated.
"... Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism (2012), ..."
"... Note: If you are more of a visual or audio learner, then please scroll down to see our "Recommended Videos" list. That said, a certain degree of reading will be required for you to achieve a thorough understanding of Socialism as a concept, in addition to the means by which we are to reach a Socialist/Communist society. ..."
"... Socialism and the American Negro ..."
"... Martin Luther King, Jr., as Democratic Socialist ..."
"... Why Socialism? ..."
"... The Principles of Communism ..."
"... Manifesto of the Communist Party ..."
"... Critique of the Gotha Programme ..."
"... The Capitalist System ..."
"... Marx's Concept of Socialism ..."
"... Marx's Concept of Man, ..."
"... The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' in Marx and Engels ..."
"... State Capitalism and Dictatorship ..."
"... The Black Church and Marxism: What Do They Have to Say to Each Other? ..."
"... The ABC's of Socialism ..."
"... Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State ..."
"... Reform or Revolution? ..."
"... The Mass Strike ..."
"... The Negro as Capitalist ..."
"... Marx's Concept of Man ..."
"... The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' from Marx to Lenin ..."
"... Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center ..."
"... The Invention of the White Race: ..."
"... Statism and Anarchy ..."
"... Bakunin on Anarchy ..."
"... Black Marxism ..."
"... Black Reconstruction in America ..."
"... Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media ..."
"... participatory economy ..."
"... self-managed economy ..."
"... cooperative economy ..."
"... a mode of production (in German: Produktionsweise, meaning "the way of producing") is a specific combination of the following: ..."
"... Productive forces : these include human labour power and means of production (e.g. tools, productive machinery, commercial and industrial buildings, other infrastructure, technical knowledge, materials, plants, animals and exploitable land). ..."
"... Social and technical relations of production : these include the property, power and control relations governing society's productive assets (often codified in law), cooperative work relations and forms of association, relations between people and the objects of their work and the relations between social classes. ..."
"... By performing social surplus labour in a specific system of property relations, the labouring classes constantly reproduce the foundations of the social order. A mode of production normally shapes the mode of distribution, circulation and consumption and is regulated by the state . ..."
"... New productive forces will cause conflict in the current mode of production. When conflict arises, the modes of production can evolve within the current structure or cause a complete breakdown. ..."
"... www.polecom.org/ The Political Economy of Communication, Vol 1, No 2 (2013) Theorising and analysing digital labour: From global value chains to modes of production Christian Fuchs, University of Westminster ..."
Richard
Wolff remains important
in the continuing education of the left from the time when (for some of
us), it was actually not a big deal to think of entry points and an Ideological State Apparatus.
Labor
aristocracy
remains the dominant feature of capitalism even as there has been resistance in the
form of workers cooperatives. Could there be in the US context, more viable examples of workers'
self managing institutions, or
Workers Self Directed Enterprises (WSDEs)
to minimize the social divisions created by
capitalism.
This has been covered by others in ACM especially on Mondragon, but it is Summer, and revisiting
this is important for renewal as elections are coming, despite the usual villains. There perhaps
are those who have not had occasion to cover this material and perhaps there are some who would
like to augment their current state of understanding
certain
materialist philosophies
.
As daunting as the terminology might seem it does require us to
think about some basic ideas like embodied labor and living labor and the property relationships of
that labor. Wolff's video below is one of many resources essential to understand the problems of
stratified labor divisions, and the exploitation of value.
Contemporary capitalism no longer "delivers the goods" (which is understood as a rising
standard of real wages) to the majority of people. That classic defense of its instability (e.g.
recurrent bouts of unemployment), its deepening economic, political, and cultural inequalities,
and its attendant injustices is no longer plausible.
At a national scale, this is what Stephen Miller and Donald Trump are doing in Europe, when they
promote a coded racism in the discourse of immigration, as a dog whistle for US bigotry and social
division across classes, races, genders, and sexualities. This is the actual "culture war" where
the social justice warriors against diversity are those "very fine people" wearing implicit and
explicit icons for hatred and supremacy.
This is ugly.
Trump says that immigration is not "good for our country" because it is "changing the
culture."
pic.twitter.com/7zTXE9Miyh
As a piece in WaPo suggests "Trump's lies are not a defensive response to protect a political
legacy. Trump's lies are his legacy."
But the first step should be understanding that there are some specific historical modes of
production with the inevitable unevenness of development. " because human beings have a rational
interest in developing their capacities to control their interactions with external nature in order
to satisfy their wants, the historical tendency is strongly toward further development of these
capacities."
(Cohen)
Class struggle is made more complicated when
false consciousness
is enabled by a crony capitalism manipulating a labor aristocracy. Self
development gets thwarted and subjugation as wage slavery can be compared in the immigration
context to actual slavery as human trafficking occurs.
While living and working
conditions for workers in the "global North" have deteriorated sharply since the late 1960s, the
result has not been, for the most part, the growth of revolutionary consciousness. Instead we
have seen reactionary ideas – racism, sexism, homophobia, nativism, militarism – strengthened in
a significant sector of workers in the advanced capitalist countries. Since the late 1970s,
nearly one-third of U.S. voters in union households have voted for right-wing Republicans.
(1)
[...]
"Obviously, out of such
enormous super profits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists
squeeze out of the workers of their "own" country) it is possible to bribe their labor leaders
and an upper stratum of the labor aristocracy. And the capitalists of the "advanced" countries
do bribe them:
they bribe them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt
and covert."
Workers'
self-organization and self-activity in the workplace struggles is the starting point for
creating the material and ideological conditions for an effective challenge to working class
reformism and conservatism.
Clearly, militant workplace struggle is not a sufficient
condition for the development of radical and revolutionary consciousness among workers.
Struggles in working-class communities around housing, social welfare, transport and other
issues; and political struggles against racism and war are crucial elements in the political
self-transformation of the working class.
Successful workplace
struggles, however, are the necessary condition for the development of class consciousness.
Without the experience of such struggles, workers will continue to passively accept reformist
politics or, worse, embrace reactionary politics.
In
Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism (2012),
Richard Wolff argues that global capitalism can no longer meet the needs of the world's
population. He goes onto note that socialism as it has been practiced during the twentieth
century cannot meet these needs either. His work is an attempt to construct a viable alternative
to global capitalism, centering on Marx's notion of surplus capital. Marx argued that one of the
most salient features of capitalism was that workers produce more than what they are paid for.
For instance, a worker may work eight hours a day but his labor in those eight hours may be
equivalent to twelve hours labor. It is the owners and managers that appropriate this surplus
labor, enrich themselves with it, and exploit the laborers in the process. What Wolff proposes
as an alternative are
Workers Self Directed Enterprises (WSDEs)
. In WSDEs,
workers, who produce surplus capital, are in charge of the profit, not owners, managers or
executives.
[...]
The last section of Wolff's work is an attempt to rethink the core
issue of the present; the massive inequality of wealth generated by global capitalism.
Here,Wolff articulates his vision of WSDEs. He claims that only WSDEs can actually be labeled
socialist because they represent the only instance in which surplus labor is appropriated by the
workers themselves. Wolff does not delve into specifics, such as the amount of property that
would need to be nationalized or at least held in collective control, or the degree of planning
needed.
His major question is the relationship between WSDE's, other capitalist
entities, and the government.
Wolff gives some insights as to the relationships that
may occur between these entities,,but does not speculate about interactions that cannot be known
in advance. He argues that just like any social advancement, the transition to WSDEs would not
be smooth or easy, and would be dictated in large part by the environment. Wolff does,however,
examine the possible social structures of WSDEs and their relation to surrounding communities.
WSDEs would be democratically controlled by workers,as well as the residents of the surrounding
community (since the decisions made by the workers would directly affect the community). In
addition, Wolff draws another distinction between producers and enablers. Producers actually
create surplus,while enablers, such as lawyers or janitors, allow producers to. Producers,
enablers, and members of the community all have a say in how the WSDE is run and how the surplus
is divided.
The problem as it always has been is the role of institutions like banks and the dilemma of
advanced technology. The interesting question is whether there could be a WSDE in Silicon Valley,
or WSDE schools.
The complex network of cycles of digital labour.(Fuchs)
Baltimore Worker co-op Red Emma's proves the power and potential for this model.
"From a founding group of seven, they�re up to 25 worker-owners, all earning a living
wage. The new location will allow for 10 more worker-owners � and they�re adding a
bar."
https://t.co/4GvTuNnVbu
� Black Socialists of America (@BlackSocialists)
June 11, 2018
(1/6)
"It's really only 'do ya got it?' or 'do ya not have it?'
And if ya have it, you can be the employer.
And if you don't, [then] ya can't [be the employer].
The fact that the employer who has it didn't produce it is a nagging problem we
prefer not to ask [about]."
(2/6)
"The logic would be, gee, the worker added the value; [they] SHOULD GET IT!
'CAUSE [THEY] GAVE IT!
[THEY] CREATED IT!
...
Do you think that happens in Capitalism?
No, you don't, do you?
We don't give the worker the value added... EVER, in Capitalism."
(3/6)
"[The Capitalist] has to rip the workers off...
[The Capitalist] has to STEAL from them part of what their labor added.
...
The condition of your employment is that you produce more by your labor than you get
paid.
Welcome to the capitalist system."
(4/6)
"The best way to describe your work in a capitalist enterprise is not that the
employer gives YOU a job; it's that you give your employer THE SURPLUS!
The 'giver' and the 'getter' are in reversed order from what the language suggests."
(5/6)
"What is 'Socialism,' given what I've described here?
...
The workers will still come to work ... but ... the surplus?
They get that.
...
What is the simple American phrase that captures this?
'Worker co-op.'
It's very old...
You don't need a new [theory]..."
(6/6)
It is time that Leftists come back to the essence of Scientific Socialism and, using
the method of dialectical materialism, truly evaluate the means by which we achieve
true "liberation" within the 21st century.
The revolution begins with us, and it begins in the workplace.
You can find the full lecture from Professor Wolff (
@profwolff
)
through the "Recommended Videos" section of our official resource guide linked below:
Note: If you are more of a visual or audio learner, then please
scroll down to see our "Recommended Videos" list. That said, a certain
degree of reading will be required for you to achieve a thorough
understanding of Socialism as a concept, in addition to the means by
which we are to reach a Socialist/Communist society.
The following list of readings are articles or excerpts from larger
works for those of you who may not feel like devoting hours out of each
day to diving deep into understanding Socialism. This reading list is
for people who may get the basic gist of why Capitalism is bad, but who
may not be too familiar with Socialism as a theory. Much of these works
deal with secondhand interpretations or explanations, so please make
sure to explore more fundamental works further down below.
With these readings, you'll have to think deeply, but maybe not as
long or hard as you would have to think when reading an entire book:
Most of these works are incredibly long and dense, so many of you
probably won't take the time to read through them, but Marxists.org has
plenty of content that summarizes and provides analyses on much of what
is shared here, and it also provides key excerpts.
These are works that are considered essential readings for
understanding the foundation upon which we base our socialist theory
and/or understanding today, in conjunction with historical records (in
other words:
this is some OG sh!t
):
An
economic system
consisting
of self-managed enterprises is sometimes referred to as a
participatory economy
,
self-managed economy
or
cooperative economy
. This economic model is a
major version of market socialism and decentralized planned economy, stemming from the
notion that people should be able to participate in making the decisions that affect
their well-being. The major proponents of self-managed market socialism in the 20th
century include the economists
Benjamin Ward
,
Jaroslav
Vanek
and Branko Horvat.
[5]
The Ward-Vanek model of self-management involves the diffusion of entrepreneurial roles
amongst all the partners of the enterprise.
Branko Horvat notes that participation is not simply more
desirable but also more economically viable than traditional hierarchical and
authoritarian management as demonstrated by econometric measurements, which indicate an
increase in efficiency with greater participation in decision-making. According to
Horvat, these developments are moving the world toward a self-governing socialistic
mode of organization.
[6]
In the economic theory of self-management,
workers are no longer employees but partners in the administration of their enterprise.
Management theories in favor of greater self-management and self-directed activity cite
the importance of autonomy for productivity in the firm, and economists in favor of
self-management argue that cooperatives are more efficient than centrally-managed firms
because every worker receives a portion of the profit, thereby directly tying their
productivity to their level of compensation.
Perhaps the best that can occur considering the entrenched hegemony of pre-capitalist
organization of universities and its constant attempt to make schools into factories, is
an
Online
Unversity of the Left.
A mode of production combines productive
forces and relations of production.
a
mode
of production
(in German: Produktionsweise, meaning "the way of producing") is a
specific combination of the following:
Productive forces
: these include human
labour
power
and
means of production
(e.g. tools, productive machinery, commercial and industrial
buildings, other infrastructure, technical knowledge, materials, plants, animals and
exploitable land).
Social and technical
relations of production
: these include the property, power and control relations
governing society's productive assets (often codified in law), cooperative work relations
and forms of association, relations between people and the objects of their work and the
relations between social classes.
By performing social
surplus
labour
in a specific system of property relations, the labouring classes constantly
reproduce
the foundations of the social order. A mode of production normally shapes the
mode of distribution, circulation and consumption and is regulated by the
state
.
New productive forces will cause conflict in the
current mode of production. When conflict arises, the modes of production can evolve within
the current structure or cause a complete breakdown.
www.polecom.org/
The Political Economy of Communication, Vol 1, No 2 (2013) Theorising
and analysing digital labour: From global value chains to modes of production Christian
Fuchs, University of Westminster
One problem is that state provided corporate structures are not useful (I wonder
why...). For example, here in Washington we have the "T-Corp" for worker coops ( as
opposed to C- and S-corps and LLCs) that suffer from the founders equity problem. In
Mondragon they solved this by taking the accumulated capital of out of the business as
pension investments in the coop bank, but in the T- Corp you have to leave the capital
in the business. This makes it impossible for the company to grow by attracting new
workers after some time has gone by because no one can buy in.
When I set up such a business about 20 years ago, we got around this by making an
S-Corp with custom bylaws. It cost about $1k back then, but it may be more now (and I'm
sure FL has its own special issues). But that is how to go about it IMHO.
Only problem is they don't exist where I live in Flawer'Duh. If I could start
one, I would. Sadly I don't have the capital necessary to do so.
@Hawkfish
of your first-hand experiences. You said you're in Washington
[state?]
I hear there are a few states that are more co-op friendly, like CA or VT
...
Here in SC the S-Corp with custom bylaws would be the route I would select, but I
was contemplating using another state ...
One problem is that state provided corporate structures are not useful (I
wonder why...). For example, here in Washington we have the "T-Corp" for worker
coops ( as opposed to C- and S-corps and LLCs) that suffer from the founders
equity problem. In Mondragon they solved this by taking the accumulated capital
of out of the business as pension investments in the coop bank, but in the T-
Corp you have to leave the capital in the business. This makes it impossible for
the company to grow by attracting new workers after some time has gone by because
no one can buy in.
When I set up such a business about 20 years ago, we got around this by making
an S-Corp with custom bylaws. It cost about $1k back then, but it may be more now
(and I'm sure FL has its own special issues). But that is how to go about it
IMHO.
So I don't remember much. But we required all workers (we only got up to
three) to be equal shareholders and paid out all earnings every year. But
unfortunately I don't even have the bylaws any more.
#1.2
of your first-hand experiences. You said you're in Washington
[state?]
I hear there are a few states that are more co-op friendly, like CA or VT
...
Here in SC the S-Corp with custom bylaws would be the route I would select,
but I was contemplating using another state ...
130,000 homeless children, empty food banks predicted this Christmas
