Technology is killing the American middle class. Automation, digital technology and outsourcing have wiped out millions of manufacturing, service and other blue-collar jobs in recent decades, and that trend is accelerating. Uber has chewed up the taxi industry; Google is working on driverless cars (why? Ed.) that could eliminate the jobs of 3.5 million truck drivers. The old “bell curve” of economic distribution, which supported a bulging middle class, is being replaced with a “power curve”, under which almost all the rewards of business accrue to the top 20%…….The term ‘disruptor’ has become an accolade”, but “what is being disrupted is not the occasional industry but the American Dream”. (Part of an article by Richard Cohen, The Washington Post)
This applies, not just to America, but to the whole industrialized world. Once upon a time there used to be unions to protect workers, and, yes, some of them were overweening and corrupt, but, good or bad, the corporations, in league with the politicians, managed to get rid of them. Soon the real unemployment – as opposed to the massaged unemployment figures- will be telling the real story. And don’t rely on services – they will be performed by robots.
Isn’t all this really dumb, short-sighted and against all common sense?
Firms like Google think they are being clever; actually someone with wisdom should make these geeks pause, think ofthe potential harm they are doing and attempt do something for the good of actual people, not because they are technically able to achieve it.
Otherwise there will be a revolution. People have to make a living and maintain their pride and self-esteem. Being able to take endless selfies doesn’t cut it.
Over the past century we have seen the rise of technology, particularly during the industrial revolution, but we never saw a corresponding decline in overall unemployment. Technology does not destroy jobs, it merely changes their nature. In Britain for instance, unemployment is now at 6%, it used to be much higher. German unemployment is at a record low, despite being a very technologically advanced nation. I agree with you that unions are good, but please don’t attack technology- something which has saved lives and worked wonders for the modern economy. The unemployment figures may be inaccurate, but the trends they report are not. If the unemployment rate comes down, it is because unemployment has actually decreased, as the extent to which the figures underestimate reality remains constant.
German unemployment is low because of various regulations, namely laws that prevent outsourcing in return for stagnant wages.
So if those regulations are imposed in America, wouldn’t that be better then having a less technologically advanced economy?
Sure, but theyre not sustainable regulations. I would support a German style system here, I just don’t see it as a lasting solution or something that exciting, but it’s better than nothing.
Though America’s economy is technologically advanced. Last time I checked, we weren’t riding horse and buggies and churning butter…
I didn’t say America wasn’t technologically advanced.
Then why did you ask: “wouldn’t that be better then having a less technologically advanced economy?” I’m unaware of anything but a few hippy dippy luddite types who advocate not having a technologically advanced economy. I’m just confused is all.
What I meant to say is that Robert is arguing that more technology can lead to less jobs. I’m saying that is absolutely false, especially if we have German style regulations in place.
More technology will always lead to less jobs. It’s just a matter of whether that will be a good thing or bad thing, and that entirely depends on the economic framework of society. Under capitalism, it depends, but it’s usually bad for the working class. Under socialism, it’s good.
I wouldn’t be a good commie if I didn’t think jobs were for suckers 😉
I very much admire your positive thinking, Owen, and hope you are right. Undoubtedly, new industries will be created that we cannot presently imagine. That has happened throughout history and will no doubt continue. The problems are that 1. technology at present is concentrating wealth into few hands ( that will continue, too); 2 . there are large numbers of people who are under- employed. and who don’t show up in the statistics, especially less educated, middle- aged men. 3. We are now rather dependent on service industries, and in a globalised economy a computer support person, for instance, can be replaced at a fraction of the cost by a teenager in Beijing (maybe a bit extreme , but it makes a point). I worry about the ” race to the bottom” in wages and everything else companies have offered up till now. But I think you personally sound as if you will be fine! It is the people who are not so bright and not so educated that I fear for. I hope I live long enough to be proved wrong! ( Written quickly and spontaneously!)
I think you are probably right. The economy will become increasingly specialised, meaning that people who are educated and have degrees will earn far more than those who will not. For middle class students such as myself, this is probably a good thing. But for older, less educated people, this is a disaster. Interestingly, older, less educated people are more likely to vote UKIP- presumably because the Left is so focused on university students, it has forgotten its working class base.
Not really, the whole specialized economy is a load of crap. I say this as an academic myself.
There are more jobs that require degrees now, and fewer manual labour jobs than there were 50 years ago. That is what I meant by specialised.
Again, this doesn’t lead to a “specialized economy”. I could go into more detail, but I’ll just leave this blog post that explains the issue pretty well: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=2252545
The Engineering of Labor Markets
The American dream has always been and is a fantasy, so I don’t think anyone should bother or be sad about it disappearing, since it never existed.
As for technology, well that’s not the issue, the issue is property rights within the capitalist framework. Within the capitalist framework, technology furthers the power and wealth of the capitalist class, which in turn increases inequality, economic downturns and eventually societal breakdown and collapse, and leads to the self-destruction of the capitalist system, something we’ve seen happen over and over again. This kind of is the point of the Communist movement and has driven interest in Socialism for over a hundred years. So join the socialist revolution and embrace robotics, automation, science and abundance, instead of trying to cling to some out of date and useless fantasy of a hard working, American middle class.
Even if you’re right, most Americans don’t see it that way. Most Americans have decent jobs, big houses, cars and are retalively secure. If capitalism is as bad as you are suggesting, why is there so little support for an alternative?
Most Americans have crappy jobs, no homes (apartments or worse), crappy cars, etc. What rock have you been living under? America is a pretty crappy place to live unless you’re in the top 5, ten percent, at least compared to every other industrialized nation.
What you say might have been true 40 years ago, but not anymore.
“If capitalism is as bad as you are suggesting, why is there so little support for an alternative?”
Not as little as some would like to believe. Also, regardless, that comment is an appeal to popularity 😛
Well 47% of Americans voting for Romney and a majority voting for Republicans sounds like a big endorsement of capitalism if you ask me. And its not true what you said about Americans having crappy jobs. Actually the average pay in America is 50% higher than Europe- its even more than that once you factor in cost of living.
Most people don’t vote, and voting is a crock anyway, second, this is irrelevant to my point in any case.
American wages are getting lower and lower, and once you factor in quality of life, America is piss poor compared to even many second world nations. So again, no.
I’m assuming you’re American. I can understand why you think voting isn’t worth it in a two party system, but here in the UK, voting is definitely worth it.
Not really, the UK has a barely different three party system.
I don’t reject all voting, I just don’t vote in what are clearly rigged elections. Might as well tell Cubans to vote…
The elections are not rigged!! Where’s your evidence. And they’re certainly not into UK- which is not a three party system anymore, its a multi party system, with UKIP, the Greens, the SNP, plaid cymru and the northern Irish parties all represented
Well any system that actively narrows and restricts peoples free choice in elections is rigged, no?
The UK is a three party system. It has smaller parties, but of little consequence, at least until recently.
I think thats stretching the definition of the word rigged, but even so, that doesn’t make voting not worth it.
Sure it does, if the system actively restricts and excludes candidates and parties that would change the status-quo, which I thought was the whole point of voting…
I guess being a cynical 25 year old has made me have a more realistic view of things.
Depends on your definition of status quo, the extent to which changing from democrat to Republican is changing the status quo is debatable.
Democrats and Republicans are both wings of the same party though 😉
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/wolff210613.html Capitalism, Democracy, and Elections
They’re both capitalist, but there are still significant differences.
Not really, no.
Try telling that to the 11 million illegal immigrants, most of whom will be deported under Republican plans.
You mean those being deported by the Democrat president who has deported more people than any president in history?
This Marxist nonsense: all capitalist parties are the same, is ignorant nonsense, and an attitude in which the vast majority of Americans disagree with. Its quite obviously not true to me.
In other words, I showed that even by your example, Democrats and Republicans are not very dissimilar, so you just lash out at me and call what I say nonsense 😛
“Its quite obviously not true to me.”
It doesn’t matter if it’s not true to you, it’s just reality.
American politics has never been more polarised. The differene between democrats and republicans has never been greater. In fact, most Americans wish there was more unity and less division. And I’m not ‘lashing out’, I think that’s an unfair characterisation.
What differences?
The economy- democrats want higher taxes and more social services, republicans want less of each. Social issues, like abortion, gay marriage and immigration reform. Healthcare- the right to universal healthcare in particular. Foreign policy- though I’m willing to concede there are less differences here, there are still some. The differences are not dramatic, but if they were American society would be even more divided then it is already. To say that the two parties are basically one party is far too much of a stretch for me.
You’re wrong on the economics point, but as for social wedge issues, sort of true. Though Democrats do not generally act on these social promises once elected because they are useful social wedge issues. Also that’s hardly much difference in any case. As for foreign policy, hah, don’t make me laugh.
When groups have the same goals, they tend to act and stand for the same things.
They don’t have the same goalsIts widely recognised by political scientists that the two parties have different ideologies. The democrats are modern liberals with a big social democratic faction (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren etc…)and a shrinking centrist faction, due to the decline of the southern democrats. The republicans are a conservative party, influenced by liberal views on the economy, with more traditional conservatism on the social issues. They also have a growing libertarian faction, and a more extreme conservative faction with the tea party, who are distinguished from the establishment moderates like Mitt Romney.
They both stand for the capitalist system and more specifically “neoliberalism”. Hardly a difference there.
Where did you get the idea of the “Democrats” being “social democrats”? On a side note, Bernie Sanders is not officially a Democrat, but he acts like such a loyal hack of theirs, he’s confused for one often 😛 IMO he’s pretty useless no matter what your views are.
He plans on running for president on the democratic ticket. Its factually false to suggested that the democrats stand for neoliberalism- they are divided between Clinton’s third way and European style social democracy. They are not the right wing party you suggested they are, for the most part, they want higher taxes and more social welfare spending.
He does? Ahahaha, at least he’s not pretending anymore.
The Democrats are not right wing, until they’re in office…
I think that’s a tad cynical, but because here in England its getting late so I’ll concede the point and not argue anymore. All I would say is that the passion and vigour in which Americans and their politicians debate politics proves that there are meaningful differences in politics, not just superficial ones. As a Marxist, I’m sure you’re frustrated at the utter dedication both parties have to capitalism, but please don’t let your apathy prevent you from voting. America needs people like you to vote, to offset all the right wingers out there. Bear that in mind come the next election.
I’m not just a tad cynical, I’m very cynical 😉
I guess the major political debates in the mainstream media have changed since I stopped paying attention to them 😛
I’m not at all frustrated at the parties stances and actions, I sincerely hope they continue down their path and bring the system crashing down in flames. Now that gives me hope.