Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future Of America's Working Class

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Future Of America's Working Class

    The Future Of America's Working Class
    Joel Kotkin, 06.01.10, 5:45 PM ET



    Watford, England, sits at the end of a spur on the London tube's Metropolitan line, a somewhat dreary city of some 80,000 rising amid the pleasant green Hertfordshire countryside. Although not utterly destitute like parts of south or east London, its shabby High Street reflects a now-diminished British dream of class mobility. It also stands as a potential warning to the U.S., where working-class, blue-collar white Americans have been among the biggest losers in the country's deep, persistent recession.

    As you walk through Watford, midday drinkers linger outside the One Bell pub near the center of town. Many of these might be considered "yobs," a term applied to youthful, largely white, working-class youths, many of whom work only occasionally or not at all. In the British press yobs are frequently linked to petty crime and violent behavior--including a recent stabbing outside another Watford pub, and soccer-related hooliganism.

    In Britain alcoholism among the disaffected youth has reached epidemic proportions. Britain now suffers among the highest rates of alcohol consumption in the advanced industrial world, and unlike in most countries, boozing is on the upswing.

    Some in the media, particularly on the left, decry unflattering descriptions of Britain's young white working class as "demonizing a whole generation." But many others see yobism as the natural product of decades of neglect from the country's three main political parties.

    In Britain today white, working-class children now seem to do worse in school than immigrants. A 2003 Home Office study found white men more likely to admit breaking the law than racial minorities; they are also more likely to take dangerous drugs. London School of Economics scholar Dick Hobbs, who grew in a hardscabble section of east London, traces yobism in large part to the decline of blue-collar opportunities throughout Britain. "The social capital that was there went [away]," he suggests. "And so did the power of the labor force. People lost their confidence and never got it back."

    Over the past decade, job gains in Britain, like those in the United States, have been concentrated at the top and bottom of the wage profile. The growth in real earnings for blue-collar professions--industry, warehousing and construction--have generally lagged those of white-collar workers.

    Tony Blair's "cool Britannia,"epitomized by hedge fund managers, Russian oligarchs and media stars, offered little to the working and middle classes. Despite its proletarian roots, New Labour, as London Mayor Boris Johnson acidly notes, has presided over that which has become the most socially immobile society in Europe.

    This occurred despite a huge expansion of Britain's welfare state, which now accounts for nearly one-third of government spending. For one thing the expansion of the welfare state apparatus may have done more for high-skilled professionals, who ended up nearly twice as likely to benefit from public employment than the average worker. Nearly one-fifth of young people ages 16 to 24 were out of education, work or training in 1997; after a decade of economic growth that proportion remained the same.

    Some people, such as The Times' Camilla Cavendish, even blame the expanding welfare state for helping to create an overlooked generation of "useless, jobless men--the social blight of our age." These males generally do not include immigrants, who by some estimates took more than 70% of the jobs created between 1997 and 2007 in the U.K.

    Immigrants, notes Steve Norris, a former member of Parliament from northeastern London and onetime chairman of the Conservative Party, tend to be more economically active than working-class white Britons, who often fear employment might cut into their benefits. "It is mainly U.K. citizens who sit at home watching daytime television complaining about immigrants doing their jobs," asserts Norris, a native of Liverpool.

    The results can be seen in places like Watford and throughout large, unfashionable swaths of Essex, south and east London, as well as in perpetually depressed Scotland, the Midlands and north country. Rising housing prices, driven in part by "green" restrictions on new suburban developments, have further depressed the prospects for upward mobility. The gap between the average London house and the ability of a Londoner to afford it now stands among the highest in the advanced world.

    Indeed, according to the most recent survey by demographia.com, it takes nearly 7.1 years at the median income to afford a median family home in greater London. Prices in the inner-ring communities often are even higher. According to estimates by the Centre for Social Justice, unaffordability for first-time London home buyers doubled between 1997 and 2007. This has led to a surge in waiting lists for "social housing"; soon there are expected by to be some 2 million households--5 million people--on the waiting list for such housing.

    With better-paid jobs disappearing and the prospects for home ownership diminished, the traditional culture of hard work has been replaced increasingly by what Dick Hobbs describes as the "violent potential and instrumental physicality." Urban progress, he notes, has been confused with the apparent vitality of a rollicking night scene: "There are parts of London where the pubs are the only economy."

    London, notes the LSE's Tony Travers, is becoming "a First World core surrounded by what seems to be going from a second to a Third World population." This bifurcation appears to be a reversion back to the class conflicts that initially drove so many to traditionally more mobile societies, such as the U.S., Australia and Canada.

    Over the past decade, according to a survey by IPSOS Mori, the percentage of people who identify with a particular class has grown from 31% to 38%. Looking into the future, IPSOS Mori concludes, "social class may become more rather than less salient to people's future."

    Britain's present situation should represent a warning about America's future as well. Of course there have always been pockets of white poverty in the U.S., particularly in places like Appalachia, but generally the country has been shaped by a belief in class mobility.

    But the current recession, and the lack of effective political response addressing the working class' needs, threatens to reverse this trend.

    More recently middle- and working-class family incomes, stagnant since the 1970s, have been further depressed by a downturn that has been particularly brutal to the warehousing, construction and manufacturing economies. White unemployment has now edged to 9%, higher among those with less than a college education. And poverty is actually rising among whites more rapidly than among blacks, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

    You can see the repeat here of some of the factors paralleling the development of British yobism: longer-term unemployment; the growing threat of meth labs in hard-hit cities and small towns; and, most particularly, a 20% unemployment rate for workers under age 25. Amazingly barely one in three white teenagers, according to a recent Hamilton College poll, thinks his standard of living will be better than his parents'.

    It's no surprise then that Democrats are losing support among working-class whites, much like the now-destitute British Labour Party. But the potential yobization of the American working class represents far more than a political issue. It threatens the very essence of what has made the U.S. unique and different from its mother country.

    Joel Kotkin is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is also an adjunct fellow at the Legatum Institute in London and serves as executive editor of newgeography.com. He writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes. His latest book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, was published in February 2010 by Penguin Press.
    The Future Of America's Working Class - Forbes.com
    For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

  • #2
    The article does indeed touch upon something that seems ever-present in Britain and that's the lack of social mobility.

    Lower and Middle-Class employment forms the core of any economy, but those jobs just aren't there anymore, due largely to a potent mix of Thatcherism AND New Labour, seeing normal people screwed from both ends of the political spectrum.

    It's not immigration (though immigration is the perennial red herring) so much as the after effect of deregulating and privatising, without a proper plan for what comes next, which is never what the neoliberal manual tells us will:

    Dead estates, full of people who want to work but can't, and people who don't want to work but could. No attention, no hope, no future - whole communities quite literally going nowhere, and going nowhere slowly.
    There were tons of jobs created in the UK's financial binge, but they went disproportionately to the focus of private and public wealth, the London region, the main increase of wealth these outer estates saw was increased value on their property, which was unsustainable and wiped out once the financial crisis took hold, leaving the billpayers for the financial speculation with by far the least to lean back upon.
    Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
    - John Stuart Mill.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't like the term "working" class. What does that mean? Does Steve Ballmer not work? Does Kobe Bryant not work? Does Robert Downey Jr. not work? You know who don't work? Unemployed people.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        I don't like the term "working" class. What does that mean? Does Steve Ballmer not work? Does Kobe Bryant not work? Does Robert Downey Jr. not work?
        It traditionally was used by the Labour/Trade Union movement to refer to anyone who works for a wage, ie everyone who works, but was cross-sectioned to generally mean manual labour (miners, labourers, machinists, steelworkers) and those who were least well paid (which was the kind of person Unions wanted to attract, as a grassroots movement).

        It's a rhetorical phrase more than having any real definitive meaning, we are indeed all working class, and the old working class jobs are eroding at a rapid rate, indeed they may not be here in 20 years time:

        My father was a skilled construction engineer who worked for a company that made car parts (and stayed competitive due to government protection of the industry) in Drogheda, My mother was from a Mining family and became a Machinist - those industries are long dead now, and it evens seems exotic to some to come from a manufacturing family, when nobody now knows anyone who's involved in it, bar computers or light industry.

        It's weird to think of a whole way of life and employment just dissapearing, my dad hated the new economy, and the Celtic Tiger, he never trusted someone who didn't earn what they earned, as he used to say.
        Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
        - John Stuart Mill.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          I don't like the term "working" class. What does that mean? Does Steve Ballmer not work? Does Kobe Bryant not work? Does Robert Downey Jr. not work? You know who don't work? Unemployed people.


          I like it, I am a scaffolder in mining. It's dirty and a bit dangerous and I feel like I made an honest wage and make more than many a university graduate. Plus scaffolding is like playing on the monkey bars as a grown up.

          Working Class makes me feel special. :P


          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSJGrpfnOI


          Let Jimmy do the talking. :)
          Originally posted by GVChamp
          College students are very, very, very dumb. But that's what you get when the government subsidizes children to sit in the middle of a corn field to drink alcohol and fuck.

          Comment


          • #6
            The disparity is in great part a result of globalization. It is not in any countries interest to have huge disparities especially one with a consumer economy. Internal demand requires income to purchase items and prevents some exporting of investment. If a small amount of the population can purchase all they desire then invest where ever they can see large gains while a growing number lack disposable income it's unsustainable. No middle or big numbers of poor = unstability. I think it's one of the reasons for the green energy push by moderates/left of center folks. It can create jobs going forward if we are the leader in the field and it lowers our dependence on foriegn oil. Also, some of the argument for redistributive taxation to build things like high speed rails, modernize public buildings etc is to give those left behind by globalization better options as well as trying to build maintain a first class infrastructure.
            I don't think we have a future of alcohol abuse that GB is experiencing. We are way down the list per capita on drunkeness.
            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
            ~Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #7
              The Monty Python was a visionary troupe. Yorkshire!

              Comment


              • #8
                Say what?

                Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                The disparity is in great part a result of globalization. It is not in any countries interest to have huge disparities especially one with a consumer economy.
                There's nothing wrong with a large gap between the rich and the so-called "poor" as long as there's income mobility.

                Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                Internal demand requires income to purchase items and prevents some exporting of investment. If a small amount of the population can purchase all they desire then invest where ever they can see large gains while a growing number lack disposable income it's unsustainable.
                Oh yeah? Without these people with large sum of disposable income, we wouldn't have all these innovations that trickle down. How much was a cell phone in 1982? How many people could afford one back then? Not many people. How did the price come down? Not by government mandate but by market forces. People saw that a toy for the rich was really cool to have, so instead of making everyone rich, capitalism made the rich toy so cheap that even the "poor" can have multiples.

                Ever heard of this innovation called "radar range" in the 1950s? It was $5000 a piece and only the super rich could afford it back then. But it was a convenient way to heat up food and the market forces made it cheaper and cheaper. Now, you can walk into BestBuy and buy a microwave oven for $60. The price came down not because of government mandate, but because of capitalism. There's a market for it and people will find a way.

                "We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich can afford to burn candles." -- Thomas Edison.

                Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                No middle or big numbers of poor = unstability.
                What is "poor?" Our poor is not the same as the poor in Brazil or India.

                Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                I think it's one of the reasons for the green energy push by moderates/left of center folks. It can create jobs going forward if we are the leader in the field and it lowers our dependence on foriegn oil.
                Green energy is BS, for now. It has to be subsidized by people who actually work and produce things others want. What we need to do is get rid of government mandates on green energy and let the market take over. No one could afford electric lighting when it first came out. No one could afford a microwave oven when it first came out. No one could afford a cell phone when it first came out. Now they are everyday, even disposable items, not due to government mandate, but due to market forces.

                Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                Also, some of the argument for redistributive taxation to build things like high speed rails, modernize public buildings etc is to give those left behind by globalization better options as well as trying to build maintain a first class infrastructure.
                What is "left behind?" Why is high speed rail good? Do you force those who are "left behind" to use high speed rail and go to places that they don't want to go, just because?

                Our infrastructure is good. It's just not the euro-lefty-socialist vision of infrastructure.

                For example, how many of those euro-lefty-socialist-hippies do you think will take a "train" from one city to another? Or even within the same city? How many of those same people do you think would take a "bus?" Case closed.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • #9
                  gunnut,

                  There's nothing wrong with a large gap between the rich and the so-called "poor" as long as there's income mobility.
                  unfortunately there's not too many cases of this; generally speaking income/social mobility decreases as the gap increases.

                  What we need to do is get rid of government mandates on green energy and let the market take over. No one could afford electric lighting when it first came out.
                  that's predicated on the theory that conventional energy isn't subsidized and is also open to market forces. nothing could be further from the truth.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    gunnut,

                    unfortunately there's not too many cases of this; generally speaking income/social mobility decreases as the gap increases.
                    Using what example?

                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    that's predicated on the theory that conventional energy isn't subsidized and is also open to market forces. nothing could be further from the truth.
                    How is conventional energy subsidized? What about all the rules, regulations, and taxes on conventional energy?

                    How much do we pay directly in taxes for a gallon of gasoline? How about indirectly, when we force the oil companies to drill offshore, in 5000' of water instead of on land?
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      gunnut,



                      unfortunately there's not too many cases of this; generally speaking income/social mobility decreases as the gap increases.

                      I blame that on the individual. If you don't like the situation you are in and there are no jobs move.

                      I grew up with not a lot of money and didn't even understand how people could afford a house. I could not wrap my head around owing $250,000+ but now I own 2 properties and on my way to a third.

                      I'm not even a university graduate, I'm a scaffolder who got into mining. I'm doing well now because I am completely willing to chase the dollar wherever it is. Even if I had children I would go and move them as soon as I could afford it.

                      I'm willing to work my ass off to one day not have to work in a dirty dangerous job and I'm on the right track. I am also busting my ass because I hope to one day get a Spitfire or have an exact down to the last detail replica built. :))



                      When I move back to Vancouver I have heard that the job situation is not ideal. I already know that I'm going to have to fly in and out of Alberta to work in the oil fields.

                      This all started from scratch, not even two years ago I was pushing a broom around a construction site because that's the only work I can find. I also left a bad situation I was in by getting a one way ticket to the UK. I landed with 450 Pounds in my pocket cash.

                      I did have one stroke of luck there though, I should not have been let in but I was wearing some old combat pants and the border control lady was ex armed forces and went to Wainwright for training where I also had done some myself. She recognised that the pants where Canadian straight away and we traded some stories instead of the usual "do you have sufficient funds and a return ticket". Other than that all I've accomplished is all me.


                      If life is shit and you have no money you have no one to blame but yourself.
                      Last edited by Repatriated Canuck; 10 Jun 10,, 05:47.
                      Originally posted by GVChamp
                      College students are very, very, very dumb. But that's what you get when the government subsidizes children to sit in the middle of a corn field to drink alcohol and fuck.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        Using what example?



                        How is conventional energy subsidized? What about all the rules, regulations, and taxes on conventional energy?

                        How much do we pay directly in taxes for a gallon of gasoline? How about indirectly, when we force the oil companies to drill offshore, in 5000' of water instead of on land?
                        Your reasoning against "goverment interference" and reliance on the free market as some panacea and answer to everything would mean no highway system, no ports and none of the advances made because of Apollo. The entire hiway system is a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. The free market didn't need to go to the Moon did it? How much of your microwave miracle was a result of advances due to federal contracts? You don't think more people would find rail attractive if it wasn't like riding on a horse drawn cart and slower than all hell? Apollo R&D Changed Technology History - Computerworld
                        http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...onomic_growth/

                        Sure the private sector innovates but you dismiss all the federal funds and contracts that generated much of the resources for that innovation as well as much of the innovation itself.
                        Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                        ~Ronald Reagan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [QUOTE=gunnut;741896]Using what example?


                          QUOTE]

                          Umm Every civilization in Human history?
                          Graphic: How Class Works - New York Times
                          Did you know those horrible socialist Scandenavian countries have more income mobility?
                          Last edited by Roosveltrepub; 10 Jun 10,, 15:29.
                          Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                          ~Ronald Reagan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            gunnut,

                            Using what example?
                            using the US historical example:

                            http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2009/wp0907.pdf

                            it only makes sense. a growing GINI coefficient means that the gap in wealth between poor and wealthy has increased, which makes it harder for poor people to jump into the wealthy/middle classes.

                            How is conventional energy subsidized? What about all the rules, regulations, and taxes on conventional energy?

                            How much do we pay directly in taxes for a gallon of gasoline? How about indirectly, when we force the oil companies to drill offshore, in 5000' of water instead of on land?
                            conventional energy is -massively- subsidized and warped. you need to think of it on the global level, where energy is bought and traded. OPEC is the world's most massive cartel (although de beers is a close second), and thus supply is very badly warped according to demand.

                            also, the US alone gives about $36 billion in energy subsidies, including tax breaks for drilling, manufacturing, royalty waivers. that's direct subsidies.

                            then think about the costs of US wars to ensure oil supply stability; indirect effects such as funding terrorism, mono-resource (and thereby highly unstable) countries, environmental damage.

                            these are -all- subsidies and massively hide the true cost of conventional energy.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              expat,

                              If life is shit and you have no money you have no one to blame but yourself.
                              that's not always true-- for instance, how about the person with mental disabilities, or even the slow learners? the people without parents, or the abusive parents? physically disabled people?

                              there are factors outside personal control that influence the ease by which a person can attain wealth. being poor is not all about skill and drive. i know a few silicon valley and wall street hotshots now working at the local safeway/dean & deluca, certainly not by any wish or lack of trying on their own.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X