MyDD :: Los Angeles Times: Economy Is Changing Permanently For Marginalized Mainstream

Los Angeles Times: Economy Is Changing Permanently For Marginalized Mainstream

by ultraworld, Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:03:22 AM EST

I don't know if it's been mentioned here already, but the last few days has seen an excellent series on the economic changes we have been seeing and how they effect so many. People who were once middle class are becoming poor. The changes described here effect 80-90% of Americans.
All of those who work for a living

Here are the URLs. I'd suggest grabbing them quickly and reading them later offline. They are well-documented and very good.

If America Is Richer, Why Are Its Families So Much Less Secure?

For 25 years, government and business have forced workers to take on mounting risk. A Times analysis shows ever-larger swings in household incomes.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-riskshift3oct10,1,4792299.story

The Poor Have More Things Today -- Including Wild Income Swings

As economic risk rises, those near the bottom are hit with a vengeance: china plates, perhaps, but also more pay cuts and evictions.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-poor12dec12,1,5929236.story

How Just a Handful of Setbacks Sent the Ryans Tumbling Out of Prosperity

The family's plight mirrors a trend in which common events like layoff and illness increasingly prove devastating, The Times finds.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-newdeal30dec30,1,2022395.story

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

This was a great article (none / 0)

I read it yesterday, but didn't have time to do a diary. The L.A. Times did a fantastic job of marshalling the facts. They seem to be doing more investigative reporting lately. I've been wondering if the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe are making a run at the N.Y. Times and Washington Post in the area of investigative reports. I think both of the "premier" political reporting papers have been getting fat and lazy.

This story is also another argument for not privatizing Social Security. The risks to every American family from layoffs and health care problems are far greater than they were in the 70s.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:20:23 AM EST

Today Outsourcing, Tommorow Robots (none / 0)

http://roboticnation.blogspot.com

The writing is on the wall folks. The labor for money social contract cannot sustain a middle class anymore. Its time to go to a pure welfare state, hopefully one that protects the environment at the expense of consumers.

by Paul Goodman on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:09:33 AM EST

Re: Today Outsourcing, Tommorow Robots (none / 0)

What incomprehensible point are you trying to make here?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:36:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today Outsourcing, Tommorow Robots (none / 0)

When robots can do all the work of humans you have a dilemma. Continue to pay humans to do work and lose out on the benefits of mechanical slaves. Cease paying people to do work and witness starvation and uprising. Or you could simply give people money.
If people cannot be satisfied with any finite level of consumption, then they will consume everything they can, destroying their own environment. If you have the persuasive or coercive power to get people to accept a finite level of consumption, you might as well make it a sustainable level of consumption. To wit: I can be a candidate who promises everyone the world over a middle class standard of living. Does that mean 6 billion gas guzzling SUV's and 1.5 billion 4 bedroom hous in the suburbs? How could we do that? Better to promote the idea of being happy with less material consumption.

by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today Outsourcing, Tommorow Robots (none / 0)

Yes, technology eats a lot more jobs than outsourcing. Always has and always will. But a job lost, for whatever reason, is still a job lost.

With the exception of a few at the outer edges everyone in the world wants the same thing: the opportunity to get ahead in the world through their own efforts -- a meritocracy. Neither an oligarchy nor a welfare state.

As jobs are destroyed, through whatever means, their must be a way that can transition workers into new jobs. The right wing feels that the transition is the sole responsibility of the workers. On the far left they feel that the sole responsibility is on the business owners and government. Both of these are, in effect, stealing. A realistic solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Until both left and right realize that the strongest nation is one that works together we will continue to have problems. All must bear some part of the burdens in an equitable manner. Taking unfair advantage through political power is immoral and, in the long run, foolish.

Don't provide welfare, provide work; even if it is through something like a WPA with job training. Everyone benefits from a skilled workforce. Not just in economic terms, but also in human dignity.

Sweet is war to those who have not experienced it. (dulce bellum inexpertus) from Adagia by Desiderius Erasmus - 1515

by Herb La Tortue on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today Outsourcing, Tommorow Robots (none / 0)

If I invented a machine that could feed, house, and clothe all humanity with the push of a button, would you sneak into my lab and destroy it in order to preserve "jobs"? Wouldn't it be better for all humanity to begin a permanent celebration? After all work is concieved of as God's punishment of Adam, not a reward. People will doubtless act in such a future, but I wouldn't call their actions "work". I would call it play.

The most successful approaches to jumps in productivity have been to translate the gains into more and more leisure.

by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today Outsourcing, Tommorow Robots (none / 0)

I am not against technology (or robots) and do not believe I implied such. The point is that the social and economic impacts of all this must be dealt with - hopefully in a positive way. Having robots for the rich does not do the rest of the world any good when they have no home and no food. Further, some sort of work is necessary to human happiness. That does not mean doing menial labor, but excessive idleness creates crazy people and reduces lifespan.

Sweet is war to those who have not experienced it. (dulce bellum inexpertus) from Adagia by Desiderius Erasmus - 1515

by Herb La Tortue on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:53:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Can man be idle? (none / 0)

If I can restate your position: without a project provided by somebody else, most human beings will atrophy. Not to worry, there will always be busybodies who will seek minions for various projects. Only we can provide people the freedom to accept or reject them at their leisure.

Actually I think lifespan would increase with an increase in leisure and a decreasing in soul-killing work. People will find their niche in a world of fun.

by Paul Goodman on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:48:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Possible future? (none / 0)

I think that Paul is right about the future of the jobs that we know. The only jobs that are really safe are the higher-level creative jobs. But that is a tiny percentage of the jobs we currently have. These changes won't happen overnight. But I think that in 20 years, only, say, 20-30% of the people who are now emplyed in high wage countries like the US will be employed. There will also be a tremendous level of competition for those jobs. What the rest of us will be doing is anybodys guess. Those of us who have mortgages to pay will probably be under a lot of pressure, to say the least. Investments made now will probably not have a very good yield either, because everyone will be trying to sell at the same time. There will be a glut of real estate because people are not having children because of the uncertain future.

Get the picture?

On the other hand, there is still a lot of work to be done, socially, that cannot be done by robots.

Will we decide, as a society, to incentivize people to do it?

For example, older people being companions/mentors for young people at risk. We also could easily employ people doing various kinds of environmental work. one thing that really needs to be done is reforestation and watershed restoration in Third World countries. Hell, even in our own.

I don't THINK that kind of work will be able to be done by machines. But then, you never know.

Have any of you seen the movie "AI"?

I thought it was very good. It paints what I think is a very good picture of one possible future..

by ultraworld on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 03:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

democrats need plan ahead (none / 0)

Once you can paint a clear picture of the effects of technology, you can formulate compensatory plans. If everyone can have a robot slave for 20,000 dollars or so, we will all be aristocrats. If only the rich possess them or a cabal restricts their spread, then only the rich will have the tools they need to survive. If you prefer the former scenario over the latter, then plan accordingly.

Bottom line: just give people what they need to survive, dont ask them to work for it.

by Paul Goodman on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:51:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.