Shared. The basic arguments are sound. However, this: ... it kinda made me go hmmm. $6.36 an hour at 6 cents per line doesn't seem like a lot of lines. and in digging into it, 6 cents per line sucks, but isn't crazy shitty. Let's say she's paying 20% FICA. That means her $6.36 at 6 cents per line isn't 106 lines, it's 127. Let's presume 70 characters per line and 5 characters per word; that's 14 words per line. 127 lines per hour x 14 words per line = 1778 words per hour = 30 words per minute. I'm no medical transcriber and the typing test I just did put me at 86 words per minute. And I just got a new laptop two days ago. $19 an hour at 6 cents per line is 317 lines per hour, is 4400 words per hour, is 74 words per minute. It's not my idea of a dream job but if she's been doing it for years... I dunno. There's the crushing reality of latter-day outsourcing and then there's "you aren't very good at your job."Borland soon learned that this wasn’t quite true. Nuance would pay her the same hourly rate—but for only the first three months. After that, she’d be paid according to her production, 6 cents for each line she transcribed. If she and her co-workers passed up the new offer, they couldn’t collect unemployment insurance, so Borland took the deal. But after the three-month transition period, her pay fell off a cliff. As a UPMC employee, she had earned $19 per hour, enough to support a solidly middle-class life. Her first paycheck at the per-line rate worked out to just $6.36 per hour—below the minimum wage.
The article struck me as compelling for a really big reason. Pretty much all of the components from gig and temp work to loss of work benefits to outsourcing to changing economies to policy makers not being sure of how to tackle some of these issues to are things I've been aware of for quite some time. Heck, there's even frequent conversations on Hubski about these subjects. I think this is the first article I've seen though that really puts it altogether and say "it's all pat of a bigger picture" and so then now I wonder that maybe it is. The interesting thing is though, this article is supposed to be doomy and gloomy and I read it and thought about it all day and it is kind of dark but I don't feel dark about it. If it's even half right, it kind of takes away some ambiguity. All of the components listed above always have a bit of nebulousness to them to me. The article kind of connects them together, gives the ideas more definable borders by relating them to each other. So the problem is still big and still scary, but it's a little more knowable. That doesn't necessarily mean things will be easier to solve, but at least they're a bit more understandable and that understandability makes them slightly less scary. At least, to me.
I follow a lot of capitalists. I read their newsletters. They're all about figuring how best to get your capital to increase. In human terms, that means I listen to a lot of rich people who talk about how their richness can be leveraged to make them richer. They don't put it in these terms, of course. However, there's only a couple of them that talk about working. One of them talks about how hard his dad worked so he makes his daughters work hard. Another one talks about how his farm is a toy compared to his grandpa's farm. All of them are stock investors and advisors and if they do any work, it's symbolic. It's a hobby. Implicit is the notion that if you work for a living, you're a chump. Sure you're noble and sure you're the heartbeat of America or some shit but you're a chump. The implicit argument of communism is that it's unfair for rich people to get richer simply because they're rich, particularly if it comes at the expense of the average working stiff. Therefore the implicit argument of capitalism became the idea that everyone is entitled to get rich any way they can. Anybody interfering with the rich people's rights and opportunities to get richer was - wait for it - a communist. I'm union. My union has more teeth than most. I realized recently that my union is as strong as it is because the structure of Hollywood is one in which every show is a startup while the unions are forever. Unlike most of America, where the corporations hold all the cards, a new show in Hollywood is weeks old while the unions go back decades. Their structure is proven and in place while the producers are forming a new system; not only that but the guilds backing the producers have agreements with the unions going back to the very beginning. As such, the big stuff is going to be union, it's just a matter of time. That advantage is rare everywhere else. Workplace protections, wage guarantees, all that stuff falls by the wayside when the way to succeed is to dissolve whatever agreements you have and re-form under a new name. It isn't gloomy-and-doomy for you because you didn't understand what was happening and now you do. For me, it illustrates what's been happening for decades - worker protections are being eliminated, the middle class is dissolving, and capital is trouncing the shit out of labor. Labor always outnumbers capital, though. It can't continue. We'll see what it looks like when the growling stomachs deafen out the platitudes.
You've read more history than me. I'm still crunching through volume one of Durant. Has this story ever ended other than with violence?Labor always outnumbers capital, though. It can't continue. We'll see what it looks like when the growling stomachs deafen out the platitudes.
Violence is not a binary condition. Russia became the USSR through civil war. Violence in the west was mostly contained to some riots, firebombings and assassinations. India could have been a lot more violent than it was; China a lot less so. So no - it's never ended other than with violence but yes, it has happened with less than armed uprisings.
It reminds me of that alleged Churchill quote about prostitution. Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... " Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?" Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"