- Over the past two decades, the U.S. labor market has undergone a quiet transformation, as companies increasingly forgo full-time employees and fill positions with independent contractors, on-call workers or temps—what economists have called “alternative work arrangements” or the “contingent workforce.” Most Americans still work in traditional jobs, but these new arrangements are growing—and the pace appears to be picking up. From 2005 to 2015, according to the best available estimate, the number of people in alternative work arrangements grew by 9 million and now represents roughly 16 percent of all U.S. workers, while the number of traditional employees declined by 400,000. A perhaps more striking way to put it is that during those 10 years, all net job growth in the American economy has been in contingent jobs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequality-consider-the-janitors-at-two-top-companies-then-and-now.htmlIn the 35 years between their jobs as janitors, corporations across America have flocked to a new management theory: Focus on core competence and outsource the rest. The approach has made companies more nimble and more productive, and delivered huge profits for shareholders. It has also fueled inequality and helps explain why many working-class Americans are struggling even in an ostensibly healthy economy.
I ran into this problem a couple of years ago. Around 2011, I worked as a janitor for a private company that also offered concierge and security services. I bounced around there until May 2013. My pay the entire time was nine dollars an hour. I once even asked my manager for a raise but he wasn't able to give me one because if he gave me a raise, then he would have to give everyone in my entire building that worked as janitors raises as well. There were 20 people there. I even tried to become a concierge because I felt I could do the job. They were paid 11 dollars an hour and mostly hired young 20 year olds. It was a complete revolving door though as people came in and out. I figured I worked well as a janitor and they knew how good I worked, so I thought they might give me a shot as a concierge. I got an interview but they never gave me a shot. It seemed like if I stayed there, I mostly remain as a janitor unless I was given a supervisor role. So I got out to my current company where I started out as a mail clerk. I did that for a year and a couple of months when I saw people interviewing for an open position one day, so I decided to ask one of the managers to ask if I could apply to the open position. I wasn't expecting much but I thought it was worth a shot. To my surprise, they said yes and I went on to do a data entry/customer service position. A while later, I was asked if I wanted to apply for an open accounting clerical position even though I did not have an accounting background. I figured it was worth a shot, so I said yes and now a year and half later here I am. I do my job well as it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. I pretty much started at the bottom at two companies but I got lucky and found one where I could at the very least upgrade my job position to something different. The cleaning/concierge/security company cared more about profit and it showed as the managers would come in fancy cars and suits while paying nine dollars an hour to employees. The current company I am at which is a medical billing company has it's own problems but at the very least they gave me some more opportunities. Today I'm not a mail clerk but rather an accounting clerk but I am feeling like the current company I am in is a little more of a rarity than something that is common.
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?"