From: Doug Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The new economy is post-modern slavery
>From the Common Dreams News Center --
http://www.commondreams.org
>
> Betting on the baby-boomers?
> June 8, 1999
>
> "I want my children to have a better life than I had." Is there a baby-boomer
> who doesn't want that?
>
> Now If I were a gambler, I would bet all my chips that most people in my
> parents' generation - like 98 percent of them - would answer that question in
> the affirmative. But then I got my hands on this report a few weeks ago and
> I'm beginning to wonder: Would I lose all my chips betting on baby-boomers?
>
> The report is called "When Good Jobs Go Bad: Young Adults and Temporary
> Work in the New Economy." It was published by the 2030 Center, a
> Washington, D.C.,-based public policy organization,
> and was authored by its senior policy fellow, Helene
> Jorgensen. (She has a doctorate in economics from
> American University).
>
> The report begins with an intriguing question: "Who is
> the largest private employer in the United States? It is
> not General Motors, Wal-Mart or AT&T. The largest
> private employer is Manpower Inc. But Manpower Inc.
> does not produce 'widgets' or anything else that sells to
> consumers. Rather, it is in the business of selling labor services to other
> companies. It is a temp agency."
>
> So what, right? Well, the report uncovers a few things about the "new
> economy" that, to my mind, point us in a direction away from the "better life"
> all parents say they want for their children.
>
> In 1997, 12.6 million people did work in what economists call "nonstandard
> work arrangements." Another 20 million worked in part-time jobs. In the even
> larger macro-economic picture, about one in four of all young workers do not
> have permanent, full-time jobs and half of all temporary workers are between
> the ages 20 and 34.
>
> "While some people clearly enjoy their temporary work arrangements
> because it provides them with flexibility and control of their own work, for the
> vast majority of people temporary work provides a substandard job,"
> Jorgensen writes.
>
> "Generally, temporary jobs pay lower wages, provide no health insurance and
> pension coverage, and offer little economic security," she continues.
>
> Sister Jorgensen notes that when my parents were young, the manufacturing
> sector was the largest employment sector in the economy, and it provided
> most career jobs. But, over the last 20 years, the manufacturing sector has
> drastically downsized and shipped jobs out of the country. Manufacturing
> employment now accounts for only 15 percent of all American jobs. It was 26
> percent in 1973.
>
> And since 1970 the number of retail jobs has more than doubled from 11
> million to 22.5 million. Behold, the rise of a rapidly growing service economy.
> Yes, the rate of growth of so-called "information age" jobs is higher than
> service-sector employment growth. But the hi-tech industry doesn't
> contribute as many jobs to the labor market pool as does the service sector,
> Jorgensen further notes.
>
> There has been a 28 percent earnings decline for high school men in entry
> level jobs. The average hourly wage for entry-level work in 1973 was $11.10.
> In 1997, it was $7.95. For high school women in that same time span, there
> was an 18.5 percent drop.
>
> What about the college educated? In 1973, a college degree got a man an
> entry level job with an average hourly wage of $14.82, the report says. A
> college-educated woman got $12.95. The men saw a decline of 7.8 percent
> and in 1997 a college degree fetched an average hourly wage of $13.65. For
> a woman with a college-degree at the entry level, we're talking $12.20 an
> hour, which is a 5.7 percent decline.
>
> And how's this for job insecurity: Jorgensen discovered that today's young
> workers "will, on average, hold 8.6 different jobs by their 34th birthday."
>
> Probably the most significant change that has occurred in the labor market
> over the past 20 years or so, Jorgensen observes, is the rise of nonstandard
> work arrangements.
>
> "The defining characteristics of these work arrangements are that work is not
> permanent and as a result, job insecurity is extremely high." Jorgensen also
> presents evidence showing that this rise in temp work was driven by the
> captains of industry looking for ways to cut labor costs and not because of
> some collective voice of the workers calling for more "flexibility."
>
> Is the new economy "good," as the business press deems it? Well, yes if
> you're part of the top 20 percent of wealth-holders in this land of milk and
> honey. For the anxious middle-class, the new economy is a quality-
> time-eating, creativity-smothering Darwinian Ocean of Goodies that fails to
> deliver the spiritual satisfaction promised by the advertising industry. For the
> working poor and "underclass," the new economy is post-modern slavery.
>
> So does my generation - and therefore the following generations - lose all
> their opportunity chips betting on the baby-boomers? Well, I guess it all
> depends on how one defines "the good life" and whether or not most
> everyone has access to it. Of course, it also depends on how much we
> wager, and on whom.
>
> Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff writer and syndicated
> columinist. He can be reached via email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _______________________________________
> Comments and suggestions: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Copyright © 1998 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved.
http://www.capecodonline.com
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **
