>From: Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Employment and the Economic Miracle >X-To: Peter Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >At 11:50 A -0500 1/9/98, Raphael Solomon wrote: > >>Caspar, >> >>I enjoyed reading the attachment [on working conditions in the US]. >>Assuming that the essence of low unemployment is little more than an >>accounting convention, the question arises, is the convention justified. >> >>First, people in jail. A classic definition of the labor force states that >>one must be employed or not employed, but if not employed, willing and >>able to accept work. Now a person in prison may be willing but not able >>to accept work on the outside. One should remember that (in general) the >>people in prison are not there as a random sample of the population but >>rather as a result of their actions. Many of them have practiced a "life >>of crime." You may blame this on many factors, but in the end, prisoners >>are not part of the labor force. If you want to challenge this, challenge >>the classic definition. It may indeed be wrong. > >CWD- Parenthetically, it is my understanding that those who have given up >on finding work and are therefore no longer actively seeking it are also >not included in the "labor force." > >The point with respect to people in prison is not that they are part of the >workforce but rather that if you put everyone in prison you could then >claim to have full employment. The US has gone farther in this direction >than any other country, including dictatorships. > >I believe that most of the people in US jails are there for drug-related >offenses. Most of those are casualties of the immensely profitable war on >drugs, a war which will probably never end because it pays enormous >dividends to warriors on each side, and especially to those on both sides, >like the CIA. > >In fact, in a movement which seems to be very much part of the N-C economic >agenda, prisons in the US and increasingly elsewhere are run by private >companies- the fast-growing prison industry. New prisons typically include >large factorie, and many prisons charge inmates for room and board, and for >"luxuries" like toilet paper, medical care, and use of the law library. > >"For private business, prison labor is like a pot of gold. No strikes. No >union organizing. No unemployment insurance or workers' compensation to >pay. No language problem, as in a foreign country. New leviathan prisons >are being built with thousands of eerie acres of factories inside the >walls. Prisoners do data entry for Chevron, make telephone reservations for >TWA, raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit boards, limousines, water >beds, and lingerie for Victoria's Secret ... Prison industries are often in >direct competition with private industry. Small furniture manufacturers >around the country complain that they are being driven out of business by >UNICOR [the US federal prison industry corporation] which pays 23 >cents/hour and has the inside track on government contracts. In another >case, U.S. Technologies sold its electronics plant in Austin, Texas, >leaving its 150 workers unemployed. Six weeks later, the electronics plant >reopened in a nearby prison." > >A variation on the companies who fire workers only to hire them back (often >from employment agencies) at lower wages and no benefits, as "contractors." >It all sounds like the slave sector of the workforce to me. >> >>People in the military frequently get payment for college education and if >>they serve 20 years, can retire on a full pension. This seems like slave >>labor to me -- not. Similarly, people in the military cannot take outside >>jobs whenever they want; it's called desertion. So they are not part of >>the labor force, &c. > >CWD- Ditto the military- the more people you "hire" in the military, the >lower your unemployment. The point here is that armed forces exist >primarily for destruction or the threat of destruction. Except when they >are helping out in emergencies, they are social parasites of the worst >sort- consuming enormous resources and giving (at best) largely unnecessary >protection. In many countries they are actually instruments for repression. >If we were really interested in efficiency, we could disband all national >armies and have a smallish democratically-directed world peace-keeping >force which would keep the peace and police those who would like to commit >atrocities. > >An essential point is that production- agriculture, manufacturing,and even >transportation- no longer requires very many people. I have no doubt that >the world's material needs could be supplied with the labor of less than >20% of the adults in the world, possibly much less. > >The argument for economic growth and technological advancement has always >been that they will provice prosperity and leisure for all. In fact, almost >the reverse has occurred. The people who work, now work much harder than >ever before. For instance, most aborigines spent very little time >"working." Not only did they "work" short hours, but they often spent most >of the winter in communal ritual and sharing. Even in the bad old days of >the Middle Ages, almost every other day was a saint's day or other holiday. > >Not only do those who work, work harder, but many of them are barely able >to survive on the pittance of the fruits of their labor which is allotted >to them. It is the working poor, not the military, who are worse off than >slaves. Like many slaves, military people are fed and housed and their old >age is to some extent provided for. Wage slaves- whether in Canada, the US >or the "developing" world- are barely able to feed themselves and keep a >roof over their heads. They have no emergency reserves, and no way of >providing for their retirement. The fruits of their labor flow to >shareholders- whose relationship to the enterprise is in most cases >analogous to the relationship of punters to race horses- and top >executives, who are these days richly rewarded even if their performance is >atrocious. > >The situation was well described by Henry George in "Social Problems," >where he showed how people who had no access to an option such as access to >land are forced to work for less than the cost of maintaining themselves, >and are therefore worse off than slaves. > >>I look forward to your proposing a new definition of labor force in your >>reply. > >CWD- Like much of N-C economic theory, "labor force" is an unfortunate and >misleading normative concept. This morning I heard on the radio an Albertan >who said she was tired as being described as a "consumer" (presumably of >government services) rather than as a citizen of Alberta. Sergio Marchi >describes us as "shareholders" of Canada. > >One of the points of my post is that "labor force" is a slippery concept. >If you want to have a low unemployment rate, it helps to put a large part >of your population in jail. If you then make them work for a pittance, you >have cut labor costs. It also helps the unemployment rate to have a large >military. > >There are many real issues here. Are jobs a useful concept in a world where >the necessary production can be done by a very few but there is a limitless >amount of useful social, environmental and community work which is done (if >at all) by volunteers? Where volunteers do so much of the real work that >the suggestion that they stage a one day stoppage to demonstrate their >essential role evokes horror at the suffering and deaths that would >certainly occur? Where not only volunteer work but parenting, home >improvement and neighbourly help are not recognized by the economy? Where a >speculator who has owned shares for one day is considered to have more of a >stake in a company than a worker who has given it 30 years of his life? >Where corporate executives and partners in securities firms get yearly >bonuses in the millions or tens of millions of dollars while many working >people work two or three jobs in a desperate effort to make ends meet? >Where there is the possibility of sufficiency for all but instead we have >unprecedented wealth on the one hand and almost unprecedented need on the >other, with both ends expanding constantly and fewer left in the middle? > >In practice, the workforce is a club held over the head of every person in >it, a constant reminder that if she does not give give her all for less >than a living wage there are always others who will. Thinking in terms of >concepts like "labor force" rather than people- members of our local, >national or global community- stunts the soul and leads to results such as >those enumerated above. > >Best Wishes, > >Caspar Davis
