Since we don't live on the moon...the outcomes so far don't bode well for most Canadians.
arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:07 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; 'Keith Hudson' Subject: Re: [Futurework] The rise of miserity Years ago the prediction was that globalization would lead to levelling down. In fact what seems to be happening is both a levelling down (in the developed countries) and a levelling up (in the more advanced developing countries--generally those with a strong degree of effective governance). I'm not sure that seen from the moon this may not be such a bad thing given the wasteful (even wanton) habits of the developed countries... seen up close it is/will be very painful and destablizing in the short run in developed countries particularly those which have allowed (precipitated) their broad based social integration to erode through a weakening of the social safety net, ill-considered immigration policies, the collapse of traditional stablizing friscal and normative elites (and the related rise of quasi-racist know nothing parties on the right) etc.etc.... M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:27 AM To: 'Keith Hudson'; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] The rise of miserity I was thinking more generally of the union worker in manufacturing, postal worker, civil servant. Those who were working at middle income levels and without having much if any post high school education. A good salary, enough for buying a house or getting good rental accommodations, car and enough extra for the odd holiday and to support children who want to go on to university, etc. This group is affected by globalization, the collapse of local manufacturing, etc. This was a broad middle class of generations who went to work in the auto plants, the steel mills, etc. Paid well and there were jobs available for each generation. No longer is this the case. I think what you describe is what I would call the upper middle class: A professional class with advanced degrees, certificates of one sort or the other, etc. This group is also affected but they are also more protected for a variety of reasons, including inherited wealth. arthur From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:28 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; Arthur Cordell Subject: RE: [Futurework] The rise of miserity Arthur, Perhaps my condensation of misery and prosperity is premature. Perhaps someone else will re-invent misterity when times are clearer! Historians tend not to dwell on the condition of the masses when an empire or a civilization is in decline (if that is what is happening now), but only on the follies or mistakes of the elite. But I think there's always been a middle-class. (It depends on what you in Canada call middle-class. Is it the same as Americans? What Americans call middle-class is what we in Europe call working-class -- or at least we did until recently. Anyhow, what I call middle-class is what Americans would call the professional-class or upper middle-class. So I'll call it U-class in what follows.) I think there's always been a U-class. In Medieval society the rich landowners and royalty always needed a small select band of advisors to oversee their serfs, to collect the rent, to control their soldier-guards and personal servants, to look after money and treasures, personal doctors and lawyers -- and, simply, but importantly (if a landowner was sensible), public opinion feedback in case some sort of rebellion might be in the offing. It was this U-class that grew enormously in the industrial revolution as many new individuals burst through as the new super-rich industrialists. I would say that in this country this was around 15% of the population about a century ago. I would say that this U-class is about 25% of the population now in an advanced country. In one sense most of this U-class are "merely" the highly-paid servants of the very rich, but culturally they are much the same. They send their children to the same highly select schools of the very rich and their young people go to the same select universities. (This is very clear in Europe and I think it's happening rapidly now in America, even if not in Canada yet.) A good example is given by Crystia Freeland who wrote the long article I posted earlier -- "The New Global elite". She herself is not rich but as a top-flight (and well-paid) journalist, she's comfortable when socializing with the very rich and can probably afford to send her children (if she has any) to the same schools as the very rich. Her children would grow up in the same milieu as the very rich and would possibly marry one of them. While the very rich don't have the same number of personal servants as they used to in pre-industrial days today's complexity means that they need even more meritocratic advisors. I would lump all these (the rich plus the U-class) together as one fairly homogenous elite class as against the masses with a distinctively different culture. (Of course, there's movement of individuals going on between them, and there are many "inbetweeners" but this is a relatively small proportion of the whole.) Keith snip, snip
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
