Hi Arthur, At 11:27 25/02/02 -0500, you wrote: >Another side of the new economy. If these trends hold, "there's gonna be >trouble." >Arthur Cordell
An interesting article, but I have several provisos about it even though it superficially agrees with my notion of an increasing "hourglass" job structure (as regards skills, but not necessarily earnings) which I've been suggesting on FW for a year or two. As to earnings, hours of work, etc, too much of the article depends on extremely recent trends in what has been a temporary dotcom + telecoms bubble economy in the last ten years. Now that the bubble has collapsed, I'm sure that the longer term trends will resume -- as summarised in my recent reply to Ed Weick (Re: Work and family). You didn't quote the article in full but in the final paragraph the writer says: <<<< On the international scene, the recent experiences of Russia and Argentina also make it clear that the social costs of a free market approach can be very high, without producing the promised economic development. >>>> Quoting these two countries is just plain silly. They're both claiming to be free economies but they haven't begun to overhaul their legal and judiciary systems which will give a chance for free enterprise to work -- particularly with respect to land ownership law. They are both still deeply saddled with all the political and legal accoutrements of a command economy with enormous privileges for the few. Potential entrepreneurs still have to go through 100 hoops (or bribe numerous officials) in order to start small businesses. You can't just wave a wand to produce a free economy. Both countries have had dictatorships and large (and very nasty) secret police forces for decades, producing frightened, high-dependency cultures and these take a generation to change. Although at the opposite ends of the political spectrum in name until recently, both Argentina and Soviet Russia had the distinction of having nationalised circuses! Keith > > >Ninety percent of young white male workers now doing worse than they would >have 20 years ago >The promise of upward mobility - a centerpiece of the American dream, which >fosters the notion that anyone can get ahead with hard work - may have >disappeared with the 20th century. >"With the kinds of declines in hourly wages that we find here, it is a bit >of a puzzle why there has been so little public outcry. One reason may be >that people are working more hours and there are more women in the work >force now. The net result is that total household income levels have held >steady, but it takes more effort to bring in the same income. This kind of >new economy may preserve living standards, but it is not family friendly. As >it sucks more and more resources out of the home, we are seeing rising >stress on families, and declining time for being with children." Morris said >such factors as the decline of labor unions and the increased trends of >downsizing and outsourcing by businesses has produced a climate in which the >American economy is producing more low-paying jobs than high-end ones. >"The service industry produces a lot of low-wage jobs and we are churning >them out," she said. "The No. 1 job for projected growth in the coming years >is cashier. As a result we can now make things cheaper here, but we are >beginning to lose our middle class. And many more Americans work to live, >not live to work." > >entire article at: > <http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/uow-npo022002.php> __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
