Greetings,
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Shawgi A. Tell reproduces every tired leftist cliche about the U.S. labor
> market in just three paragraphs, an impressive achievement.
Please let's not lower the level of discussion.
> >I think it is necessary to avoid focusing on the appearance of
> >things and move directly to the essence of matters. In terms of
> >unemployment, the so-called lowest unemployment rate in the last few
> >decades conceals numerous realities which have been thoroughly discussed
> >by many (e.g., Holly Sklar in Chaos or Community? 1995). If one sees only
> >4.6% unemployment without looking into the sort and kind of jobs being
> >created, forgets the bias of "official" data, focuses only on unemployment
> >as opposed to the jobless rate and so on then one will arrive at an
> >inaccurate impression of things. One will think that things are
> >actually going well when in fact the opposite is the case.
>
> The point isn't that "things are actually going well" - the point is that
> they're a lot better than they were 5 years ago. Real wages are rising, and
> the race and gender gaps are narrowing. Sure lots of shit jobs are being
> created, but that's not the whole story, or you wouldn't be seeing a pickup
> in the average wage.
But things are not actually going well and they are not "a lot
better than they were five years ago." My argument is that things
continue to deteriorate and worsen rapidly for the vast majority. This
argument is based on Karl Marx's analysis, which retains its full
validity, and the constantly growing mountains of objective and verifiable
data and information indicting the capitalist economic system.
> > For example, according to Dembo and Morehouse, the 1993 jobless
> >rate was nearly 14%. They also conclude that "With each succeeding
> >recovery period, the *Jobless Rate* has fallen less and less" (The
> >Underbelly of the U.S. Economy: Joblessness and the Pauperization of Work
> >in America, 1994).
>
> Yes, the official unemployment rate understates reality, but it always has,
> and the trend has been down.
Then it would be good to avoid using the "official" unemployment
rate as a point of departure for analyzing reality. The "official"
unemployment rate does not merely "understate" matters. It grossly
distorts them.
> And, if the jobless rate, no matter how you
> slice it, is at a 24-year low, then Dembo & Morehouse's claim is no longer
> true. I think this needs to be recognized, explained, and analyzed for its
> political significance.
But how the jobless rate is sliced is the point. Was not your
original question on/about the so-called low unemployment rate? In the
area of women's un/employment, for example, the Census Bureau has admitted
it did things wrong, leading to a gross underestimation of conditions.
> > Besides other things the 4.6% unemployment rate masks the fact
> >that the productive forces continue to be destroyed by capitalism.
> >Technological developments are increasingly making the service sector look
> >more and more like the manufacturing sector.
>
> What does this mean? U.S. industrial production continues to rise, and
> manufacturing capacity (according to the Fed's industrial
> production/capacity utilization series) is expanding at the fastest rate in
> 30 years. Besides, I thought capitalism was famous for expanding the
> productive forces at the expense of everything else.
Yes, production does continue to grow, thanks to, among other
things, the introduction of automation, but with fewer and fewer
workers. From the standpoint of the capitalist class, workers have always
been incidental to the capitalist labor process. And, yes, capitalism is
known for expanding the productive forces. But it is also known for
de-skilling.
Like all previous socio-economic formations, capitalism has
reached a point which is causing the destruction of the productive forces.
The contradiction between the relations and forces of production under
capitalism today are extremely sharp, demanding resolution.
This contradiction is not going away. Capitalism has reached a point at
which it is no longer able to carry on uninterrupted extended reproduction
without running up against serious problems. Nothing that has taken place
in the 20th century has in any way altered the capitalist tendency for the
rich to continue to get richer while the poor get poorer.
> Doug
Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
