Do
You Know Where Your Next Paycheck is Coming From?
by Thad
Williamson
Tikkun,
Jan/Feb'98
Page
2 of 3
Conventional
political discussion assumes that white-collar Americans will
never think through, let alone act upon, the latter question.
But this assumption is predicated on the notion that the future
must be like the past. Although the economy is now humming
along by conventional measurements, the bet here is that we
are one recession away from seeing the economic security question
reopened as a major public issue. Moreover, the very phenomenon
of "downsizing" opens up several previously unavailable possibilities
for serious change:
- Fewer
citizens and communities have their loyalty tied down to
corporations today than in the past. Citizens and communities
who once identified strongly with a company--and by extension,
corporate America as a whole--might be able, for the first
time, to envision being loyal to something else.
At a minimum,
localities once defined by their relationship to a corporation
might now?with sufficient policy backing?have the opportunity
to recast their community identity along different lines.
For example, as Michigan has already done, states could
create funds aimed at assisting workers or local governments
to take over productive facilities when corporations close
a factory that may be inherently profitable but an inefficient
use of capital from the corporate perspective. Or, on a
more modest scale, as political scientist David Imbroscio
has shown in some depth in his book Reconstructing City
Politics, cities can pursue any number of policies aimed
at building up a locality's own economic resources from
within rather than following the conventional development
path of seeking to attract corporate capital via tax giveaways
and other subsidies.
- The
downsizing of America's management class also means that
significant talent has been made available that might be
applied to alternative forms of economic development. Common
problems
with smaller worker-owned firms and grassroots organizations
include substandard financial practices and lack of organizational
know-how. Today there are plenty of middle managers left
adrift by the new economy, some of whom could potentially
help fill the expertise gap that often afflicts grassroots
economic endeavors.
- More
and more people are jumping off the breakneck bandwagon
of corporate life, through various forms of "downshifting,"
from deliberately forgoing promotions in order to prioritize
family time to out-and-out adoption of "voluntary simplicity"
lifestyles. "Downshifting" is very much a response of the
privileged, but the phenomenon indicates that many more
people feel deeply alienated and would be open to serious
change in the structure of working life?if they were sure
they would have economic security. Indeed, anecdotal evidence
suggests that not everyone who has been put out of the corporate
treadmill wants to get back on?and no doubt many others
would feel likewise if viable, livelihood-supporting alternatives
existed.
- There
is now rising public sympathy for the struggles of the contingent
and part-time workforce as exemplified by public response
to UPS strike last August. This sympathy for the UPS workers
is indicative of a larger frustration and rage at how the
promises of secure, remunerative employment once made by
corporate America have simply been removed from the table,
a frustration progressive politicians have yet to tap in
a productive way. The November defeat of fast-track
trade legislation, over the opposition of the President,
suggests that a corner may have been turned in the willingness
of the public to permit politicians to simply equate what's
good for corporations with what's good for the country.
Economists,
politicians, and journalists have forwarded numerous theories
as to why the economy has shifted away from the provision
of secure, middle class jobs and towards a more inequitable
distribution of wages. What is needed from progressive movements
is not, however, a technical explanation of how much weight
to give to each of the factors driving these recent trends.
Rather, what should be emphasized is first, a coherent explanation
of how the underlying logic of the economic system values
neither economic security nor the development and sustenance
of healthy human beings; second, a coherent vision of how
we might build a political and economic structure which did
place those values front and center; and third, a self-conscious
awareness of the historical enormity of the decades-long task
of building a different kind of economy.
In the
past, liberal Democrats have emphasized support for unions,
protection of existing jobs, and a long wish list of national
legislative priorities as the best way to attain economic
security for everyday Americans within a corporate capitalist
framework. Simply put, the idea was that those lucky enough
to have good jobs should get to keep them.
Less attention
was paid to those not fortunate enough to have a job worth
keeping, whether what went on at the job sustained or threatened
human well-being, or whether workers or community members
had any control over the priorities of firms (or even their
own unions).
A politics
of meaning-informed view should uphold the notion of economic
security but root it within a different framework. What should
be emphasized is the need to build up an inclusive, rich concept
of community in which persons in a given geographic area could
share in the work of economic and political self-governance,
secure in the notion that their workplaces would not disappear
tomorrow and that they themselves would not be thrown out
in the street at the next recession or round of merger mania.
This vision of economic security would extend far beyond the
old labor/protect jobs model to emphasize community participation
in the decision making of firms, making work an interesting,
life-enhancing experience, and seeking ways to reverse the
long trend in which pursuit of private consumer goods and
entertainment have replaced personal interaction and experiences
of sharing.
1
. 2 . 3
|
