Obama like every president since Reagan has been surrounded by corporate CEO's with their own interests. And some economic advisers have been long time insiders protected by the status quo. Nothing will change until the electorate again demands collective bargaining and unionization.

Obama could have been much more supportive of public servants and unions and labor. Sure he has thrown some bones around the periphery. But ha has not been really aggressive as he should have been.

those banksters and CEOs. Affirmatively chose each and every one. Nuff said.

Some of his appointments have been really questionable. I am not sure how much baggage remains around with each new administration. Some of the outcomes certainly makes you wonder.

I remember when Clinton ran on the New Covenant that disappeared. Clinton also ran against NAFTA. The question is how captive a president is to the corporate element.

I am permanently crippled from a desk job. A Union desk job, no less.

The crime bosses of the 60's and 70's made some key mistakes. And there was a corruptive element that hurt the unions. We are seeing the result of weak unions. Unions will not solve all labor issues, but they can level the playing field. Right now management has all the power.

And thanks to them, I still have a paycheck and insurance. My Union was one of the strongest (and smallest) in the industry, but they couldn't really prevent us from being worked so hard we got seriously injured and sick.

Cheap, fungible commodities, that's all the American worker is to the corporate oligarchy. They don't give a shit if we live or die. If they could get away with indentured servitude or even slavery, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

And you nailed it: this really got rolling under Reagan, may he rot in Hell (in which, alas, I don't believe).

I was at DOL when Reagan made his service economy speech. I knew he meant a "shit" job economy. The American worker never ever got it. And many still do not get it because the GOP is still pushing Reaganism.

...but it wasn't long after that I began to realize what was up. To this day, so may vote directly agaisnt their better interests. I'm not far from despair that things can be turned around, to be blunt.

with ghost town industrial parks. Right at a time I needed work the most. Right out of HS. Blundering idiot and his introduction of all these massive tax cuts for the upper crust.

I hate that term. What do you do with resources? You exploit them.

had one purpose - dehumanize the employees and applicants. It has worked spectacularly well.

I have never bought the notion that those who can't do teach. But I am as sure as can be that those who can do nothing else wind up in HR. In every largeish organization in which I have worked, the HR people are the meanest, least-competent, and most devoted to ass-covering people in the entire shebang.

was a telling change in how employees were viewed by management, from people to commodities.

Yes, they want slave labor to make their products, but they need consumers to buy them & they are too greedy to realize you can't have both. Of the 7 deadly sins, I think greed is the worst.

They have improved on the "Slavery" Model for cheap labor.

The employers no longer have to buy, feed, shelter, or clothe their New Slaves.
That reduced the Labor Overhead a great deal.
No way do they go BACK to a more expensive business model.

the benefits of slavery and none of the costs/responsibilities. I call it The New Feudalism.

Truly, it is now Them or Us.

Paying less that the cost of basic living is a lot better deal for tgem.

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:39 AM - Edit history (1)

There seems to be a problem in the notion that our economy must be structured around "out-competing" global competion instead of structured around the provision of livelihoods for the people who live here.

Did someone forget the reason for work in the first place? It's not to maximize billionaires. It's not to uphold some precious theory of an International "market" to affirm the ego of a Nobel prize-winning economist. The sole reason people work is for their *own* livelihood, and their social contract with their country is to uphold *their* livelihood. If the economy isn't working to do that, then the economy isn't working. End of story.

Amazing how we let pundits and such skew the role of the people who are backbone of this country. I guess that's also when we went from being citizens to "consumers" as our primary function.

'global competition'. We had high tariffs and little trade, restricted immigration laws, a dysfunctional League of Nations and little structure for international cooperation on any issue.

If he had focused on the New Deal at home, left tariffs alone and ignored international issues, perhaps many would be happier. For better or worse, he did not stop with the New Deal at home but went on to create the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the International Trade Organization (never approved by congress) and a host of other international organizations that sought to 'govern' the world collectively rather than each country 'doing its own thing'.

It seems to me that FDR believed that "every man for himself" did not work domestically because 'we are all in this together'. Likewise he seemed to believe that "every country for itself" had not worked internationally because 'we are all in this together'. Some (many?) modern liberals may have been happier now if FDR just reversed his republican predecessors' domestic "every man for himself" policies with the New Deal but left their "every country for itself" international policies well enough alone.

Modern progressive countries do just fine following the 'FDR' model. They have strong unions, safety nets and middle classes at home and follow FDR's model in terms of international involvement and cooperation. We could do the same if we had the political will.

The Democratic party had always been the party of low tariffs on imported goods to keep imported goods cheap. One of the FDR campaign planks was that high tariffs had caused the international Great Depression.

The Federalists/Whigs/Republicans had always been the parties of high protective tariffs to protect domestic industries.

During the late 40s and the 50s, the spirit of "internationalism" became a national consensus that the US had to reduce tariffs to aid the war torn countries of the world rebuild their economies.

Yep.


Recent history says whole industries employing thousands can and do suddenly leave the city abruptly. Fun times.

I was under so much stress at a desk job my blood pressure spiked and I had carpal tunnel syndrome surgery plus other medical problems related to work. I was not a nice person to even live with. I know I would be dead if I had not left that environment.

but I saw no choice. I worked untold hours without compensation because I felt I worked for the customer not the company. If that were the only challenge I had to my sanity and health, I would probably still be doing it. The deal breaker for me was companies I represented providing absolutely no support to effectively do my job. That left me to apologize for the problems and expenses the customer had to endure or be the scapegoat for every problem encountered.
No longer a wage slave but accordingly poor.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

temp jobs and part time jobs replacing good full-time jobs?

interspersed by long periods of lack of income and destitution. So both.

have more than one job? I would bet most.

BLS says about 5% of the US workforce works more than one job, so it doesn't seem like it's a large trend in particular.

working the rolls of what 2 or 3 people used to do at the same pay rate within the same deadlines. It's just the amount of the umpteen million Part-Time & Temp workers have ramped up so much more that probably brings the averages down.

Sucks for the loss of tenured experience with fresh workers and the loss of sanity & health of the seasoned bunch.

Really sad what life has become.

There is an increasingly narrowerer class of overworked people - some are lucky to be overpaid as well for their technical skills but some are exploited from deskilling and thus desperate to hold on to their jobs. Their situation was allowed by the shift in labor law during the original tech bubble when Silicon Valley argued that they Congress should make allowances for "innovation" and "growth". Therefore the concept of a manager needing to be exempted from regular labor protections because of enhanced responsibilities was expanded to cover all technical work, and technical work was expanded to cover all professional work.

Meanwhile, after 2008 especially, many people were never re-employed in stable jobs. A lot of the re-employment that is regularly cited is temp work, seasonal work, and gig jobs. Many people go back to school, get categorized as disabled, or otherwise "fall into the cracks". Things have to function this way because once unemployment insurance runs out (which is increasingly hard to secure in the "gig economy&quot , then the US system doesn't have any "floor" for people. "Welfare" is not a floor for simply having a lack of resources - that's a figment of the fevered Republican imagination - and in my particular county its an emergency resource you can draw for 3 months per year if you're not disabled. And it's not going to save you from homelessness since it's a tiny fragment of the money anyone would need for anything, but if you get money from any other resource, you don't get welfare. Sense it makes not. So really welfare is for absolutely homeless people, but they can only get it for 3 months out of the year for 5 years, if they don't face anything else that disqualifies them like a criminal record. Therefore, when people fall into long term unemployment, they can only go sideways somehow: find a grant, go to school, start a life of crime, take gig jobs, become a prostitute, etc.

This is why statistics say hours worked are going down when people who are still working full time are complaining about heavy exploitation and hours going up.

You've made a lot of comments like this: if I remember correctly you are in India rather than directly observing. Why are you so interested in making this argument in the first place?

There's not enough widgets that need to be made or services that need to be provided for 70% of the population to work 40 hours a week at a median $17 / hour doing it.

There is enough work to be done for, maybe, 40% of the population to work about 20 hours a week, at about $30 / hour.

if I remember correctly you are in India rather than directly observing.

My wife is stationed here (she works for the US government) and I work for an NGO that teaches kids how to fix and use computers. Is the implication that if I were instead ethnically Indian and from the subcontinent, I would have "bad" suggestions for the US, or a motivation to see the US economy fail?

I just recall you regularly intervening to say the US unemployment numbers aren't what everyone's lived experience in their communities seem to be. Here you seem to admit there really isn't enough work to go around. Given that we live in a country where Judge Judys go around snippily telling each other to "get a job" and are mighty skeptical of anyone who can't, what does the person without a widget to make do?

Your child-like myopia is nothing if not consistent.

If you are an hourly wage-earner, your hours are cut.

A lot of people work temp or a couple of part-time jobs.

The hours that are reported are often inaccurate.

We work longer hours than any country in the industrialized world.

Japan used to have longer hours. Now we do.

Having lived in Europe for years, I can assure you that we work longer hours and enjoy less vacation and sick leave time than any country in what used to be called Western Europe.

It's insane. Not a reflection of family values. Not at all.

and don't offer benefits.

Working in an organization was the worse experience of my life.

I agree that it's a scary situation right now for most people. I wish I was already retired and I do envy my parents and the position they are in. They are extremely well off, something I will NEVER be, even though I have a much higher education than they do.

I do think it depends on which sector you work in. My parents and ex husband worked in oil and gas, and were treated quite well. I work in retail...not on the floor, I have a degree, I'm in the corporate head office, and the treatment is really ridiculous in comparison. Some examples - my mom is still working and her current company gives 3 weeks vacation to start (she currently is up to 6 weeks), as well as 12 flex days a year (supposed to be for appointments for yourself/family), one Friday off a month and no limit on sick time (the 'control' is that you lose a small portion of your profit sharing if you take too many sick days in a row). And if my mom wants to start an hour early and then leave an our early, no one keeps track, as long as she gets her work done. They have profit sharing, employees can buy shares at a discount, those who own shares get a cash dividend every quarter. There are bonuses for each division if they hit their (almost always attainable) metrics. Salaries are competitive. They have excellent benefits. They get an 'art allowance' and a 'technology allowance' which allows them to purchase items for their office (that they can later take home and keep) such as paintings, or a new cell phone or laptop. If they'd like to further their education, that is all paid for. They work in a beautiful new office, with all the amenities, including showers and work out room, library, etc. My mom's total compensation puts her in the top 1% for sure. The only thing she doesn't have is a pension or contribution plan.

I don't get any of that except the education thing (if you agree to stick with the company after graduation for a certain amount of time). I have basic benefits (drugs, dental, no eye care). No profit sharing, shares, bonuses, etc. No pension. Low salaries. 2 weeks vacation (lowest allowed by law here), no fancy flex days. And the bosses are very strict with vacation time. I had a fairly serious medical appointment and I was told I couldn't take a sick day, I had to take a vacation day. I have 4 kids. Let's just say all my vacation days are taken with appointments. We do have unlimited sick time, but we have to log each day we are sick online and our boss has to approve. And no one wants to take a sick day because it means they will fall behind. Even though I'm there 1/2 hour early every day, (and I work too, I don't hang out in the coffee room) if I want to leave 2 hours early on a Friday to attend my daughter's graduation, I have to take 2 hours off my vacation time and log it online. We are sandwiched like sardines into tiny cubicles, with only 1 bathroom (Way under the labor law codes, but no one dares complain).

I also have a long commute every day. I'm gone from my house for 10.5 hours a day. My vehicle is starting to fall apart and cost me thousands a year. I'm underpaid, and yes overworked. Our company is growing, but not enough new people are being hired. I hardly have time to look up from my computer and take a breath. I'm falling further and further behind (as are my coworkers) but not one wants to say anything because then the boss will think we can't do the job. So we try to cover for each other. Some people cheat and take short cuts. I just come early every day to try to get a jump on things. At every meeting, we get admonished for falling behind and then at the end of the meeting we are told how much we are appreciated. When raise time came around, everyone was pissed. No one got even to the level of cost of living.

It's sad and stupid really. If they paid me even a small percentage more, enough for a living wage for me, I'd probably be a lifer. I really do love the work.

The turn over is very high - which is insane because these are not low skilled jobs, you NEED a degree for these jobs. The turn over must cost the company hundreds of thousands a year. I doubt they do any accounting for that.

Anyway, that was a bit of a rant, wasn't it? I just thought I'd post to agree with you and then it went on and on. I do think it has to do with retail and service jobs. And it's not that they HAVE to be like that - it's that people have bought into the myth that retail and service has low margin/high operational costs and they just HAVE to pay crappy to be viable. It's a lie, IMO. One that benefits the owners, of course.

And I have no illusions that my job is secure - I've seen so many long term people 'let go' in my short time with this company that I know it's always going to be a possibility. It makes it so stressful, since I'm not young anymore, and I have a family to support. Being a single parent and dealing with this stuff makes it worse. And knowing that it is likely to only get worse scares the shit out of me.

Turn over is a bear. When you get a new person, it takes a year before they are worth a damn. We have a matrix that says for X amount of simulators and Y amount of FTDs (flight training devises) you need Z amount of techs. Problem is that, if you lose a person, corporate must re-approve the position, which can takes 4 months. It is BS. We are chronically understaffed, which makes people work much harder, which makes people quit, which makes people work harder- it is a self feeding cycle. If we lose a manager, they are falling all over themselves to fill that position. Techs? Meh. It is maddening

The meme competing with the "global economy" is really just plain bullshit. There is no way to compete with low wages in the rest of the world. Look around the US and living standards are going down for most workers. A few do well, but they and the rest who are really low wage workers create billionaires. Very little come back to the "real wealth" creators.

Jobs will come back only when American workers are cheap enough to compete with global workers. When you have countries where income is as little as $1 a month and I am sure that there are places where that it true, capital will go their to pay $2 a month to exploit that labor. Free market is about "free market" wages.

Examine the rhetoric about minimum wages and benefits. GOPPERS in particular and some Dems are saying business cannot afford to pay anything near a living wage. They can't get 1,000% profit if workers are paid decently.

The business model must change and business in the end will have to be forced by federal standards in the end. It was not until FDR that federal standards were established. And the GOP wants to go back to the Dickens era in England and NOT just the 1900's.

Did FDR just not understand this? Why did he promote trade rather than just leave the high tariffs he inherited from his republican predecessors alone? Coolidge and Hoover had isolated us quite effectively from the 'low wages' in the rest of the world, though perhaps FDR noticed that isolation did not empower our middle class but enriched the 1%.

Aren't poor people just a pain that needs to be walled off so they don't affect us?


That was the case in 1933 as well. FDR came up with a New Deal that did not worry about "low wages in the rest of the world". Germany, Sweden and many other countries still have their own versions of the New Deal and they do just fine trading with "low wage" countries more than we do.

We trade less, thus are exposed to "low wage" countries less, than any developed country in the world. That makes me think that our declining middle class has less to do with poor foreigners and more to do the fact that we have weak unions ('right-to-work'), low and regressive taxes and ineffective corporate regulation. (Thank you, republicans, for all of those.) None of those will you find in Germany, Sweden or any other progressive country.


But they shall remain nameless at this point? That is scary. Fear is a great motivator. Are you sure there are not countries where income is as low as 10 cents a month, perhaps even a penny a month? Perhaps Somalia or North Korea? Imagine how scary it would be if there were poor people making 1 cent a month! I don't know why unemployment is not at 100% in Germany and Sweden given their high wages and strong unions.

The World Bank says imports vs. exports as a percentage of US GDP is 13% vs. 16%
Imports: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS
Exports: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS

On the surface, it looks like a wash. Although when dealing with multinationals, the money is going from one pocket to another pocket in the same pair of pants. And its more about hiding corporate profits to avoid taxes.

While significant, neither number makes the ball game. 85% of American business is with itself. We're not competing at all.

I was very lucky to be able to retire. The generation working now is totally screwed. The many low wage workers I know are pressured beyond belief, overworked, underpaid and have nothing to look forward to. Even the so called managers in many service sector jobs are not even paid a living wage. The "service" economy reminds me of a bull servicing a cow.

I believe the same way you do. Unless their is DRASTIC change in the business model it will only get worse Working conditions for many are as bas as 1900. No future no hope. The problem is that few workers really understand what is going on and HOW they should vote. Every vote for a GOPPER is a nail in your coffin. Of course some Dems are not good either.

Americans have been sold down the river by politicians at the behest of their corporate owners all in the name of free speech and the concept that Calvin Coolidge espoused, "the business of America is business."

many companies are finding they need to offer more to attract tallent with the like of google and other tech companies offering so many perks along with good pay.

Netflix just did the unlimited paid parental leave for example and more companies are following suit.

I agree the trend has been for years and years to squeze the employee first and cut costs as much as possible but there is pushbakc and successfull pushback as well.

"Netflix’s new policy doesn’t apply to all Netflix employees, by the way. Those in Netflix’s DVD division aren’t covered. They’re not “talent.”

They’re like the vast majority of American workers – considered easily replaceable.

Employers treat replaceable workers as costs to be cut, not as assets to be developed."

http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-hold-your-applause-tech-companies-announcing-family-friendly-perks

Pretty much why I left my last company (btw I am in the tech. industry). They wanted PhD engineers to be like assembly line workers from the late 19th century (ie. replaceable human capital that brings in dollars for the savants in upper management). When I showed them the offer I got from a competitor they instantly matched it and promised to let me run a small R&D project.

Sorry, but I've seen how much bullshit that company is full of and I left without a second thought.

I can only imagine how its about 10x worse for others

Where to fit in that "family friendly leave policy"? I believe that's only for the creme-de-la-creme top officers of the company.

When the Soviet Union fell -- that was when corporations began seriously clawing back benefits that had been won by (or granted to) previous working generations. Since corporations went global, and unions did not, businesses were free to exploit cheap labor all over the world, and hold the threat of doing the same over the remaining domestic work force. Since the loss of unions, the only remaining opposition to the will of billionaires and global corp are national governments, and they are being bought and brought to heel steadily.

de-humanizing those "others." GOP is doing what it has intended all along.

Another is hearing loss; I mean, half of what you hear is crap anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6867257

No taxes, No reports, invisible. Underestimated, I think.

the costs of their employees lives like they did in their Texas City, Texas refinery. With damage caps imposed by tort reform in is financially feasible to risk killing employees rather than keep their facilities safe. Hey, at least those pesky Trial Lawyers wont make very much money, huh?

in the tech sector either. I was in IT until an injury put me out basically permanently.

I had worked for one company in the early 2000's that claimed they wouldn't outsource their IT (they treated their support services departments as second class citizens).... then they did. Big layoffs ensued.

From that point I was only able to find contract work that paid decently, though even then it was at lower rates than I had been earning.


/semi-tangent

Ended up working one contract where we were basically understaffed all of the time, but expected to perform as if we had full capacity. I got a 'project' to move some equipment that was very very heavy and got no help. I injured myself badly, yet it took months for my employer to report the injury to their worker's comp insurance (5 months when it's supposed to happen within 24 hours of reporting it). Ultimately, my contract was terminated and while I was offered a full time job it was for half of what I was earning in my contract. It didn't matter in the end because I finally went on disability.

Now almost 8 years later, I've had 2 spine surgeries and basically have to start over. My tech skills are stale and most employers won't even consider someone who's been out of work for 7+ years. On top of that Schwartzenegger basically killed the worker's comp system in California. Only 2 years of disability payments, and 'reforming' it to favor the insurance companies basically made me broke. I won't even get into the Social Security BS (that's a whole 'nother can of worms).

There are good tech jobs out there for sure, but it's for a very very small minority of tech workers. Everyone I know in tech has seen compensation go down, not up. Hours go up, not down. One friend ended up going back to school because he felt he had no other choice after a layoff (due to outsourcing). The media may try to highlight Google/Netflix to make it seem like at least one industry is doing well for the middle class, but in reality that is not the case. So don't be fooled by a small minority of companies that treat a portion of their employees well. We're talking about hundreds out of millions of workers.

Thanks to union jobs, pensions, social security, and a small inheritance. We're far from rich, but comfortable enough. We both have Medicare now and hubby has the VA as well. We're lucky to be healthy, in spite of jobs that tried to rob us of that.

Our sons are in their forties, our daughter in her twenties. They just keep plugging away.

The reality of tech work is quite different (speaking from 20+ years experience).

This is fear mongering.

"But what security has the working-man that it may not be his turn tomorrow? Who assures him employment, who vouches for it that, if for any reason or no reason his lord and master discharges him tomorrow, he can struggle along with those dependent upon him, until he may find some one else 'to give him bread'? Who guarantees that willingness to work shall suffice to obtain work, that uprightness, industry, thrift, and the rest of the virtues recommended by the bourgeoisie, are really his road to happiness? No one. He knows that every breeze that blows, every whim of his employer, every bad turn of trade may hurl him back into the fierce whirlpool from which he has temporarily saved himself, and in which it is hard and often impossible to keep his head above water. He knows that, though he may have the means of living today, it is very uncertain whether he shall tomorrow.”

― Friedrich Engels

with so many reorganizations and realignments. From one day to the next, I'm not sure if my entrance access card will work. I can retire in 3 months.....but I feel sorry for the employees in their 50s...they have no future and will have a tough time if they are laid off.

... at a chain of family-owned faRm & ranch stores, here in southern Colorado.

I was paid $9/hr to do the work of three people (my two other co-workers wisely quit a few months in). After they'd gone, I could not keep up with the ever-increasing workload, no matter how hard I tried. And boy, did I try.

The operations manager used every trick in the Chamber of Commerce playbook to keep us miserable and compliant. He cut our hours right after xmas, banned unions, made sure the workers' healthcare plan was completely unaffordable, etc etc.

The owner's family (dim bulbs, every one of 'em) drove around in shiny new $50,000 pickup trucks, while we could barely afford to put gas in our crapped-out, 20-year-old cars.

Our on-site store manager was a terrific guy, who sympathised greatly with his workforce, but he was stuck in the middle - his hands completely tied by the penny-pinching crackers at the corporate office.

After three years, my worn-out body cried 'enough', and I quit. Best day of my life. Drove away and never looked back. It took six long months for my deep-rooted aches & pains to melt away.

That operations manager now works for a sweatshop sports retailer up in Denver, so his glittering career is rolling along just fine & dandy. But he'd better make damn sure not to bump into me or any of my former co-workers in a dark alleyway.

If only we peasants could unite and storm the gated castles of the owner class... it's well past time for a citizens' revolt. Until that day, the third-worlding of America will continue.

Based on my DOL background in my opinion working conditions continue to deteriorate for millions of workers. And they really do not understand why. It is not that I know everything. I am sure many workers are doing ok for now.

The new business model is about maximizing production by doing more with less employees and resources. And it is about reducing and eliminated benefits. Statistically I will bet the number of employers paying benefits is at a historical low.

On the other side of the coin productivity has increased exponentially yet the wealth created has virtually all gone to management and ownership. These stats are under the public radar.

I understand your sentiment and it is well founded. Understand you have a lot of company with your experience in the world of work. Change will not happen until the federal government forces that change like FDR instigated in the 1930's. Reagan and the GOP destroyed the social contract with employers and replaced it with a form of economic slavery.

Employers deserve to get it up the butt if they won't change.

... "Our people are our greatest asset." Which of course, was total BS.

He viewed us as nothing more than an expense to be minimised, not something that added any kind of value to the organisation.

His dream was to run those stores like an unmanned vending machine. A sick mind, overcome by greed.