Discussion of the widening class divide tends to focus on money — the top 1 percent’s share of total income, trends in median income, wealth inequality, intergenerational mobility, and so on. The preoccupation is understandable: economics is preeminent among the social sciences in prestige and influence, and economists naturally look to economic indicators. But if you examine contemporary socioeconomic inequality through a purely economic lens, you will fail to see the true depths of the problem.
I think there may be an interesting gender dynamic as well. In high income countries the female labor force participation rates are rising, and women are achieving higher status by attaining higher levels of education. A lot of the employment growth opportunities (e.g., health care) are female-coded while as you say the male-coded heavy manufacturing jobs are waning. This would seem to jive with the increase in rightwing populism, which always has a big male fragility aspect. It's ... hard to fathom what can be done about this other than a cultural revaluation of what masculinity entails.
Had several thoughts after reading your second installment: 1) Unions did not just wane because of declining labor industry jobs. They were undermined and destroyed by GOP policy, Reagan's union busting of air traffic controllers and "right to work" legislation. Post Covid as workers realize you don't have to labor on an assembly line to need support/protection from predatory management, unions are returning.
2) Race factors into any inclusion question. POC are marginalized in labor, housing, and wealth accumulation if not downright targeted and destroyed, e.g. Black Wall Street. While "rising tides lift all boats," POC have enjoyed substantially less of the culture of financial security you describe.
3) Again, post-pandemic, we are seeing a rather two-faced attitude towards service workers - grocery and retail, restaurant and food industry, health care, school -- who were essential to the economy in the height of it, but are turned on for wanting better wages, more security, better benefits, and safer working conditions now that life is "normalizing. " Unionization will help this some.
The decline of U.S. unions long predates Reagan: Taft-Hartley Act authorized right to work laws back in 1946; the failure of the CIO's Operation Dixie to unionize the South, launched that same year, marked the beginning of the organizing failures that sent union density into decline after its peak in the early 1950s. Yes we're seeing some high-profile organizing efforts now, but I don't believe they will turn this long-running tide. We really need new labor laws.
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 3, 2022Liked by Brink Lindsey
Many service workers are illegal immigrants. Their situation will only change for the better if the US issues needed workers proper visas.
Restaurants are in most states allowed to pay their workers below the official minimum wage. They must make their income in tips - relying on the kindness of strangers. Most European countries did away with that system more than half a century ago.
2) Everything in America happens through the social machinery of race, and there's a lot more to add for how, e.g., the negative-sum racialization dynamic Heather McGhee has described fits into and exacerbates all this. But the basic phenomenon Brink is talking about it international, so race is an unlikely root cause.
3) Seems like we missed a narrative-crafting opportunity where frontline health, food, and delivery workers were lionized. I mean, I saw some of it, but I guess not enough.
Exactly right on, tech change has had profound effects on ordinary workers' psyches as Brink cogently lays out, it goes beyond dollars and cents, strikes deep a peoples' self-worth. A slow motion loss of faith in the system, and the "elites" who seen to be in charge. No wonder the backlash. Eagerly looking forward to the next post.
There's a complementary analysis to be made here of the role of mass education in decreasing the felt agency and autonomy of the children of the non-elite classes. We should ask whether a reformed educational system could go some way to giving more non-elites a sense of a dignified and purposeful life. The sort of vocational education championed by Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" fame is probably part of this-- and especially important at times like the present when there's a huge shortage of skilled manual workers!-- but there's a need for deeper rethinking too.
Some books and Substacks that have influenced my own thinking about this:
Matthew Crawford, _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ and especially _The World Beyond Your Head_
There is much to contemplate in this rich, thoughtful analysis, and I will be thinking about it for some time. It’s striking to me though, that I might be considered a beneficiary of these developments, and yet, I often feel working class jobs in healthcare, construction, installation, maintenance, and repair are more ennobling, an afford more opportunities for virtue, than my own work, which largely entails solitary reading, writing, and coding to ends that are abstract and easily dismissed.
Thank you for this astute essay that combines history, economics, social theory and existentialist perspectives in meaningful ways. For me it was like a refresher course in the oh-so-many and only faintly memorable political science and US history courses of my long- ago undergraduate education. Equally, the comments of readers have provided food for thought- thanks for a good discussion. I am not an economist nor a historian, but I have spent some time studying leadership and education both in the US and in the Nordic countries. I'd be interested to know what role you think the US education system plays in securing the rather grim trajectory that I would agree we are on? For example, the German and Nordic highschool systems begin to direct students early toward vocational, technical and academic futures. Moreover, in most EU countries, securing training and college education (and beyond) is relatively easy and free. The ability to change one's mind about a career trajectory and return for more training or education is also free, including a stipend to support basic needs while you 're-tool'. My opinion is that the lack of an American educational equivalent plays a very big role in what I agree is a serious and long-in-the-making crisis. Again, pleased to have come across your writing.
I believe that our current educational system--in particular, the fact that its only definition of success is graduation from a 4-year university--is definitely compounding the difficulties that ordinary people face.
Forcing all young adults to go to high school and be interested in Shakespeare c.s. is one of the things that amazed me when I arrived here. Some youngsters have other ambitions, want to work right-away. European systems give that option - manual labor is more appreciated there it seems. If you want to be educated further later on, that is possible. Many people in my country started working at a young age, went back to school (college/university), ended up in government.
Change is coming because of the many on-line classes offered by colleges/ universities, with options for certificates. I hope that brick&mortar educational institutions find a way to integrate their curriculum with the on-line options and make education that way more attractive and affordable.
Thanks; but I have to consider and weigh alternative explanations. The impressionistic analysis I have in mind is that the "Treaty of Detroit" was less the result of the "clout of the working class" than it was the result of the near-monopoly of the American automobile industry at that time, at least within the U.S., and perhaps extending much further. The industry was in such a dominant position that for the sake of peace and mutual profit, the industry could afford to share the spoils. This set the stage for the undermining of the industry/labor compact -- not by a general process -- "...ongoing combination of automation and globalization, productivity growth outstripped growth in demand for [the products of] heavy industries even as supply began to move abroad to take advantage of cheap foreign labor" -- but a more-specific response: the non-U.S. automobile industry could undercut the domestic product.
If workers had sufficient clout, perhaps they could have done a better job maintaining that beneficial compact; protectionism comes to mind. My guess is that breaking worker's power was a highly successful and remunerative strategy for business in general.
I don't know how far this impressionistic analysis can extend to American industry and labor as a whole, but to the extent that it can, then I don't see the necessity of explanations that rely on worker solidarity as a response to the mortality of industrial employment, or on the status of industrial workers.
"...unions struggled to organize in the expanding service industries." Why? My analysis suggests it was because there was no near-monopoly in that sector with any spoils to share (with the public-sector unions as the exception that proves the rule -- sort of).
I would like to see more evidence in support of what appears to be a largely assertional method of argument. Your analysis is on a very productive track, and can and should be more compelling.
I agree that the dominant position of U.S. industry immediately after WWII made it a juicy target, and that under U.S. labor law the structure of service industries made them less susceptible to organizing. But unionization happened throughout the advanced capitalist economies, generally much more comprehensively than here, so you can't explain that with America-specific factors. As to unions' clout as of 1950, read up about the strike wave of 1945-50--nothing like it before or since in American history. Labor had huge leverage and was willing to use it; American industry could make money hand over fist if it could just have labor peace -- it took both of those in combination to produce the Treaty of Detroit.
Thanks much. I agree that unionization was broad and not U.S.-specific. I wasn't aware of the sui generis nature of the 1945-50 strike wave; thanks. My impression is that something like the Treaty of Detroit also occurred in Germany, where it remains in effect to some extent. My thought is that such industry-labor pacts bear within them the seeds of their destruction -- the monopoly becomes less sustainable. My point about service industries is not about labor law (I'm ignorant!) but that there's no monopoly to exploit to begin with -- that is, service industries are relatively competitive (while services in the public sector are not... until they're privatized, which has been successfully fought in some cases; e.g.. USPS).
My apologies for another quibble: couldn't we marshal some evidence for or against the hypothesis that worker status is important? In particular, relatively low-status but high-paying jobs offer a real-world experiment. I'm aware of some public sector unionized jobs (plumbers, electricians) that I would say derive status FROM their high pay, but otherwise would be low-status (by our current lights). Couldn't we compare markers for "deaths of desperation," etc. between such workers and similarly-skilled and credentialed workers in lower-paying jobs? My hypothesis is simple: money is sufficient. Which proffers a simple (if difficult to obtain) solution: we just need to pay people more!
Labor laws do not apply to the many illegal immigrants working in the service industries and other labor-intensive industries like the so-called "meat-packing" - slaughterhouses that is.
Good essay but really ignores the engine of this "creative destruction": global capitalism with its three engines of overseas outsourcing, importing cheap legal and illegal immigrant labor, and automation.
I don't discuss capitalist creative destruction at length in the essay but I don't ignore it: the capitalist pursuit of higher productivity through automation and globalization is the main driver of ordinary workers' declining power and status. And I say as much: see the paragraph that begins "But just as working-class power had brought about...."
What about mass legal and illegal immigration? The old story: "America was built on the backs of cheap immigrant labor." In the case of Silicon Valley: the brains(and factory work) of cheap immigrant labors. Devastated wages and unionization efforts. No one wants to mention that.
Many people worry that immigration drives down wages for native-born workers, but the evidence shows that this happens only rarely. And in the long run, more workers means higher innovation and productivity growth. So no, I don't think mass immigration has been a big factor in the marginalization of working people (and of course the industrial-era working class was itself the product of mass immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
Is your evidence Mr. Petri ? Mr. Borjas states the opposite. So does Mr. Matloff. Immigrants hold wages in check, although in some geographic areas and in some occupations, things can be different. According to the economist Borjas low-skilled immigration adversely affects low-skilled natives - while positively affecting medium and high skilled natives.
Furthermore, immigration does change demographics. An effect seldomly mentioned is that some USers will not get a job, or lose their job, because they only speak English (and not also Hispanic or another language now spoken by many in that area).
If more workers mean more growth, why then are about 100,000 LEGAL non-immigrants kept outside of the economy every year ? Especially Democrats are insistent: if H-4's are allowed to work too, the US economy will be irreparably damaged. ("Your husband already took a US job, and you want to do the same ?!")
Economists currently talk about a labor shortage, but no one proposes to give us - mostly well-educated, skilled women - the right to contribute to the US economy.
Re. the "mass" legal/illegal immigration. What numbers do you base this on ?
Immigration is a right US citizens have. To come here one needs a US citizen family member (some cases Permanent Resident). The US immigration system is based on family-reunion - at absurdum. About 650,000 immigrants arrive that way every year. No requirements re. education, skills, work experience, or basic knowledge of the English language. For all others, immigration into the US is almost impossible (exceptions: asylumseekers/refugees, Visa Lottery winners).
A limited number of much needed STEM workers can immigrate if they are willing to go to hell and back - and have wives willing to give up everything and more.
As it is almost impossible to come here otherwise, people come illegally. They have jobs waiting for them, or see opportunities for a small business.
In Silicon Valley no factories are located, they are in China. H-1B brains are not exactly cheap, although some co.'s game the system, bringing in cheaper people to hire them out for a lot more. That should have been disallowed from the beginning, but politicians need their war-chests filled. As a result too many capped H1-B petitions get filed, a lottery implemented, and the chance for the petition to be processed, is 1 in 3. So much for being able to hire a foreign worker who is the right man for the job. (About 80% of H-1B's are male, the majority from India.)
As the H-1B system got so perverted - for workers from Europe co.'s now use the L-1 route instead - it should be abolished. If a foreign worker is is really needed, give him/her a Green Card. That will also level the playing-field for US workers.
So glad to see articles by you on Substack, Brink. This is exactly the sort of analysis I came for, and as mentioned by another commenter, one I’ll be thinking about for a bit.
Really enjoy your analysis - not just this article.
However, I think you make this argument even more interesting by engaging with Yuval Noah Harari’s argument that AI is going to make this worse, through the rise of the Useless Class. Over the past two hundred years, capitalists have required a well educated, well fed, healthy working class in order to power their militaries and their factories. The rise of AI may make this no longer necessary, therefore giving rise to a “useless class”.
I agree that the prospect of continued automation and AI threatens to both deepen and broaden the trends of socioeconomic marginalization I wrote about. I do intend to write about that down the line, but I think it's important to recognize first that the problem is already with us.
This essay is educational, and it only has 38 comments since October! That is the problem that we need to fix. We are a celebrity society who lives from headline to entertainment. Daniel Kahneman explains it best in his book, Thinking Fast & Slow. We are a nation of Fast Thinkers. Why won't the NYT publish this essay? It is simple. It is too long.
Yes! Everyone has the right to take pride in the work they do. That ought to be at the top of everyone's Dignity of Work list. Great essay, Mr. Lindsey.
There's also the issue of the management revolution de-skilling service jobs and making employees increasingly fungible. Since so much of the service industry is run by a shrinking number of organizations, they are able to impose uniform work standards and conditions. Almost every fast food worker is in this situation including shift managers and the franchise operators themselves. They have a corporate rule book. Workers, and even owners, just need to follow instructions. If they don't follow instructions, they can be replaced by just about anyone. Look at the dairy and poultry industries. They might run the farm, but the only places they can sell to imposes rules and sanctions and sets the terms. So much for Walt Whitman's "I Hear America Singing".
Entire classes of mid-skill jobs have been turned into minimal skill jobs, and they have the pay and autonomy to match.
Food for thought here. What is the connection of the social collapse depicted here to the rise of authoritarian populism? What is the connection to the rise of a more cynical more corrupt, less compassionate fundamentalist Christianity?
I think there may be an interesting gender dynamic as well. In high income countries the female labor force participation rates are rising, and women are achieving higher status by attaining higher levels of education. A lot of the employment growth opportunities (e.g., health care) are female-coded while as you say the male-coded heavy manufacturing jobs are waning. This would seem to jive with the increase in rightwing populism, which always has a big male fragility aspect. It's ... hard to fathom what can be done about this other than a cultural revaluation of what masculinity entails.
Had several thoughts after reading your second installment: 1) Unions did not just wane because of declining labor industry jobs. They were undermined and destroyed by GOP policy, Reagan's union busting of air traffic controllers and "right to work" legislation. Post Covid as workers realize you don't have to labor on an assembly line to need support/protection from predatory management, unions are returning.
2) Race factors into any inclusion question. POC are marginalized in labor, housing, and wealth accumulation if not downright targeted and destroyed, e.g. Black Wall Street. While "rising tides lift all boats," POC have enjoyed substantially less of the culture of financial security you describe.
3) Again, post-pandemic, we are seeing a rather two-faced attitude towards service workers - grocery and retail, restaurant and food industry, health care, school -- who were essential to the economy in the height of it, but are turned on for wanting better wages, more security, better benefits, and safer working conditions now that life is "normalizing. " Unionization will help this some.
The decline of U.S. unions long predates Reagan: Taft-Hartley Act authorized right to work laws back in 1946; the failure of the CIO's Operation Dixie to unionize the South, launched that same year, marked the beginning of the organizing failures that sent union density into decline after its peak in the early 1950s. Yes we're seeing some high-profile organizing efforts now, but I don't believe they will turn this long-running tide. We really need new labor laws.
Agreed!! The American worker needs protecting.
Many service workers are illegal immigrants. Their situation will only change for the better if the US issues needed workers proper visas.
Restaurants are in most states allowed to pay their workers below the official minimum wage. They must make their income in tips - relying on the kindness of strangers. Most European countries did away with that system more than half a century ago.
2) Everything in America happens through the social machinery of race, and there's a lot more to add for how, e.g., the negative-sum racialization dynamic Heather McGhee has described fits into and exacerbates all this. But the basic phenomenon Brink is talking about it international, so race is an unlikely root cause.
3) Seems like we missed a narrative-crafting opportunity where frontline health, food, and delivery workers were lionized. I mean, I saw some of it, but I guess not enough.
Exactly right on, tech change has had profound effects on ordinary workers' psyches as Brink cogently lays out, it goes beyond dollars and cents, strikes deep a peoples' self-worth. A slow motion loss of faith in the system, and the "elites" who seen to be in charge. No wonder the backlash. Eagerly looking forward to the next post.
There's a complementary analysis to be made here of the role of mass education in decreasing the felt agency and autonomy of the children of the non-elite classes. We should ask whether a reformed educational system could go some way to giving more non-elites a sense of a dignified and purposeful life. The sort of vocational education championed by Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" fame is probably part of this-- and especially important at times like the present when there's a huge shortage of skilled manual workers!-- but there's a need for deeper rethinking too.
Some books and Substacks that have influenced my own thinking about this:
Matthew Crawford, _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ and especially _The World Beyond Your Head_
Simon Sarris, The Map is Mostly Water, e.g. https://simonsarris.substack.com/p/the-most-precious-resource-is-agency
Henrik Karlsson, Escaping Flatland, e.g. https://escapingflatland.substack.com/p/apprenticeship-online
Erik Hoel, The Intrinsic Perspective, e.g. https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einsteins
Thanks so much -- I loved Shop Class as Soulcraft, and I've recently discovered Erik Hoel, but the other two references are new to me.
Or the Australian celebration of “tradies” as in “Tradies get the Ladies” etc.
Great observation- I missed it before I wrote my own comments.. thanks for these resources.
There is much to contemplate in this rich, thoughtful analysis, and I will be thinking about it for some time. It’s striking to me though, that I might be considered a beneficiary of these developments, and yet, I often feel working class jobs in healthcare, construction, installation, maintenance, and repair are more ennobling, an afford more opportunities for virtue, than my own work, which largely entails solitary reading, writing, and coding to ends that are abstract and easily dismissed.
Very interesting article, Brink.
I think you meant "deliver" here: "would not delivery their bounty."
Blessings.
Thanks for the catch!
Thank you for this astute essay that combines history, economics, social theory and existentialist perspectives in meaningful ways. For me it was like a refresher course in the oh-so-many and only faintly memorable political science and US history courses of my long- ago undergraduate education. Equally, the comments of readers have provided food for thought- thanks for a good discussion. I am not an economist nor a historian, but I have spent some time studying leadership and education both in the US and in the Nordic countries. I'd be interested to know what role you think the US education system plays in securing the rather grim trajectory that I would agree we are on? For example, the German and Nordic highschool systems begin to direct students early toward vocational, technical and academic futures. Moreover, in most EU countries, securing training and college education (and beyond) is relatively easy and free. The ability to change one's mind about a career trajectory and return for more training or education is also free, including a stipend to support basic needs while you 're-tool'. My opinion is that the lack of an American educational equivalent plays a very big role in what I agree is a serious and long-in-the-making crisis. Again, pleased to have come across your writing.
I believe that our current educational system--in particular, the fact that its only definition of success is graduation from a 4-year university--is definitely compounding the difficulties that ordinary people face.
Forcing all young adults to go to high school and be interested in Shakespeare c.s. is one of the things that amazed me when I arrived here. Some youngsters have other ambitions, want to work right-away. European systems give that option - manual labor is more appreciated there it seems. If you want to be educated further later on, that is possible. Many people in my country started working at a young age, went back to school (college/university), ended up in government.
Change is coming because of the many on-line classes offered by colleges/ universities, with options for certificates. I hope that brick&mortar educational institutions find a way to integrate their curriculum with the on-line options and make education that way more attractive and affordable.
Thanks; but I have to consider and weigh alternative explanations. The impressionistic analysis I have in mind is that the "Treaty of Detroit" was less the result of the "clout of the working class" than it was the result of the near-monopoly of the American automobile industry at that time, at least within the U.S., and perhaps extending much further. The industry was in such a dominant position that for the sake of peace and mutual profit, the industry could afford to share the spoils. This set the stage for the undermining of the industry/labor compact -- not by a general process -- "...ongoing combination of automation and globalization, productivity growth outstripped growth in demand for [the products of] heavy industries even as supply began to move abroad to take advantage of cheap foreign labor" -- but a more-specific response: the non-U.S. automobile industry could undercut the domestic product.
If workers had sufficient clout, perhaps they could have done a better job maintaining that beneficial compact; protectionism comes to mind. My guess is that breaking worker's power was a highly successful and remunerative strategy for business in general.
I don't know how far this impressionistic analysis can extend to American industry and labor as a whole, but to the extent that it can, then I don't see the necessity of explanations that rely on worker solidarity as a response to the mortality of industrial employment, or on the status of industrial workers.
"...unions struggled to organize in the expanding service industries." Why? My analysis suggests it was because there was no near-monopoly in that sector with any spoils to share (with the public-sector unions as the exception that proves the rule -- sort of).
I would like to see more evidence in support of what appears to be a largely assertional method of argument. Your analysis is on a very productive track, and can and should be more compelling.
I agree that the dominant position of U.S. industry immediately after WWII made it a juicy target, and that under U.S. labor law the structure of service industries made them less susceptible to organizing. But unionization happened throughout the advanced capitalist economies, generally much more comprehensively than here, so you can't explain that with America-specific factors. As to unions' clout as of 1950, read up about the strike wave of 1945-50--nothing like it before or since in American history. Labor had huge leverage and was willing to use it; American industry could make money hand over fist if it could just have labor peace -- it took both of those in combination to produce the Treaty of Detroit.
Thanks much. I agree that unionization was broad and not U.S.-specific. I wasn't aware of the sui generis nature of the 1945-50 strike wave; thanks. My impression is that something like the Treaty of Detroit also occurred in Germany, where it remains in effect to some extent. My thought is that such industry-labor pacts bear within them the seeds of their destruction -- the monopoly becomes less sustainable. My point about service industries is not about labor law (I'm ignorant!) but that there's no monopoly to exploit to begin with -- that is, service industries are relatively competitive (while services in the public sector are not... until they're privatized, which has been successfully fought in some cases; e.g.. USPS).
My apologies for another quibble: couldn't we marshal some evidence for or against the hypothesis that worker status is important? In particular, relatively low-status but high-paying jobs offer a real-world experiment. I'm aware of some public sector unionized jobs (plumbers, electricians) that I would say derive status FROM their high pay, but otherwise would be low-status (by our current lights). Couldn't we compare markers for "deaths of desperation," etc. between such workers and similarly-skilled and credentialed workers in lower-paying jobs? My hypothesis is simple: money is sufficient. Which proffers a simple (if difficult to obtain) solution: we just need to pay people more!
Labor laws do not apply to the many illegal immigrants working in the service industries and other labor-intensive industries like the so-called "meat-packing" - slaughterhouses that is.
Good essay but really ignores the engine of this "creative destruction": global capitalism with its three engines of overseas outsourcing, importing cheap legal and illegal immigrant labor, and automation.
I don't discuss capitalist creative destruction at length in the essay but I don't ignore it: the capitalist pursuit of higher productivity through automation and globalization is the main driver of ordinary workers' declining power and status. And I say as much: see the paragraph that begins "But just as working-class power had brought about...."
What about mass legal and illegal immigration? The old story: "America was built on the backs of cheap immigrant labor." In the case of Silicon Valley: the brains(and factory work) of cheap immigrant labors. Devastated wages and unionization efforts. No one wants to mention that.
Many people worry that immigration drives down wages for native-born workers, but the evidence shows that this happens only rarely. And in the long run, more workers means higher innovation and productivity growth. So no, I don't think mass immigration has been a big factor in the marginalization of working people (and of course the industrial-era working class was itself the product of mass immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
Is your evidence Mr. Petri ? Mr. Borjas states the opposite. So does Mr. Matloff. Immigrants hold wages in check, although in some geographic areas and in some occupations, things can be different. According to the economist Borjas low-skilled immigration adversely affects low-skilled natives - while positively affecting medium and high skilled natives.
Furthermore, immigration does change demographics. An effect seldomly mentioned is that some USers will not get a job, or lose their job, because they only speak English (and not also Hispanic or another language now spoken by many in that area).
If more workers mean more growth, why then are about 100,000 LEGAL non-immigrants kept outside of the economy every year ? Especially Democrats are insistent: if H-4's are allowed to work too, the US economy will be irreparably damaged. ("Your husband already took a US job, and you want to do the same ?!")
Economists currently talk about a labor shortage, but no one proposes to give us - mostly well-educated, skilled women - the right to contribute to the US economy.
Re. the "mass" legal/illegal immigration. What numbers do you base this on ?
Immigration is a right US citizens have. To come here one needs a US citizen family member (some cases Permanent Resident). The US immigration system is based on family-reunion - at absurdum. About 650,000 immigrants arrive that way every year. No requirements re. education, skills, work experience, or basic knowledge of the English language. For all others, immigration into the US is almost impossible (exceptions: asylumseekers/refugees, Visa Lottery winners).
A limited number of much needed STEM workers can immigrate if they are willing to go to hell and back - and have wives willing to give up everything and more.
As it is almost impossible to come here otherwise, people come illegally. They have jobs waiting for them, or see opportunities for a small business.
In Silicon Valley no factories are located, they are in China. H-1B brains are not exactly cheap, although some co.'s game the system, bringing in cheaper people to hire them out for a lot more. That should have been disallowed from the beginning, but politicians need their war-chests filled. As a result too many capped H1-B petitions get filed, a lottery implemented, and the chance for the petition to be processed, is 1 in 3. So much for being able to hire a foreign worker who is the right man for the job. (About 80% of H-1B's are male, the majority from India.)
As the H-1B system got so perverted - for workers from Europe co.'s now use the L-1 route instead - it should be abolished. If a foreign worker is is really needed, give him/her a Green Card. That will also level the playing-field for US workers.
So glad to see articles by you on Substack, Brink. This is exactly the sort of analysis I came for, and as mentioned by another commenter, one I’ll be thinking about for a bit.
Really enjoy your analysis - not just this article.
However, I think you make this argument even more interesting by engaging with Yuval Noah Harari’s argument that AI is going to make this worse, through the rise of the Useless Class. Over the past two hundred years, capitalists have required a well educated, well fed, healthy working class in order to power their militaries and their factories. The rise of AI may make this no longer necessary, therefore giving rise to a “useless class”.
https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/
I agree that the prospect of continued automation and AI threatens to both deepen and broaden the trends of socioeconomic marginalization I wrote about. I do intend to write about that down the line, but I think it's important to recognize first that the problem is already with us.
This essay is educational, and it only has 38 comments since October! That is the problem that we need to fix. We are a celebrity society who lives from headline to entertainment. Daniel Kahneman explains it best in his book, Thinking Fast & Slow. We are a nation of Fast Thinkers. Why won't the NYT publish this essay? It is simple. It is too long.
Yes! Everyone has the right to take pride in the work they do. That ought to be at the top of everyone's Dignity of Work list. Great essay, Mr. Lindsey.
There's also the issue of the management revolution de-skilling service jobs and making employees increasingly fungible. Since so much of the service industry is run by a shrinking number of organizations, they are able to impose uniform work standards and conditions. Almost every fast food worker is in this situation including shift managers and the franchise operators themselves. They have a corporate rule book. Workers, and even owners, just need to follow instructions. If they don't follow instructions, they can be replaced by just about anyone. Look at the dairy and poultry industries. They might run the farm, but the only places they can sell to imposes rules and sanctions and sets the terms. So much for Walt Whitman's "I Hear America Singing".
Entire classes of mid-skill jobs have been turned into minimal skill jobs, and they have the pay and autonomy to match.
Very incisive, even brilliant, Brink. Sometime, we should discuss ...
Rob
Food for thought here. What is the connection of the social collapse depicted here to the rise of authoritarian populism? What is the connection to the rise of a more cynical more corrupt, less compassionate fundamentalist Christianity?
I think there are strong connections, which I hope to explore in essays to come.