by Glen Wallace
Update: I recently discovered a listing for his book on the British Amazon website http://www.amazon.co.uk/Down-Out-America-Roger-Swardson/dp/0465017002, so why not on the US website?
I've recently discovered that Roger Swardson's book 'Down and Out in America' has disappeared from any listing on Amazon's website. It has just disappeared even though for a long time I remember that the book could still be found at least as an entry on the site even though the book has been out of print for a long time and no used copies were available. I have to wonder if this omission by a mega corporation of a book that is so supportive of labor rights and does such a good job of highlighting the plight of the underclass in a very entertaining manner is accidental or deliberate. I thought that Amazon would continue to list an entry for even the most obscure work that is out of print and without any available used copies. It seems like an awfully big coincidence that a book like Swardson's stops being listed from a corporate site like Amazon. Here is a book that could be considered critical of the sort of general labor practices of low pay for workers that a corporation like Amazon has become dependent on for its product shipping distribution networks to maintain its already low profit margins that has allowed it to continue its dominance in online retail. Any resurgence in the labor movement in this country I imagine could easily first hit Amazon, given that much of the shipping work, due to its nature, could not be outsourced and therefore give leverage to the workers in Amazons shipping warehouses to demand better pay and working conditions. And even though his book was never a big seller, I think that his writing style could, given the chance, popularize a new labor movement. And therefore, I wonder if someone at Amazon saw that and decided to nip any chance of such a labor resurgence from happening in the bud by making Swardson's book disappear from Amazon's database.
Showing posts with label workers rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workers rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
In Spain workers now have to sacrifice their labor for the sake of the banksters
By Glen Wallace
The New York Times article For Spaniards, Having a Job No Longer Guarantees a Paycheck , seems to be describing a situation in Spain that is more dire than how it appears in the mainstream media here in the U.S. Apparently there is a fairly widespread problem over there of people with jobs getting paid either very irregularly in small amounts or not at all. Often the workers not getting a paycheck see few options since they think they will have even less chance of finding another job at all if they leave there current employer. But on the other hand if they try to hold their employers publicly accountable for the non or slow payment of wages, the workers are afraid that will hurt the business they work for so much that it will tip over into bankruptcy.
I had no idea this was going on over there. I imagine many will blame their plight on socialism. I would tend to disagree and if anything lay the blame in the opposite direction on the capitalist bankers that encouraged and profited from the indebtedness that has lead to the current European crisis.
The economic systems that we all live under exist not because it grew out of nature or as some law of physics, but out of the decisions of fallible humans. None of the people featured in the article had any goal or expectation of living lavish lifestyles off of the income they were assured of from their employment. Rather they just wanted to live a simple modest life from the fruit of their hard work in their jobs. But now even though they are working and many more in their country are willing and desirous to work and be productive, they are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads by keeping up with the mortgage payments. Isn't that kind of a funny expression -- 'keep the roof over our heads' -- I mean, where is roof going? Is it blowing away and you're trying to hold onto it? Of course not, but economics is supposed to be fundamentally about the relationship between humans and the material world that makes up modern civilization. Those of us who are satisfied with a modest standard of living should demand an economic system that supports a symbiotic relationship between our participation in that system and an adequate maintenance of its supportive economic structure. The roof is not going anywhere, it is the bank that is deciding that the people living underneath the roof must go and the law enforcement that is supposed to be advocates for the people show that in reality they are advocates for the banks when they use force or the threat of force to evict the people living underneath the roof.
It doesn't have to be this way -- remember, the laws that govern our economic system are not laws of physics but are rather malleable rules created by humans. One of the individuals featured in the story, who is owed $13,000 in back pay, is a woman working in a factory hand rolling paint onto tiles. I wonder how many square feet of wall space in houses all those tiles she has painted could fill? I ask that question because I wonder how much labor is really needed to support a smoothly running modern civilization where most citizens simply want to live a modest life with a modest roof over their heads. What if we were to forget about the big banks and debt? Could we create a system that functioned solely with the goal of first meeting the basic needs of food, shelter, water, sewage, heat, electricity as the top priority and look to how that goal can be met given the available resources of labor and land. If, and only if the basic needs for modest living are met, then those that are especially ambitious can be allowed to pursue a few extra niceties and comforts of life - but only if doing so in no way depletes or takes away from society meeting the first priority of basic needs. Instead, in our current bankcentric economic model, I'd be willing to bet that tile painter is, in effect, through no choice of her own, sacrificing her labor in order to make sure debt obligations are met that keep the banksters living in luxury. What kind of economic system allows that sort of injustice? Clearly a rotten one that needs to be tossed into the compost bin. And from the lessons we have learned we can grow a new fruitful society nourished by the soil fertilized by the mistakes we now know to avoid.
The New York Times article For Spaniards, Having a Job No Longer Guarantees a Paycheck , seems to be describing a situation in Spain that is more dire than how it appears in the mainstream media here in the U.S. Apparently there is a fairly widespread problem over there of people with jobs getting paid either very irregularly in small amounts or not at all. Often the workers not getting a paycheck see few options since they think they will have even less chance of finding another job at all if they leave there current employer. But on the other hand if they try to hold their employers publicly accountable for the non or slow payment of wages, the workers are afraid that will hurt the business they work for so much that it will tip over into bankruptcy.
I had no idea this was going on over there. I imagine many will blame their plight on socialism. I would tend to disagree and if anything lay the blame in the opposite direction on the capitalist bankers that encouraged and profited from the indebtedness that has lead to the current European crisis.
The economic systems that we all live under exist not because it grew out of nature or as some law of physics, but out of the decisions of fallible humans. None of the people featured in the article had any goal or expectation of living lavish lifestyles off of the income they were assured of from their employment. Rather they just wanted to live a simple modest life from the fruit of their hard work in their jobs. But now even though they are working and many more in their country are willing and desirous to work and be productive, they are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads by keeping up with the mortgage payments. Isn't that kind of a funny expression -- 'keep the roof over our heads' -- I mean, where is roof going? Is it blowing away and you're trying to hold onto it? Of course not, but economics is supposed to be fundamentally about the relationship between humans and the material world that makes up modern civilization. Those of us who are satisfied with a modest standard of living should demand an economic system that supports a symbiotic relationship between our participation in that system and an adequate maintenance of its supportive economic structure. The roof is not going anywhere, it is the bank that is deciding that the people living underneath the roof must go and the law enforcement that is supposed to be advocates for the people show that in reality they are advocates for the banks when they use force or the threat of force to evict the people living underneath the roof.
It doesn't have to be this way -- remember, the laws that govern our economic system are not laws of physics but are rather malleable rules created by humans. One of the individuals featured in the story, who is owed $13,000 in back pay, is a woman working in a factory hand rolling paint onto tiles. I wonder how many square feet of wall space in houses all those tiles she has painted could fill? I ask that question because I wonder how much labor is really needed to support a smoothly running modern civilization where most citizens simply want to live a modest life with a modest roof over their heads. What if we were to forget about the big banks and debt? Could we create a system that functioned solely with the goal of first meeting the basic needs of food, shelter, water, sewage, heat, electricity as the top priority and look to how that goal can be met given the available resources of labor and land. If, and only if the basic needs for modest living are met, then those that are especially ambitious can be allowed to pursue a few extra niceties and comforts of life - but only if doing so in no way depletes or takes away from society meeting the first priority of basic needs. Instead, in our current bankcentric economic model, I'd be willing to bet that tile painter is, in effect, through no choice of her own, sacrificing her labor in order to make sure debt obligations are met that keep the banksters living in luxury. What kind of economic system allows that sort of injustice? Clearly a rotten one that needs to be tossed into the compost bin. And from the lessons we have learned we can grow a new fruitful society nourished by the soil fertilized by the mistakes we now know to avoid.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
On the Need for Regulations and Tariffs
By Glen Wallace
I think we tend to take for granted the regulations that protect the consumer. As an example there was the problem with the toxic drywall from China that had it been manufactured in the US perhaps the existing regulations in this country would have prevented the problems from occurring in the first place. Additionally there are certain food and drink manufacturing regulations that we count on to insure that those products are safe to consume. But these are the sorts of regulations that the consumer both wants and needs. I think both of those factors must be present before regulatory restrictions are implemented on any given product. If the consumer wants to consume something that the government believes is unsafe for the consumer, then the consumer should still be allowed to consume the product. The government should not be taking on a 'Big Brother knows best' approach where they exist to be our masters that protect us from ourselves. Rather government should be the servant of the people and only takes on the role of protector when we ask it to, but quickly backs off when ordered to do so as well.
The following is a post I wrote somewhere in response to a speech/testimony by Peter Schiff:
Mr Schiff is so selective in his arguments, only pulling out the best examples that appear to support his positions while selectively ignoring the glaring refutational examples. For instance in the case of Henry Ford the workers and the economy benefited by the wisdom and benevolence of Mr Ford. But given human nature we can not count on all the heads of business to have such virtuous characteristics.
All too many in business suffer from a case of tunnel vision nearsightedness, where if they can get away with squeezing every last dime of productivity without killing their employees they will do it. I'm thinking of the sort of characters as Scarlett O'hara from 'Gone with the Wind' and her treatment of the prison laborers in her husbands lumber mill. It is for those sorts that government regulation is absolutely necessary to protect the worker from abuse by the Scarlett O'haras and pre-epiphany Ebenezer Scrooges of the world. I also think back to the working conditions as featured accurately in Upton Sinclair's book 'The Jungle'. There wasn't much unions or government regulation then either. What did the free market do for those workers Mr Schiff?
But on the other hand I believe supporters of heavy regulation in the US often have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach in ignoring how a lack of regulations on foreign businesses with regard to workers rights and the environment, creates an incentive to offshore work to those countries with factories that abuse the environment and their workers due to lack of regulations. But when it comes time to import those foreign made goods, the pro regulation set is silent and by their silence, imply that it is perfectly fine to buy those goods and thereby support those foreign factories that may be paying slave-like wages and polluting the environment.
It doesn't make any sense to support regulation under the pretext that it is being done to protect the workers and the environment when there is no disincentive to offshore the work to countries where workers and the environment are not being protected. As a solution I would suggest implementing a tariff system that varies inversely with the level of regulation in the country of manufacture for a product. For instance, a very high tariff would be levied against Chinese made goods whereas little to no tariff would be put on products made in Germany.
I think we tend to take for granted the regulations that protect the consumer. As an example there was the problem with the toxic drywall from China that had it been manufactured in the US perhaps the existing regulations in this country would have prevented the problems from occurring in the first place. Additionally there are certain food and drink manufacturing regulations that we count on to insure that those products are safe to consume. But these are the sorts of regulations that the consumer both wants and needs. I think both of those factors must be present before regulatory restrictions are implemented on any given product. If the consumer wants to consume something that the government believes is unsafe for the consumer, then the consumer should still be allowed to consume the product. The government should not be taking on a 'Big Brother knows best' approach where they exist to be our masters that protect us from ourselves. Rather government should be the servant of the people and only takes on the role of protector when we ask it to, but quickly backs off when ordered to do so as well.
The following is a post I wrote somewhere in response to a speech/testimony by Peter Schiff:
Mr Schiff is so selective in his arguments, only pulling out the best examples that appear to support his positions while selectively ignoring the glaring refutational examples. For instance in the case of Henry Ford the workers and the economy benefited by the wisdom and benevolence of Mr Ford. But given human nature we can not count on all the heads of business to have such virtuous characteristics.
All too many in business suffer from a case of tunnel vision nearsightedness, where if they can get away with squeezing every last dime of productivity without killing their employees they will do it. I'm thinking of the sort of characters as Scarlett O'hara from 'Gone with the Wind' and her treatment of the prison laborers in her husbands lumber mill. It is for those sorts that government regulation is absolutely necessary to protect the worker from abuse by the Scarlett O'haras and pre-epiphany Ebenezer Scrooges of the world. I also think back to the working conditions as featured accurately in Upton Sinclair's book 'The Jungle'. There wasn't much unions or government regulation then either. What did the free market do for those workers Mr Schiff?
But on the other hand I believe supporters of heavy regulation in the US often have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach in ignoring how a lack of regulations on foreign businesses with regard to workers rights and the environment, creates an incentive to offshore work to those countries with factories that abuse the environment and their workers due to lack of regulations. But when it comes time to import those foreign made goods, the pro regulation set is silent and by their silence, imply that it is perfectly fine to buy those goods and thereby support those foreign factories that may be paying slave-like wages and polluting the environment.
It doesn't make any sense to support regulation under the pretext that it is being done to protect the workers and the environment when there is no disincentive to offshore the work to countries where workers and the environment are not being protected. As a solution I would suggest implementing a tariff system that varies inversely with the level of regulation in the country of manufacture for a product. For instance, a very high tariff would be levied against Chinese made goods whereas little to no tariff would be put on products made in Germany.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)