Simple question re: post-industrial labor force

[Decolonize The Left]

Something that is on my mind as I get ready for work:

Assuming a post-industrial economy: what is the response of capital given that the previous majority of the work force is no longer capable of working (production/distribution jobs are outsourced to new markets and/or mechanized)? Capitalism needs these people to keep purchasing goods and services so they need expendable income, but there simply aren't enough jobs in a post-industrial economy to facilitate that kind of monetary movement.

I can only think of two resolutions for capital:
1) Make less people: negative population growth. So the people who are born can move into specialized industries or services.
2) Subsidize the population: use the government to provide them with expendable income.

Am I viewing this correctly? I believe this is an important issue and would appreciate the perspectives of the more theoretically literate here.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Financialization. Insofar as there is anything like a government subsidy, it is by way of shit like "bailouts" for the banks when, inevitably, the financialization pyramid scheme collapses (as it inevitably does in various markets). On the other hand, we see some "job creation" related to managing these contradictions (buildin' prisons, buildin' securitized centrally located condo projects, etc.) and on the other hand we see mass incarceration, the virtual enslavement of certain populations, etc.

Or, at least, that's my reading of what's up.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Financialization. Insofar as there is anything like a government subsidy, it is by way of shit like "bailouts" for the banks when, inevitably, the financialization pyramid scheme collapses (as it inevitably does in various markets). On the other hand, we see some "job creation" related to managing these contradictions (buildin' prisons, buildin' securitized centrally located condo projects, etc.) and on the other hand we see mass incarceration, the virtual enslavement of certain populations, etc.

Or, at least, that's my reading of what's up.

I don't see what financialization has to do at all with the OP. Financial firms, especially those involved in such "financialization," have an extremely low employment base. Wells Fargo, for example, employed around 270,000 people, total, in 2012, at which time it was the third largest financial institution globally by market cap. JP Morgan Chase does have a significantly higher employment base, but that is because of the massive retail banking system that Chase runs; JP Morgan (where such "financialization" would take place) has way less employees.

As for the second part of your post, it's pretty conspiratorial to claim that building prisons and imprisoning people is part of some kind of intentional way to "create jobs". Certainly in some specific, isolated instances, these arguments are used (for example, voting to subsidize the creation of a prison because of the jobs it creates), but the argument is open and is used generally by conservatives for all kinds of issues. That is an age old conservative tradition, to run roughshod over environmentalism, workers' rights, and so on, by claiming the issue in question "creates jobs".

OP, job data by sector is freely available. The decline of America's industrial employment base commenced decades upon decades ago, at which time your exact point was actively being discussed.

[D-A-C]

Something that is on my mind as I get ready for work:

Assuming a post-industrial economy: what is the response of capital given that the previous majority of the work force is no longer capable of working (production/distribution jobs are outsourced to new markets and/or mechanized)? Capitalism needs these people to keep purchasing goods and services so they need expendable income, but there simply aren't enough jobs in a post-industrial economy to facilitate that kind of monetary movement.

I can only think of two resolutions for capital:
1) Make less people: negative population growth. So the people who are born can move into specialized industries or services.
2) Subsidize the population: use the government to provide them with expendable income.

Am I viewing this correctly? I believe this is an important issue and would appreciate the perspectives of the more theoretically literate here.

I'm pretty sure I've read that one of the major features of a post-industrial economy is that the majority of work ships from the production of goods to the 'service' industry.

A percentage of the work force is converted into the 'designer' types who produce the ideas that the outsourced labour forces then produce, so the rise in IT companies and jobs that involve no production of actual concrete goods/products.

Equally there is a significant rise in the number of waiters, cleaners and other types of service industry jobs that facilitate those who went on to highly paid 'designer' jobs.

Also, another feature of the Post-Industrial economy is a lot of short term employment and high turnaround of the workforce where people constantly have to adapt and take on new jobs.

I'm still trying to learn about Post-Industrial economies, and my knowledge of it isn't related to explaining your OP, but those are just some things I believe I read about that type of economy.

Hope they are even semi-useful lol!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't see what financialization has to do at all with the OP. Financial firms, especially those involved in such "financialization," have an extremely low employment base. Wells Fargo, for example, employed around 270,000 people, total, in 2012, at which time it was the third largest financial institution globally by market cap. JP Morgan Chase does have a significantly higher employment base, but that is because of the massive retail banking system that Chase runs; JP Morgan (where such "financialization" would take place) has way less employees.

Have you ever heard of a phenomena called credit? It's part of financialization, and, you're right it's not jobs. That's the point.


As for the second part of your post, it's pretty conspiratorial to claim that building prisons and imprisoning people is part of some kind of intentional way to "create jobs". Certainly in some specific, isolated instances, these arguments are used (for example, voting to subsidize the creation of a prison because of the jobs it creates), but the argument is open and is used generally by conservatives for all kinds of issues. That is an age old conservative tradition, to run roughshod over environmentalism, workers' rights, and so on, by claiming the issue in question "creates jobs".

It's not a "conspiracy" - I don't think there are there's some shadowy cabal saying, "Mass incarceration of targeted communities will be a great way to make license plates for dirt cheap. Muahaha!" It's just the "invisible hand" doing what it does best, in concert with the business-as-usual of politics (Sodexho's vote counts for more than yours). That said, is it strategic? Absolutely. I can only speak for Canada, but seriously spend some time reading about the (currently governing) Conservative Party (http://www.conservative.ca/)'s stand vis- the prison industrial complex. It's not the world's most subtle shit.

[Decolonize The Left]

Shit I forgot about credit. Good call VMC. Credit is exactly what I was looking for, BUT, credit is only a temporary solution. For example, the US government can take on debt and print money to wipe out that debt at a steady rate. But individual people cannot do this and eventually the credit crisis will bankrupt a large portion of the working class, at which point they will have to be bailed out in order to maintain order and coherency to the system.

So the question is then: what happens at this juncture? I think that the most logical step is that a new form of credit will be issued - merely renaming the old problem as a new solution?

[D-A-C]

The book that I read on Post-Industrial economy that really opened my eyes to the whole idea was:

From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society: New Theories of the Contemporary World by Krishan Kumar.

It is a really fantastic book that I highly recommend.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Shit I forgot about credit. Good call VMC. Credit is exactly what I was looking for, BUT, credit is only a temporary solution. For example, the US government can take on debt and print money to wipe out that debt at a steady rate. But individual people cannot do this and eventually the credit crisis will bankrupt a large portion of the working class, at which point they will have to be bailed out in order to maintain order and coherency to the system.

So the question is then: what happens at this juncture? I think that the most logical step is that a new form of credit will be issued - merely renaming the old problem as a new solution?

Basic income maybe, I've seen calls for it from the right and the left in the last few years. Is it really necessary for them to have all those individuals though? I've seen more and more large institutions buying huge amounts of crap that will need to be replaced each year. Like schools buying tablets/laptops for every student using government grants. I believe Kenya recently made the decision to buy every child in their country a laptop, in spite of lack of infrastructure for a huge portion of those children to make owning a laptop useful. Does a school district buying ~5,000 ipads make up for the loss of 5,000 individual consumers in the eyes of capital? If so I would say that is the real direction things are going, not basic income.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Centralisation of capital, supported by Imperialism. Hilferdung and Luxemburg are the key sources here.

If productivity per worker is lower because of a move from industry to services in terms of production in general in the economy, then competition amongst the capitalists increases. One of the ways in which they overcame difficulties here was monopoly - the erosion of competition -, and the other was centralisation - weaker blocs of capital lost out as more successful blocs of capital took over and cartellised (for example, the oil industry, banking etc.).

Secondly, Luxemburg's thesis was that government-backed imperialism allowed blocs of capital to globalise and seek new avenues for profit-making in newly-industrial, or even pre-industrial, regions. I would suggest that she was highly prescient and pretty much correct in this analysis.

[Decolonize The Left]

Centralisation of capital, supported by Imperialism. Hilferdung and Luxemburg are the key sources here.

If productivity per worker is lower because of a move from industry to services in terms of production in general in the economy, then competition amongst the capitalists increases. One of the ways in which they overcame difficulties here was monopoly - the erosion of competition -, and the other was centralisation - weaker blocs of capital lost out as more successful blocs of capital took over and cartellised (for example, the oil industry, banking etc.).

Secondly, Luxemburg's thesis was that government-backed imperialism allowed blocs of capital to globalise and seek new avenues for profit-making in newly-industrial, or even pre-industrial, regions. I would suggest that she was highly prescient and pretty much correct in this analysis.

I would agree. Can you send me a link to a fundamentally necessary text of hers which addresses this? I don't have a problem buying books if it's not available online (I prefer actual books).

[Popular Front of Judea]

Luxemburg wasn't prescient. She was analyzing the globalized economy of her -- pre WWI -- time. Read Meghnad Desai's Marx's Revenge.


Secondly, Luxemburg's thesis was that government-backed imperialism allowed blocs of capital to globalise and seek new avenues for profit-making in newly-industrial, or even pre-industrial, regions. I would suggest that she was highly prescient and pretty much correct in this analysis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would agree. Can you send me a link to a fundamentally necessary text of hers which addresses this? I don't have a problem buying books if it's not available online (I prefer actual books).

Chapter four of her work the National Question addresses fairly well the process of political and economic centralism, though it doesn't really deal with the 'post-industrial labour force'. Still, interesting to have a browse:

http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch04.htm

[#FF0000]

Shit I forgot about credit. Good call VMC. Credit is exactly what I was looking for, BUT, credit is only a temporary solution. For example, the US government can take on debt and print money to wipe out that debt at a steady rate. But individual people cannot do this and eventually the credit crisis will bankrupt a large portion of the working class, at which point they will have to be bailed out in order to maintain order and coherency to the system.

Don't a lot of these companies have pretty significant sections for helping people deal with delinquent payments and catching up with their debts? "Restructure" debts and keep people paying in tiny increments until they die, and it's all good, right? And even if a good chunk of people do (and they will) go bankrupt, I don't think it's a crisis-level issue unless huge swaths of people start going bankrupt all at once (or having their wages garnished for student loans HEH HEH).

So yeah, judging by the folks around me in Rust Belt PA are living that's what post-industrial prole life is all about: Credit and debt with temp jobs to keep some of us from falling too far behind.

EDIT: Oh and prisons too like VMC said. PA's cuttin' schools and building prisons with that money so yeah.

[ckaihatsu]

As ammunition for argument we shouldn't be remiss at any time to point to the 2008 bailout -- it was a *gargantuan* economic event that proves private ownership and the state fit together hand-in-glove, at the expense of the public sector. While market ideologues will foolishly and stubbornly maintain that the U.S. *should have* let the banking and reinsurance titans fall on their own, the fact remains that *any* country can't afford to let that happen and still enjoy a continued existence.

In *political* terms the bailout is unjustifiable -- it's a political bankruptcy for any ownership-minded person to have to go hat-in-hand to the public till instead of honorably admitting defeat, by the rules of their own lauded market system.