Recently, Doug Henwood stirred up a tempest in a pen-l pot when
he suggested that the trend toward "casualization" of work in the
U.S. and other advanced capitalist countries is a myth or at
least not as great a trend as many people think.
But the report I heard on NPR as I drove into work suggested that
the consensus of labor economists (such as Audrey Freeman) is
that casualization is a trend. Also, in BUSINESS WEEK (27
January, 1997, p. 20), there is evidence for this kind of trend,
provided by the government's Economic Benefit Research Institute:
between 1983 and 1996, the median years at one's current employer
fell steadily for male workers, especially for those between ages
55 and 64 and those between ages 45 and 54. "The data also
confirm that older men have been particularly affected by
layoffs." and down-sizing.
On the other hand, women have seen about the same degree of job
stability (though BW doesn't present any stats). I think that
fits the idea that the primary labor market (the "good jobs") has
been shrinking pretty rapidly over the last 15 years. Since it
was primarily (white) males who benefitted from the primary jobs,
they were hit hardest. This fits with the partial convergence of
male and female wages, in which (if I remember correctly) the
fall in male wages plays a larger role than the rise in female
ones.
Looking at Doug's newsletter's reports on casualization, it seems
pretty obvious that he's talking about a different issue: he
emphasizes the issue of the role of part-time workers as an indes
of casualization.
This seems the wrong way to look at the issue (unless one's only
job is to trash Jeremy Rifkin, Stanley Aronowitz, et al): my
impression is that capitalist employers don't really _want_
part-time workers; there are overhead costs that they want
distributed over as many hours of a worker's time as possible.
But what they _do_ want these days is zero commitment to the
worker over the long-term unless there is a clear pay-off to
them. The market situation used to be such that a capitalist
could offer a "primary" job with some job security and a pension
and get a pay-off from it. But nowadays, such a strategy is ruled
out by the competitive environment, pressure from creditors, and
increased opportunities to find workers who don't have the power
to demand such "primary" jobs.
Speaking of such, the same issue of BUSINESS WEEK (in the "Up
Front" pages) has a little article on the impact of NAFTA:
US employers have increased their practice of threatening to move
to Mexico (during union votes) since NAFTA passed. Not
surprisingly, such threats lower the chance of union victories.
When unions win, the firms are also more likely to shut down
("triple the level in the pre-NAFTA 1980s"). The study doesn't
indicate whether or not the firms move to Mexico rather than
someplace else (such as low-wage areas inside the U.S.) This of
course fits with Guess Jeans' recent decision to fight a
unionization campaign in Los Angeles by moving its operations to
Mexico. (Can anyone guess what brand of jeans should be
boycotted?)
The report just cited was commisioned by the US Department of
Labor but was suppressed. It's been four months since the study
was finished by the Cornell researchers. Kate Bronfenbrenner, the
lead author, seems to have released the report without DoL
permission.
On a lighter note, the Los Angeles TIMES op-ed page had a column
today (29 January 1997) by Martin Mayer predicting a stock-market
crash. It also had a column by Martin Mayer predicting that the
stock market would be essentially stable in the future. I like
someone who is modest about the validity of his predictions.
(Doug's web page (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood) suggests that
the stock market is overvalued, so that we should expect a "68%
decline over the next 10 years.")
While I'm on the subject of current events, yesterday's L.A.
TIMES (p. 3) had an article about the calculation of what kind of
wages were needed for "welfare mothers" to totally "escape the
need for government assistance" (and attain self-sufficiency)
according to the Washington-based think-tank, Wider Opportunities
for Women. A family with one adult, one infant, and one
preschooler needs a monthly income of $2,858.44 or an hourly wage
of $16.24. The US minimum wage is of course $4.75/hour (or for
California, $5 starting in March). By the way, the budget
includes $281.40 per month for food, less than $10 per day for a
family of three.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
