A young lady, writing of her future plans
for a college scholarship application, indicated her intent to major in
computer science.
“I
cannot wait to learn from experts in the field,” she stated, adding, “I believe
that technology is such an important part of our lives, and that as we progress
as a society, it is only going continue to grow in the way it impacts us.”
Reading that statement, there’s no doubt of
the excitement and optimism this soon-to-be high school graduate feels about
what lies ahead. As for computer science, my guess is that she’s right; it will
to continue to play an important role in the coming years. Whether the outcome
of technological advances, in every case, will constitute “progress” remains to
be seen.
An article entitled “The End of the
American Daydream” that appeared on May 1, 2016 in The New York Times Magazine offered a less rosy outlook of what
sort of future awaits us. A subhead in the piece, written by Charles Homas,
noted that “Middle-class aspirations have shaped the country’s politics for
decades,” then asked the question: “What happens when Americans stop believing
in them?”
Put
another way: What happens when more and more Americans feel a middle-class
standard of living, and the way of life it encompasses, is becoming harder and
harder to obtain or, worse, may be out-of-reach?
Well, as we are currently seeing, what
happens is a lot of uncertainty, pessimism, discouragement, fear, anger, finger
pointing, fist shaking and--depending on what segment of the population we’re
looking at--support for the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
“These two insurgent candidates are capturing
one of the two demographic groups that converged in the great middle-class
experiment that began seventy years ago,” wrote Homas. “When people spoke of
the middle class in the years immediately after World War II, they were
typically talking about the group identified by the sociologist C. Wright Mills
in his 1951 book, “White Collar”: the usual college-educated, deskbound
employees of a newly technocratic, corporate economy. It was only a few years
later that the definition was generally extended to include skilled blue-color
workers, who were now earning solid incomes on account of a booming postwar
industrial economy and of unions that made sure their members got an equitable
piece of it.”
In a nutshell, what helped create this American
middle-class was a lot of good-paying jobs that were the result of a booming
economy. The income helped to fuel economic activity and growth. Families
bought homes and cars, sent the kids to college, went on vacation, invested in
the stock market, and treated themselves to a lot of luxuries.
What’s been happening over the last few
decades has been an erosion of those good-paying jobs, both for the white
collar and blue collar segments, as companies streamlined their operations,
merged, or moved operations to other nations. Along with the loss of these
good-paying jobs has been a flattening of wages, coupled with a steadily
increase in the cost-of-living.
As we’ve evolved into more of a
service-driven economy, and less of a manufacturing one, the money paid for this
work has been much less generous. To keep the wolf from the door, many families
have needed two paychecks.
This
issue of the magazine, which had other articles devoted to the subject of
the beleaguered middle class, included sidebars on solid middle-class,
good-paying jobs that still exist.
One was Human Resources Specialists. The
sidebar stated that “the number of H.R. Workers is projected to grow about as
fast as the overall work force. But the
long-term threat to H.R. from outsourcing and automation is real, as companies
turn to low-cost vendors for things like benefits administration. That said,
the complication of our country’s employment laws and the changing
health-insurance landscape might increase demand for this work.”
Another job category was Truck Drivers. This
sidebar noted: “It is a tough job—monotonous, lonely, and high-pressure. But
truck driving has proved a middle-class stalwart, with about 1.8 million people
on the road, most of them men, making an average of $19 an hour. Right now, the
employment outlook is pretty good. But in the long term, the threat from
automation is real. Oil and gas outfits are already using remote-control
vehicles to transport iron ore and crude oil, and automotive companies are
investing heavily in driverless trucks. For this profession, a technological
doomsday might me nigh.”
In the current presidential campaign, we’ve
been hearing (among other issues) about Wall Street millionaires gaming the
system, illegal immigrants, Islamic terrorists, unfair trade agreements, and
how the Establishments in both the Republican and Democratic Parties are
out-of-touch with the voters and their concerns.
Some of these issues are blamed for causing
our economic angst; some are just part of the general dissatisfaction and sense
of once solid ground suddenly becoming like shifting sands under our feet.
Certainly, as statistics show, a gap of
financial inequality has been widening since the 1980’s, with the very rich using
the tools of wealth to begat more wealth and employing lobbyists to protect
their interests in the halls of government. A small portion of the population
has secured more and more of the fruits of American labor and investment.
Certainly companies have taken advantage of
free-trade agreements to move manufacturing operations south of the border or
overseas where lower wages, less regulation, and nearly non-existent
environmental oversight combine to boast their bottom lines. But, on the other
hand, less restricted trade and the free flow of ideas seem to enhance economic
activity and result in less costly products for consumers as well as more
innovation.
Certainly a shift in demographics and
expectations is occurring. After a long history of bondage and then legalized
discrimination, Black Americans want a share of the American pie and equal
footing. Over the years, people of Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Asian origins
have immigrated here—some legally and some not—and, once here, found jobs,
established businesses, created neighborhoods, and embraced the American Dream.
They, and many others, see the Dream as an
ideal available to all men and women, not the exclusive property of only a few
or a particular segment of the population.
Certainly there are terrorists, many of them coming from countries in
the Middle East and Sub Saharan Africa with a predominant Muslim population.
But there have been terrorists in other countries—those in Northern Ireland,
for example—and we did not paint the entire nation with the same brush.
In the late 1940s thru the 1950s, when the
middle class was reaching its high-water mark, our fears centered on Communism
and a Cold War that threatened nuclear annihilation. Those worries resulted in
McCarthyism, with a number of lives and livelihoods ruined in the wave of
allegations and accusations.
Certainly people running for office or
seeking to retain their position of power will tell voters what they want to
hear—in some cases catering to their anxieties—then acting contrary to those
promises when elected or re-elected. Many of them seem more beholden to the
special interests that backed them with campaign donations or assisted them
with supportive ads than to the voters who cast ballots in their favor. While
this is hardly a new occurrence, the Supreme Court decision that removed any
limits to campaign donations has tilted the allegiance even more in favor of
the well-heeled supporters.
All of this and more has emerged as part of
the current public discourse in the campaign. It all gets a bit muddled in the
explaining and sorting out.
Yet, in both of those solid job forecasts
for the Human Resource Specialists and the Truck Drivers, the prediction of
future problems was found in the word “automation.” This is the term we use for
the technological progress that creates automatic equipment, including robots
and electronic devices to make manufacturing and other production processes as
well as office work faster, more efficient, and cheaper by shrinking or
eliminating human labor.
The advancements of invention and innovation
in human terms have always been a mixed bag. A farm wife a hundred years ago
would hardly complain when the new washing machine replaced the tub and
washboard. However, those English textile workers and self-employed weavers,
put out-of-business in the early part of the 19th century by the
development of stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms, responded with
violent acts of sabotage. They gained the name of Luddites—a label that lives
on—and many of them ended up on the gallows, the victims of both technological
progress and British justice.
So what will all of those Human Resource
Specialists and Truck Drivers do, somewhere down the road, when automation or
outsourcing erodes the need for their work along with the number of possible
jobs?
What will all of the other people now
employed in trades or occupations do when a robotic machine or electronic
device or automated process is invented or refined and then installed at their
workplace?
The mantra is that new technology creates
unforeseen jobs and business opportunities; which is true. The folk wisdom
being dispensed like aspirin is that workers now and in the future need to
continuously improve and update their skills and overall knowledge in order to
operate the automated processes and robotic machines; which is advisable.
Like the young lady who is graduating,
computer science would seem to be a good career choice. Yet are there enough of
these sort of jobs to go around? Will the future create enough new ones? Those
are questions we ought to be asking in a campaign. Not out of fear, but of a
need for preparation.
As a government and as a society, we can
built walls, deport people, ban entry, enact tariffs, modify free-trade agreements,
raise taxes on the rich, and provide additional governmental services or help
for those in need. Some of this, I see, as a negative and self-destructive
reaction—of Americans turning on other Americans. Some could be viewed as a
positive approach—of Americans helping each other and shouldering the burden.
But it seems prudent to deal with the
shifting paradigm involving jobs, middle-class wages, and automation.
Even those overseas and
south-of-the-border manufacturing jobs will likely fallen victim to
technological innovation—whether they are brought back to the United States or
remain there.
Words like “sustainability” and proposals
like providing people with a ‘universal basic income’ (UBI) will become more
and more part of our vocabulary and public discussion.
The “haves” and the “have not’s” have
existed a long time. But for much of the past 70 years, many of those who might
normally have fall into the latter classification have had the opportunity to
be part of the large American middle class and share in the bounty. Not as many
as there should have been or should be, but more than in most nations.
Has it been a daydream we’re beginning to
awaken from or a way-of-life that should remain our goal? Maybe a little of both.
Maybe we put too many eggs in the economic basket and saw money and material
goods as the measure of happiness and a good life. Maybe we need to embrace a
more downscaled and sustainable approach.
Still, the middle-class vision remains a
laudable one: to work at a meaningful job, to earn a decent wage for our time
and toil, to provide for ourselves and our families with the necessities, to have
enough cash left over for a few amenities and enjoyments, and to see our
children and grandchildren prosper. The middle class is a large tent, premised
on the notion that it can be and ought to be expanded to include as many people
as possible rather than confined to a privileged few.
Underpinning it has been the excitement and
optimism, witnessed in the young lady’s scholarship application. No machine can
give you that sense of eager possibility; it comes from human hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment