These two intersting messages came from the discussion list of the University of Colorado, whose Wallersteinian name (WSO) is akin to the themes of Attac. Both of them focuse one of the "strongest" arguments of worldwide neoliberalism: the efficiency of contemporary US economy in the attainment of a situation of near full employment. By the way, enthusiasts forget the rest of the world.
Regards, R. Magellan
######################################
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 From: "elson" <elson at azu-boles.net> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn at csf.colorado.edu> Subject: US Standard of Living
Here are some fact on US inequality. I apologize for focusing on a core state, when the more important issue is the core-periphery gap. But, this is a response to claims to the contrary regarding the US.
The facts for the US are, as of 1996:
% US pop/ %national wealth top 20% 75% second 20% 16.6 third 20% 7.1 fourth 20% 2% fifth 20% (-0.7%) ! (US Bureau of the Census, cited in Pearlstein, 1995)
This is easily the worst distribution of wealth in the core, and is comparable to that of many peripheral states.
As for growing inequality (the shrinking middle class ):
In the 1980s, more households fell below the middle class than the converse. For seven households that moved up into the middle class, nine fell below it (Bradsher, 1995).
The number of people who fell below the poverty line increased to 38 million in 1994, higher than the number in 1964, higher than ever in fact.
More US workers became 'contingency workers,'-- those with part time jobs that pay no basic benefits, such health care, retirement, vacation, etc. Throughout the 1980-90s, the percentage of US workers has grown from about 1/4 to about 1/2 by next year. Moreover, this kind of work spread from fast food/retail sales, etc. to all industries. It has naturally followed from "downsizing" that when labor is needed, it's hired part time and temporary, greatly reducing costs.
Also, it now takes more people working full time per household to achieve the same standard of living achieved thirty years ago by a single full time worker per household. More work, less pay.
The cliche that "the rich get richer and poor get poorer" is a definite fact in the US, as reported to us by the US government. One will find similar changes on a systemic scale.
#################################
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 (??) From: "spectors" <spectors at netnitco.net> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn at csf.colorado.edu> Subject: statistics
Looking at statistics
Statistics often leave out context. For example, the unemployment rate seems lower. Besides the obvious criticism of how the data are collected, ignoring the "discouraged workers" for example, and besides the obvious flaw in thinking that two part-time jobs waiting tables for a yearly income of 17,000 dollars is somehow equivalent to two lost steel worker jobs with combined incomes of 60,000 dollars, there is also, among other things, the issue of incarceration. If the 1.5- 2 million people in jail were out on the street, the unemployment rate would be much higher. The slow down in the decline of "Western" capitalism happened because the collapse of Eastern European regimes gave some capitalist countries some new opportunities to invest. But, like the economic boom that comes after a war, this will only ease the pressure for a limited time.
Maybe central planners are insensitive, or worse, corrupt in how they plan the economy. Maybe it is idealistic to think that they can ever be a reflection of the aspirations of the great majority. But isn't it MORE IDEALISTIC to think that allowing unbridled greed to run society, supposedly kept in check by the magical hand of "supply and demand" will prevent corporations from taking advantage of the population. Of course those same "anti-big government" corporations and mouthpieces have NO PROBLEM USING BIG GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY WANT TO. Hence the rise in prison population, hence the military build up, school uniforms, metal detectors, Identification cards, drug testing, increased police powers, etc. They like "free enterprise" when it allows them to grab what they can. They love big government when they want to protect their interests. Taken to its extreme, it becomes fascism.
Alan Spector