Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> [clip]
> That sounds right to me. I'm curious where'd you'd classify the late
> 90s - I think (though Chuck0 hates me for it) that low unemployment
> contributed to "Seattle."
>
I was thinking of that as I wrote the post, and I don't know. I don't have any real sense of what made the movement to Seattle tick, since I was not an active part of it. Were the '90s as a whole a fairly upbeat period for those who made up the bulk of Seattle protestors? And could the moderate level of success achieved reflect the middling length of the uptick as a whole? In 1965 almost everyone had been finding things better and better for about 20 years. And the leisure that university students could achieve was growing rather than shrinking. Wages went up in the late '90s, but leisure did not, for anyone.
And of course "living standards" and "leisure" are both relative, not absolute. Anyone conditioned to a 70 hour week who gains 5 hours each Sunday will feel an immense relief. And someone who never or rarely gets meat will feel one meat meal a week is luxury.
Carrol
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk