The Machine, Part 1
There is this conceit among the management class (particularly members of that class who style themselves as left-of-center) that if we just send millions of former workers in our devastated manufacturing sector to college so they can become “knowledge workers” or something, then that will make up for destroying the industries that provided them a decent living. One of former President Clinton’s more annoying habits was to harp on this.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but that plan isn’t going to work, at least not in a place of the scale, history and complexity of the United States. Or, hell, I’ll put a fine point on it after all: it’s a bunch of friggin’ nonsense.
I mean, look: the Swiss are few enough that they can be the world’s bankers; The Saudis can be the world’s oil company; but the United States, if it is going to be a prosperous place, needs to be a place where the main engine of prosperity is taking raw materials, making something valuable out of them, and then selling those valuable things at a profit.
We can’t be a first-tier economy by selling each other life insurance and software; we need to make things. Physical, need-machine-tools-to-make-them things – cars, boats, clothing, machine tools, electronics. The Democratic Party leadership used to know this, and acted accordingly, with all kinds of support for (real, actual) industry (and industry’s workers); now they represent the members of the management class who want to send line workers and former machinists to college so they can become computer programmers. It’s ridiculous.
There are millions of ex-manufacturing workers who used to make good livings making things here in the USA. The “New Economy” had and has no real place for them: the Old Economy is the only place that offered them a way to use their skills and gifts in a way that afforded them the basics of life plus a little fun.
Again: the economy offers people with less than a college degree precious few (and vanishing) ways to support a family in anything approaching comfort.
Here’s the thing: there are millions of folks who are, to be blunt, not smart enough, or are temperamentally unsuited, (or increasingly, too poor) to go to college. Are they to be consigned to working at 7/11 and making 9 bucks an hour? Don’t we as citizens have an obligation to see that they have work available to them that will allow them to support their families in a dignified manner, and maybe even allow them to put something away for college for the kids and even something for their golden years?
These questions have not been asked of Americans in any public and consistent way for years – decades even. The very clause, “we, as citizens, are obligated to…” is, in the libertarian, Hobbesian world of economic mercilessness we’ve allowed to flourish, a nonsensical phrase full of meaningless words. We are no longer “citizens” — active participants in the building of our civilization — but “consumers”, defined by our economic worth; mere cogs in the soul-impoverishing machinery of “wealth creation” and economic oligarchy; passively doing our part to keep the whole corrupt machine humming, nothing demanded of us but to Consume.
I didn’t quite realize it at the time, but the thing that most creeped me out about the movie The Matrix (the original one) was the sense I had that it was not really about some future dystopia, but rather a piercing parable for the present world we live in; there is this sort of Machine that we all participate in, so immersive that we can’t escape its greedy maw, can’t but serve its needs rather than the needs of our brothers and sisters.
To break out of this losing game, we must realize – we must RESOLVE – that, to coin a phrase, the Economy is made by and for us, and not us for the economy.
Martin Luther King Jr. used to say “You can’t ride a man’s back unless it is already bent.” It took decades for the ceaseless propaganda of the Machine to bend our backs; it only takes a moment, an instant, to decide to straighten your back and thus undo all its work.
Comments are closed.
Hey Matt:
Have you read any of EF Schumacher’s work? I read a few of his essays and “A Guide for the Perplexed”. Your ideas seem to parallel his economic philosophy.
Gordie
I have not read anything by Schumacher, Gordie – any recommendations on a good place to start with him?
Is there a reason why Americans should have a claim to such a life [reasonable work, reasonable pay, and the rest]?
I take buy one example: I find that my shirts are made in Indonesia, Pakistan, and other “third” world countries. They are perfectly serviceable and long lasting.
Consider how many electronic and electrical devices used in the U.S. are made in China. Go further and consider the [formerly] great companies of the U.S.- those which provided so many of the jobs.
On what basis can one propose to resurrect those companies, those jobs? Are the natural resources of the U.S. used up?
I find that my shirts are made in Indonesia, Pakistan, and other “third” world countries. They are perfectly serviceable and long lasting.
Yes, those little fingers on nine year old girls have advantages in sewing shirts (until a finger gets lost from one of those machines. But there are plenty of little girls in these countries.)
Matt:
This is a good start.
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
Lecture on Appropriate Technology:
EF Scumacher was an incredible person who I believe was way ahead of his time. A prophet concerning the devaluing of the human person as a result of the western mechanistic society. He converted to Catholicism in 1970 and passed away in 1977. He gave the transcript for “A Guide for the Perplexed” to his daughter on his death bed and told her it was his most important work.
His ideas/philosophy was developed after reading Ghandi, St. John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Chesterton, Belloc, Maritain, and Bhuddist philosphy in general. His insights are profound for our modern pluralistic, mechanistic society.
Thanks much, Gordie – I’ve got some reading to do.
Yes, capital flows to those areas with lowest costs in the hope of a greater return. So Chinese workers at $1 an hour replace American workers at $10 to $20 an hour. It’s not moral, no, because the workers can’t move as easily. But skilled machinists are in demand in the U.S., as are many skilled trades. The U.S. manufacturing industry needs to develop high-value products (like Boeing airliners or better autos) that can employ Americans. Apple, a specialist in high-value products, could make its products here, as it used to, but it farms them out to a Chinese contractor who can do the work for less. So what to do remains a puzzle. Perhaps a jobs tax (no pun intended) to encourage U.S. manufacturing and discourage outsourcing? Thanks for the tip on the Schumacher book; I’ll look into it.
Don’t they realize how many “knowledge workers” are out of work? Our family has firsthand experience of that. Not to discourage anyone from getting a college education; but the number of jobs out there for them are finite.
In my small hometown, it seemed like everyone who got laid off ended up selling real estate. My mom used to say that all the realtors in town would end up taking in each other’s washing.
Here in Oregon our governor announced that he wants to make our state a hub for importing Chinese electric vehicles to stimulate our economy. And meanwhile, we have a skilled workforce perfectly capable of manufacturing them who are begging for work. He will offer that workforce unemployment benefits, though. What a total lack of imagination.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. My oldest will be entering the job market in this economy. It won’t be pretty.