Ferraris for all

A sophisticated attack on consumerism from a particularly influential source. Amitai Etzioni, a former president of the American Sociological Association, argues in an article in The New Republic (17 June) for a cultural change in America: “What needs to be eradicated, or at least greatly tempered, is consumerism: the obsession with acquisition that has become the organizing principle of American life.” In its place he proposes communitarian pursuits (relations between individuals and with their community ) and trescendental ones (spiritual activities including religious contemplative and articistic ones).

Etzioni three channels through which a new shared understanding of consumption can evolve:

* Education. Including, among other things, school uniforms to counter conspicuous consumption.

* Workplace. For example, limits on overtime, shorter working weeks, more felxible work.

* Legislation. Including taxes to encourage people to have smaller cars and use public transport rather than cars.

Growth scepticism really does come from the top rather than being a bottom-up movement.

Labels: America, consumption, ethics, sustainability, work

A couple of interesting articles on the American inequality debate.

Brink Lindsey, vice president of research at the Cato Institute, has written a critique of what he calls “nostalgianomics”. This is the tendency to romanticise the “golden age” of relatively low income inequality from the 1930s to the 1970s. Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist, is the arch-exponent of this view.

Krugman favours the system under the “Treaty of Detroit” (1950) in which the United Auto Workers (UAW) agreed not to strike in return for such gains as health, unemployment and pensions benefit. More generally it refers to a more conciliatory approach to relations between capital and labour.

Yet according to Lindsey the treaty was deeply flawed:

“The Treaty of Detroit was built on extensive cartelization of markets, limiting competition to favor producers over consumers. The restrictions on competition were buttressed by racial prejudice, sexual discrimination, and postwar conformism, which combined to limit the choices available to workers and potential workers alike. Those illiberal social norms were finally swept aside in the cultural tumults of the 1960s and ’70s. And then, in the 1970s and ’80s, restraints on competition were substantially reduced as well, to the applause of economists across the ideological spectrum. At least until now.”

Lindsey goes on to conclude:

“Paul Krugman may long for the return of selfdenying corporate workers who declined to seek better opportunities out of organizational loyalty, and thus kept wages artificially suppressed, but these are creatures of a bygone ethos—an ethos that also included uncritical acceptance of racist and sexist traditions and often brutish intolerance of deviations from mainstream lifestyles and sensibilities.”

Meanwhile, Benjamin Page and Lawrence Jacobs have written what sounds like an insightful book on American inequality judging by a review on Miller-McCune. Class War: What Americans Really Think About Income Inequality evidently argues that: “Americans are both philosophically conservative and operationally liberal”. It calls this belief system “conservative egalitarianism”. According to the review this outlook “admires individual self-reliance but accepts public intervention as necessary to help citizens strive for the American Dream on an ostensibly level playing field”.

Labels: America, book, consumption, inequality, review, work

An interesting piece on the BBC website with the headline “the harsh necessity of child labour”. The article looks at the situation in Bangladesh where dire circumstances force many children to work.

It is easy to condemn child labour in the abstract. But it comes about largely as a result of economic necessity rather than moral depravity.

The solution to the problem is economic growth. Child labour is almost unheard of in rich societies.

Labels: consumption, development, economics, ethics, work

An interesting looking paper by four American academics looking at “seven myths about green jobs”. To quote the abstract:

“A group of studies, rapidly gaining popularity, promise that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs allegedly improve the environment, but they will pay well, be very interesting, and foster unionization. These claims are built on 7 myths about economics, forecasting, and technology. Our team of researchers from universities across the nation surveyed this green jobs literature, analyzed its assumptions, and found that the special interest groups promoting the idea of green jobs have embedded dubious assumptions and techniques within their analyses. We found that the prescribed undertaking would lead to restructuring and possibly impoverishing our society. Therefore, our citizens deserve careful analysis and informed public debate about these assumptions and resulting recommendations before our nation can move forward towards a more eco-friendly nation. To do so, we need to expose these myths so that we can see the facts more clearly.”

Labels: economics, environment, work

I am on the BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze this evening discussing Fred Goodwin’s pay and “moral capitalism”. It should also be available on BBC iPlayer after the broadcast.

Labels: consumption, economics, ethics, media appearances, radio, work

Just came across a report on Green Jobs (PDF) produced by Worldwatch Institute and published by the United Nations Environment Programme in conjunction. The project was in conjunction with the International Labour Organization, International Organization of Employers and International Trade Union Confederation.

With the inauguration of Barack Obama as president the Green New Deal has become an even more pressing topic. I am hoping to do a critique of it in a few weeks’ time.

Labels: America, economics, Obama, work

Can there be a non-elitist environmentalism? The is the question posed, implicitly at least, by an article on Greening the ghetto in the New Yorker.

The piece is a profile of Van Jones, the founder and president of Green for All, a California-based “national organization dedicated to building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty”. His project is to reduce poverty by creating millions of “green jobs” in such areas as installing solar panels, “weatherising” buildings and constructing mass transit systems. Jones’s book on the subject, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems (HarperOne 2008), has the endorsement of the likes of former vice President Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi (the speaker of the house of representatives) and Thomas Friedman (New York Times columnist).

The article acknowledges that environmentalists normally come from an affluent minority: “A 2006 study commissioned by Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental-law group, found that the ecological base ‹defined as Americans who report the environment as being central to their concerns) is nearly ninety percent white, mostly college-educated, higher-income, and over thirty-five.” It is implied that Jones, who is black, could represent the future of a more broad-based environmentalism.

There is a problem with this argument. Even if environmentalism caught on among the mass of the population it would remain an elite ideology in an important sense. Any project with the goal of curbing economic growth is likely to reinforce the existing order. As far as it is possible to tell from the Green for All website the campaign shares the prejudices of mainstream environmentalism in relation to curbing energy use and penalising the use of fossil fuels.

The Jones campaign could be a pragmatic way of raising funds from the federal government and other sources. Clearly his pitch is likely to appeal in today’s intellectual and political climate. But even if he genuinely believes it the campaign will not solve America’s economic problems or benefit the mass of the population.

Labels: America, book, economics, environment, inequality, work

An article in the Christian Science Monitor (19 November) on how an opinion poll in 21 countries shows support for more use of renewable energy sources even if it means higher prices in the short term. It talks favourably of President-elect Barack Obama’s plans to create jobs through the development of “clean technology” as well as the idea of a “green new deal”.

It is probably not yet clear to people that such a plan will mean substantially higher energy prices and the imposition of austerity.

Labels: America, climate, economics, energy, environment, work

The last programme in the series of the BBC Radio 4 Iconoclasts programme looked at the debate around third world sweatshops. Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor of economics at Columbia University, argued that sweatshops should not be criticised for paying poor wages although he conceded it was wrong to have poor working conditions. He emphasised that industrial exports could lead to growth which could in turn life countries out of poverty.

After an initial introduction by Bhagwati there was a debate involving Ceri Dingle of Worldwrite a campaigner from War on Want and the owner of a fair trade fashion label. The advocates of ethical consumption came out with the usual clichés: complaining about free market economics and trickle down theory (even though neither had been mentioned by Bhagwati or Dingle). They also focused on sweatshops in the poorer countries without understanding that the plight of those working on the land is generally worse. There were also complaints about inequality (but not arguing for more growth) and an implicit assumption that the British government could somehow help trade unions organising in poorer countries. Dingle ably put the case for more growth, greater industrialisation and higher expectations.

Labels: consumption, development, ethics, radio, trade, work, Worldwrite

I must receive many thousands of press releases every year but one last week from Cooperative Financial Services must rank among the most despicable. It started by revealing that “the British workforce spends a staggering £162 million on lunch every day”. It then calculated that this figure represents an average of £5.503 per day, which equates to £1,265 per year or £50,600 in a lifetime. The next stage was to declare that “the research shows that only just over a quarter (29 per cent) of the 3,200 people questioned take a packed lunch to work with them. Two-fifths (41 per cent) of the British workforce purchase their lunch from the local supermarket while one in seven (14 per cent) prefer to stay close to the grindstone and visit the staff canteen.”

I do not know about my readers but spending £5.50 per day on lunch does not seem excessive to me. However, the Co-op has done its sums. It says that “official statistics show that the Great British favourite is a BLT sandwich with a banana and a packet of crisps washed down with a café latte. If everybody took the time to make their own BLT sandwich at home and substituted the expensive caffeine option for water, they could save £4.36 every day which equates a total saving of over £1,000 per year.”

It seems to me excessively churlish to begrudge people the “luxury” of buying a sandwich and packet of crisps for lunch. And having a café latte instead of water is hardly the height of decadence. This also underlines James Heartfield’s point about environmentalists having contempt for our time.

Of course the Co-op has a reason for asking us to forsake consumption in the present. If only we invested in a Coop personal pension we would be much better off in retirement, it says. However, according to my calculations it could mean about 11,000 frantic morning rushes to make packed lunches and the same number of miserable lunchtimes.

Labels: consumption, finance, food, work

Tessa Mayes has written on Culture Wars about the meeting I spoke at in November at the Institute of Contemporary Art on the global working class.

Labels: Asia, globalisation, speeches, work

On 20 November I will be speaking at an event at the Institute of Contemporary Art in London on the new global working class.

Labels: globalisation, speeches, work

The image of the “overworked American” is misleading according to an article in the Boston Globe ( 12 August). It draws on academic work which argues that innovations such as vacuum cleaners and takeout food have yielded enormous time savings over the past 40 years:

“(T)oday, these scholars say, we spend far less time on work than Americans did four decades ago. From 1965 to 2003, according to one study published this month, the average American gained the equivalent of seven weeks of vacation -- in the form of extra leisure time spread throughout the year.

“Much of the time-savings comes from a source few people think about when they whine (or brag) about their workweeks: cleaning and cooking. We do much less of it than we used to, thanks to vacuum cleaners, takeout food, and other innovations. And the time-savings there more than offsets the extra time women now spend in offices, according to the study, which appears in the latest issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics.”

However, other academics criticise the time diary methodology used in this study.

Labels: America, economics, work

Globalisation needs better public relations according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Angel Gurria, the secretary general of the OECD, was quoted as saying “the story could be told better” in the Financial Times (FT). This view was endorsed by a leader in the FT itself.

Gurria’s outburst was prompted by the latest annual Employment Outlook (summary in PDF) from the OECD. It made the familiar point that inequality is rising in the rich nations even though real wages are increasing too (see, for example, 19 June post).

Labels: globalisation, inequality, work

A different take on American leisure time to that discussed on 9 March. An article in Slate quotes a study (PDF) by two professors which shows that leisure time has exploded since 1965. Only this study argues that less educated adults have enjoyed larger gains in leisure time than the better off. In other words this inequality favours the relatively poor against the rich. Deserves closer examination.

Labels: America, economics, inequality, work

An interesting article in yesterday’s New York Times by Hal Varian, a professor of business at the University of California, Berkeley, argues against the view that leisure time has increased over the years: “When you account for the much longer time in school, the more or less constant amount of time spent on housework, and make a few other adjustments, hours spent on purely enjoyable activities haven’t changed that much in the last century.”

Even if he is right he paints a picture of a much improved society. The fact that children and teenagers are spending longer in school, rather than working from a young age, is surely to be welcomed. And the quality of housework has improved enormously too: “One hundred years ago, it was a luxury to have clean clothes, a tidy house and a cooked meal. Today these things are viewed as necessities of life.”

One of the references Varian points to on long-term trends in leisure is a paper (PDF) by Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego and Neville Francis of the University of North Carolina.

Labels: America, economics, work

Nico Macdonald has provided a useful summary of a discussion on work-life balance on yesterday’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

"New research claims that it is getting harder to manage a work life balance." On need for more support for working couples with children, and for carers. Discussion with Jenny Watson, Chair Equal Opportunities Commission, and Mark Easton, home editor, BBC News. Easton: "There is a... more radical answer, which is that we could all do less... work less, commute less, move around less, Yes, we could earn a bit less... What the economists point out is that we can actually choose to work a three day week in this country, and we would _still_ have a standard of living far in excess of our grandparents... There are choices here we _do_ have... but are reluctant to take... Instead of spending more and more of our weekends in the office, so that we can pay for that giant mortgage and that new mobile phone, we could I suppose spend more time with our kids... The pressures in a society like ours to have the right stuff and to keep up with the Jones's... are very significant." Easton also celebrates Southern European extended families, which feature childcare by the 'younger old' and family care for the 'older old'."

Of course Easton is right to argue that individuals can make the choice of taking a cut in income in return for working fewer hours. But from a social perspective it is economic growth, and the accompanying rise in productivity, that has enabled a dramatic fall in working hours over the long-term.

Labels: radio, work

Many of the world’s elite gathered in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum expressed strange concerns for the stagnating wages of Western workers. According to articles in the Guardian and the Wall Street Journal (25 January, subscription required) they are worried that the rise of China and India will hit developed country wages. Its unusual for Western leaders and thinkers to concern themselves with poor wage rates for ordinary people. It is hard to resist the conclusion that their real concern is the competition from the emerging Asian powers. Protectionist conclusions could easily be drawn.

For the record those quoted as being concerned about Western wages were Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, Robert Shiller of Yale and Laura Tyson of the London Business School (and former senior Clinton administration official). In contrast, Ken Rogoff of Harvard argued that changing technology and trade patterns were reducing the demand for unskilled workers.

A similar discussion was aired in last week’s Economist (see 20 January dispatch). Previously former Clinton administration officials such as Larry Summers and Robert Rubin have expressed support for the wage stagnation line (see, for example, the Financial Times on 25 July 2006 on their presentations at a Brookings Institution conference). Paul Krugman of Princeton has also criticised rising inequality in America in his New York Times column. In contrast, Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia argued a similar case to Rogoff in the Financial Times on 4 January while the Cato Institute, which this month had an event on American income inequality, generally takes a free market line.

Labels: America, inequality, protectionism, work

This morning I debated Oliver James, the author of a new book on “affluenza” on the Radio 4 Today programme (programme available on its website for the next seven days). His argument is that affluence is increasingly making us sick. Nico Macdonald has produced a summary of our debate which is available here. James has not put forward an original thesis - his book is the third with “affluenza” as a title - but two things were notable about what he said:

* His thesis takes the form of an attack on the rich. However, it is the poor who suffer as a result of attacks on affluence.

* He claimed that over the long-term working hours in America and Britain have lengthened. This is simply wrong. Long-term statistics on his this trend are tricky to interpret - for example, because of the rise of the number of women in the labour force - but there is no doubt the trend is for working hours to fall. Even apart from the working week people are spending more time in education and more time in retirement. The amount of back-breaking manual labour people have to do has fallen dramatically. Also, according to the latest figures from National Statistics, the average working week in Britain has fallen by one hour over the past 15 years. I intend to do more work on the subject of working hours in my book.

At lunchtime I had a rematch against Oliver James on the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2. A summary of the debate can be read here. James made much of the fact he was talking about mental illness rather than unhappiness. He did not see the bigger picture of how his arguments relate to growth scepticism.

Labels: affluenza, America, happiness, media appearances, radio, work