Average in the Jobless World

A new phrase that has emerged in recent years is the "jobless recovery" and at the more radical end the "jobless economy." Fears of the technological replacement of workers go all the way back to at least the Luddhites, but certainly accelerated in the 80s, though we are just starting to see the full force of the ability of technology to replace workers on a grand scale. But that is, of course, only half of the story. The other is the displacement of both manufacturing and more recently service jobs in the Global North by workers in the Global South. This long term change will not abate in the near (or probably distant) future and thus demands a new Western workforce with different skills. Ironically, we still have a lot of low skill jobs, though most barely pay a livable wage anymore. But if you look at the unemployment rates by education level, it is clear that the "segmented" laborforce, as Marxists labelled the two-tier compensation system that reemerged in the 70s, has become more pronounced in the past three decades. 

Yesterday, New York Times columnist Thomas Franks wrote an op-ed about the changing landscape of work today: Average is Over. I have never been a huge fan of Friedman who tends to write from the perspective of the business community conventional wisdom, supporting now quite suspect ideas about the global benefits of globalization and the opening of markets. He has begun to temper those opinions a little in the last year, but is still largely a cheerleader for corporate America and globalization. But he makes a lot of good points about how average is just not good enough anymore. Average workers can be easily replaced. Those with only a high school education are finding it hard to even find jobs. And the best jobs demand not only hard work but advanced education and training -- and often creativity. But the one area where average is still largely okay, appears to be in two arenas where we can't afford it: our politicians, who have essentially run out of ideas, and our corporate leaders, who seem intent to follow naked greed at the cost of everything else. 

In the end, there is a solution to the rather calamitous economic forecast for most in the Global North (except the 1%, of course) and that is a return to Keynesian notions of maintaining full employment. Yes it will cut into profits. Yes it will reduce efficiency and productivity rates. But it will ensure markets for products. It will ensure that consumption remains high without the concomitant increase in debt that has been occurring in America for far too long. It would reduce social unrest. And yes, it would return us to a political and economic system that actually strives toward the common good. And it is certainly worth asking if the common good is necessarily an "average" outcome.