Kent Pitman

Kent Pitman
Location
New England, USA
Title
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Bio
I've been using the net in various roles—technical, social, and political—for the last 30 years. I'm disappointed that most forums don't pay for good writing and I'm ever in search of forums that do. (I've not seen any Tippem money, that's for sure.) And I worry some that our posting here for free could one day put paid writers in Closed Salon out of work. See my personal home page for more about me.

MY RECENT POSTS

Editor’s Pick
JUNE 3, 2011 7:19AM

To Serve Our Citizens

Rate: 18 Flag

There is a recent move by Republicans to try to cut back on child labor protections. In Missouri, a Republican-sponsored bill proposes to eliminate the prohibition on employing children under 14, to eliminate restrictions on numbers of hours a child may work, to eliminate requirements for a work certificate or permit, and to eliminate the presumption that the presence of a child at a workplace is evidence of employment. In Maine and other states, Republicans have mounted related attacks on child labor laws, proposing to change the minimum wage for children and to eliminate limits on the number of hours children can work during school days.

And, of course, a couple months ago, the Wisconsin legislature passed a law eliminating collective bargaining rights for government employees. (That law was recently struck down on procedural grounds, but there is still a chance they could repair the procedural problem and try again.)

Where is all this leading? The Republicans seem to say “give us control and we’ll return the jobs.” Maybe. But so far the only structural suggestion they have is to reduce taxes on those who already have a huge amount of the wealth.

They say the words, but sometimes I wonder if we’re speaking the same language. If you’ve seen the Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man,” you’ll know what I’m talking about when I say we should make sure we’re clear on our terminology.

Increasingly, I’m thinking the Republican plan is like this: We take our orders from Big Business, which has been offshoring jobs aplenty because they regard that it’s just too damned expensive to employ US workers and to try to achieve US standards of product and environmental quality. So when the US has pay like the third world and product and environmental standards like the third world, then they’ll start hiring here again and declare success because “the jobs have returned.”

But are they even the jobs we’re talking about?

It seems like a race to the bottom.

As recently as this weekend, I endured watching a painful interview with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) on one of the Sunday talk shows. In it he alluded to how he’d been talking to Vice President Biden about restoring jobs. Already I’m dubious that Biden was making the concessions Cantor attributed to him, but even if what he said was true, that they did talk about such things, are we all talking about the same things? Which jobs are coming back? How exactly?

Yes, I hear occasional talk of numbers of jobs returned. But it’s just not true that a job is a job is a job. Don’t get me wrong, numbers are important. But so are other things.

The quality of those jobs matters, too, so when I see the Republicans talking about the need to cut education while at the same time talking about how we’ll need to make it easier to employ the uneducated in ways that don’t conform to existing labor standards, I have to wonder just what exactly this plan of theirs to restore jobs looks like.

They seem to be short on details. apparently wanting to leave it to the market to decide. If the market were going to be offering back anything with good pay and good working conditions, why would there be this all-out assault on worker protections?

Something doesn’t smell right in what the Republicans are cooking up.

Midnight at the Glassworks

The photo used here is a cropped version of a photo that is in the public domain. It was obtained from Wikipedia. The photo is one of many by master photographer Lewis Hine (1874-1940), who wanted to document the living and working conditions of his time. One would like to believe those times are past. Seeing recent Republican plans for the future, one might not be so sure. Hopefully through the power of the photograph, we can collectively remember where we were, so that we can keep from going back. To quote Hine, “Photography can light-up darkness and expose ignorance.”


If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Thanks for this. I blogged on this topic, as have others. We need more to sound this alarm. r.
Thanks, Jonathan. I agree that in matters like these it takes a lot of people to keep awareness up. It so easily falls between the cracks. Maybe they're counting on that.
And yet they scorn the alternative energy and infrastructure initiatives that could provide the quality jobs you mention, Kent. I sometimes thing they are out to roll back any and all laws just to prove how tough they are on "big government." Their belief in the purity of the market is hypocrisy: who, one must ask, controls the market?
Jerry, I don't think this is a tough guy thing. I think this is Big Business flexing its muscles and grabbing for what it can get. Eliminating these protections is like asking for more tax breaks, in effect more profits no matter the expense to human beings.
Great post on a topic that has somehow remained under the radar for all of us. Kent, you are that radar. To move to weaken protections against the abuse of child labor strikes me as emanating from the Libertarian camp. The strident ideology to remove government from most, if not all, economic aspects of our lives returns us to many 19th Century premises. The fact that Live Free or Die sometimes turns into Live Free AND Die has been borne out in recent times in the coal fields of West Virginia, where a national sacrifice zone has been created in the interests of what has been falsely billed as cheap energy.

Why would anyone want to bring back child labor? "To get government off our backs," that's why. The cutting edge of the right seems to extend in all directions, like an expanding circle. Another astonishing example is that of the movement to declare that human personhood in a legal sense begins with fertilization. There is no end to it, is there? It's a Disneyland of bad ideas out there right now as people who have lost their material footing strive for some new sense of personal control beyond consensual norms, forward into the past.
They seem to be obsessed with eliminating all workers, consumers and environmental rights as well as anything that will reduce short term profits regardless of the long term costs. As long as the public remains complacent then they just might succeed.

The Democrats are collecting their brib.. er I mean campaign contribut… no their bribes, from the same corporations. They can’t be counted on to stop this only do a little job pretending.
Steve, it's funny because I don't think of it in the Libertarian context because only argument of Libertarianism that has ever appealed to me is the notion that government should seek solutions that have minimal cost. The bottom line for me, though, is that easily overlooked keyword “solutions.” The fact of minimal cost is not a solution; it needs to be a minimal cost solution. And really, child exploitation was a real problem, and it was largely solved. They may not like the cost, but I don't see it as an undue burden on business to say “if you want labor, get it from other than our weakest members.” I don't hear the populace clamoring to lose these controls. So I just don't buy the idea that this is Libertarianism, even if they want to suggest otherwise. This is just gross indifference.

Zachery, yes, something in what you said made me focus on the issue that there are many ways to make money. Somehow the emphasis in the US has become the short-term over the long-term. Rather than actually invest, these accounting tricks are intended to show profit where really there has been none. This is not an investment in society and the world is not enriched by it. A few individuals are enriched, and improperly. That's not the same thing.
All labor regulations, including the child labor laws, were hard-won gains for the working class. We are seeing an orchestrated effort on the part of the right to systematically dismantle a hundred years of work. It must NOT happen.
This "race to the bottom" has been acknowledged on the labor left for a long while, even before Perot's '92 "giant sucking sound." Outsourcing is what helped make stagnant wages seem less debilitating as we embarked upon our Reagan Revolution credit bubbles economic template.

Klingaman is right, these are libertarian influences operating as a sort of under-the-radar subtext. Reagan was a "fusionist." A true conservative wouldn't take on extreme libertarian beliefs. I could dig deeper into this, but those laisez faire, no gub'mint beliefs are libertarian.

The casual observer would see this is true in the example of the Walker prank phone call. He thinks he's talking to David Koch, billionaire ideologue and Libertarian VP candidate in 1980 (in the platform - eliminating minimum wage laws). Walker describes what he's doing as advancing "liberty," as sure a confession of Right-Libertarian (LP Party) beliefs as any.

This "fusionism" is a matter of convenience, as one cannot be a conservative and a libertarian, a fact that generally confuses people who think they're conservative-libertarians more than it does libertarians. In the end, it's what serves wealth that matters, so the differences and supposed "ideas" are nothing more than a cosmetic cover for a bi-sectual circle jerk. These are enthusiastic serfs with patriotic delusions.

Letting the market decide wages and working conditions in every case isn't "American" in the least. It's libertarian anarcho-capitalist servitude - one dollar, one vote. It's capitalism-as-political-system with an Oliver Twist.

If only the Dem Party wasn't so cooperative....
I can't believe what America is becoming thanks to the putrid ideology foisted off on fools by Reagan and the Randians. The ultimate goal of Freemarketeers is slave labor, and this is just another step in that direction.

In fact, they've already achieved that goal in many areas. Witness the huge increase in the number of unpaid interns, largely drawn from the ranks of college students forced to give away their labor because they can't find anything but minimum-wage/no-benefits/no future jobs.
Kent, yes there are many ways to make money under the current system but many of them don't involve the best interest of all involved. the current system puts too much emphasis on making it any way those in power can even if it involves massive amounts of fraud.

There is an enormous amount of research going on to help those in the corporations understand how to manipulate the public; this includes advertising useless products and studying complacency so they can increase planned obselecence. As well as other ways to reduce consumer and worker rights.
Coyote, you're right. What can be lost in a moment if we're not careful probably would not return for again another hundred years.

Paul, your discussion of fusion and of the conflict in being conservative-libertarian is something I have not looked at extensively, or perhaps not in those terms. I'll have to ponder that a while. What exactly are you seeing as the central points of conflict between the two systems? (I've generally thought one to be closer to a subset of the other, but it sounds like you're saying something different. Or the same but with a different emphasis.) Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. And I agree with you about the Dems being overly cooperative—particularly Obama, who is really more centrist. (IMO, we now know what he meant by purple: not just engaging red and blue but apparently seeking policies at the midpoint between red and blue, which sadly can be dragged rightward by the right taking more extreme positions and Obama rushing to meet them halfway...)
Tom, the notion that volunteering could be a problem is subtle but important, yes. See my United We Starve (from 2009), for example. One would want to think volunteering a good thing, but when companies are poised to be takers... well, there's also my Fiduciary Duty vs. The Three Laws of Robotics to explain why that's a bad plan.

Zachery, indeed—most pronounced in the insurance industry where surely there is paid research in the area of how to profit by denying coverage.
are you sure the majority of americans disapprove of these republican measures?

if they disapprove, why don't they block them with referendums?

if they don't have referendum power, do you understand that the intent of the constitution was to disenfranchise the people from the management of the nation?

if the american voter is willing to endure this situation, they deserve the results.
al, it's possible for people to know they are discontent but not know the reason. And there are active disinformation campaigns afoot that could keep them from knowing the cause even if referenda were possible. I don't oppose the concept of citizen referendum, but I think it's unfair to leap from a description of the present problem to a conclusion that people deserve what they get. Ordinary people are busy with a day job; meanwhile, private industry takes the money they pay for things they need and turns it into lobbying money or advertising money that manipulates both the public perception and the politicians in ways they don't realize. I'm not saying there's no problem but it's simplistic to say the problem is the voters. The voters are a possible remedy but rallying a lot of them is tough without a clear locus to rally around, and present funding laws make it possible for enormous amounts of disinformation to pour in at the same time—even for there to be competing referenda which appear to push different world views in plausible-sounding ways. I wonder where if your country (not sure which that is, but I perceive it's not the US) had people working as hard to abuse its system as our does it would fare any better.
Just what I need ... more competition in the crappy job market from even younger workers! lol Don't you hate that common GOP cop-out of "letting the market decide?"
Beth, it's true. It is competition. You may not compete with them directly, but if they can drive down the price of some other job, it will displace other workers who used to do that. And they may compete for the next job up which has fallen a rung into their space, and so on, in a domino effect. More people in the market means lower wages across the board, especially if lower wages are not a barrier. Of all the innovation for America to come to stand for, this is not my personal choice for us to offer to the world as a beacon of hope.
Kent,
Simply explained, American conservatism is/was within liberalism, the philosophy of the D of Ind and Constitution. Libertarianism is entirely separate of liberalism, with a different foundational description of liberty and an extreme leftist idea of no government in a voluntary society.
One cannot believe in the institutions of governance while believing there should be very little to no institutions of governance.

Imagine (because you would have to) a Tea Peep rally where speakers advocate for gay marriage to get a firmer idea of the differences.
More and more the Repubs are behaving like some B-movie villain where the audience is thinking "No one could be as bad as all that". In dialing the Gini coefficient (the divide between rich and poor) back to 1920s levels, they've achieved one dream. Must they also restore the working conditions of a century ago?
How about this: we export all the manufacturing jobs, import people from India to do all the IT jobs, import foreigners from all over the world to be nurses and doctors, and the children can do everything else. And American adults can do, you know, whatever. What's not to like?
Thanks for the clarification, Paul. The issue of distrust of government is what troubles me. It implies trusting something else, unenumerated. As I've often said, where there are no rules, bullies rule. It's as if they'er saying “trust whatever's behind the box that Carol Merrill is standing beside.” That's not a lot to trust.
The GOP and their Democratic Party enablers are guilty of breaching the social contract. Perhaps we need to rescind it and form a new one? When in the course of human events...
Rw005g, I agree with the sentiment about the breaking of the social contract, and yet I feel they've been sort of baiting people into doing things. Anything like a second continental congress or the formation of a new government would see a sudden show of financial muscle that would dwarf anything you've seen for elections thus far, since there would be extraordinary stakes—life or death for corporations. It would be dangerously unstable, in spite of the fantasies the Tea Partiers with their tri-cornered hats indulge. As such, I think all change has to come incrementally and through process.
Abrawang, I'm of mixed minds on the effect you raise, which indeed captures the strangeness of watching things as they unfold. At some times I almost think they figure that since people are mad at them anyway, they can't get more mad, so why not just be brazen. At other times, I wonder if perhaps they just figure Obama always seeks the halfway point, so why not move the rightward edge to the right, so that Obama leans farther just out of a (misguided, IMO) sense of fairness. At other times, I think they're banking on rallying a minority in as-close-to-100% numbers as they can muster and need to make the stakes high to do that. At other times still, I think they think are just so intoxicated by their own kool-aid that they've lost track of the fact that people are taken aback. And at other times I think they're so smug they can just sell any message any more by sheer dollars of advertising. But none of these are very satisfying. It is bizarre.

Mital, I'm glad you found the piece to your liking. Thanks for visiting!

Mishima, remember they're just counting numbers, not learning faces, so these “subtle distinctions” you make are really not part of the equation. :(
I received a pointer to a YouTube video by Ashley B. Hathaway that seems to try to answer some of these questions, as well as some questions about GOP healthcare. The presentation is quite humorous, but the underlying messages are sadly close to the truth. It's a worthy watch if you have a free 5:13.
Kent---I have heard that argument before. I think the GOP made it up or something. If we did have a new Constitutional Convention (many states have had numerous ones since 1776), and the corporations tried to pull that, I think its a good thing. It would all be out in the open and give us the chance to smash it, once and for all.

And if it passed, we could paralyze the system and force a new convention.
Rw005g, what makes you think the money and promises of power would move out in the open? I think you'd just see people promised they'd either be “in” or “out” in the new regime. Money is going to be in play regardless, and they'd probably tell the politicians they had no choice, and that business would not support a new government that wasn't favorable to them anyway. It's a tricky biz. But I know you're a deep thinker—how do you think it would play out?
I think that the status quo protects business. I say we put the cards on the table and force their hand.
I say push forward constantly and relentlessly and never be afraid of the other side. We can do as much damage to them, as they can to us.
I'll ponder what you say, but maybe you could lay it out in detail in a post. To my eye, feeble as they are, the present system offers protections or they wouldn't be trying to dismantle them. And the populace in general (to include our elected many) understands procedure so poorly (not to mentiont he corporations write the proposed legislation, which compounds it) so that a rewrite risks the introduction of subtle traps. Public dialog cannot tolerate subtlety, alas. But you should keep working to convince me as I'm curious to hear this thought through.
For a sad sidebar to this, see a recent article in The Atlantic Wire: McDonald's Could Account for Half of May's Job Growth.