Derision amid divisions over labour
Europe is on strike. America shrugs. We are indeed divided by a common crisis. In the United States, one in seven adults of working age is now deemed to live or survive in poverty.
Property bubbles have burst on both sides of the Atlantic, and the economic recovery is sluggish and sporadic. In economic terms, the Atlantic Ocean has become a millpond. And yet Americans look at strikes in Athens, Madrid or Paris with a sense of derision verging on disgust. Here they go again, those lilly-livered French, crying over the fact that their retirement age may go up to a horrifying 62 years of age. So much for the solidarity of working people. The main difference between Europe and America is the attitude towards labour.
In Europe, citizens feel entitled to work - it is even written in the German Constitution. There are long memories about what happens to a democracy when unemployment becomes too high. The rise of Hitler would probably not have happened if the ranks of the jobless and hopeless had not swelled to desperate heights.
In the United States, the right to work has to be earned by each individual. Despite the excesses of Wall Street, the outsourcing of jobs, the tyranny of the corporate bottom line, losing a job is more a matter of personal shame here than of collective failure. People tend to blame themselves more than their employer. This may seem strange, but it accounts for the absence of strike action in a work force that, Europeans would think, had every right to march and mount the barricades.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
© 2012
Comments
Unlike the UK the USA has yet to be infected with extreme socialism so there is no sickening sense of entitlement to anything and everything, including jobs.
In the USA it's obvious that in the absense of big government hand holding the people have a greater sense of personal responsibility.
Complain about this comment
In the United States, one in seven adults of working age is now deemed to live or survive in poverty. This likely means employment insurance, food stamps, welfare and/or living with the folks. Not exactly the American dream.
In Europe, citizens feel entitled to work; in the United States, the right to work has to be earned by each individual. Losing a job is matter of personal shame than of collective failure.
So what will happen in the United States when the collective failure exceeds the number of people who have earned the right to work?
Thirty-one states saw increases in both the number and percentage of people in poverty between 2008 and 2009 (report from the Census Bureau). “No state had a statistically significant decline in either the number in poverty or the poverty rate.”
To the everlasting shame of the American political establishment, the District of Columbia, home to the US government, has the highest proportion of residents living in extreme poverty of any state or district at 11%.
The top 20% of the population, those making more than $100,000 a year, took in nearly 50% of all income generated, while the 44 million people living below the poverty line took in 3.5%.
So are these people feeling individual shame, or collective anger?
People are delaying marriage, especially in the working class.
Americans have fewer cars.
The poverty gap between young and old has doubled since 2000.
Official child poverty is now 21%.
Lower-skilled adults ages 18 to 34 suffered the largest jumps in poverty last year as employers kept or hired older workers for the dwindling jobs available.
So are these people feeling individual shame, or collective anger?
The number of US households receiving food stamps rose by 2 million. Forty-six states experienced increases in food stamp use.
Four million people in the Midwest, once a global industrial and economic center, live in extreme poverty, an increase of half a million in 12 months. Eight million people in the region have no health insurance.
So are these people feeling individual shame, or collective anger?
In Chicago in 2009, more than 10% of the population lived in desperate poverty and 31.2% of children were categorized as poor.
In the face of widespread—and growing—economic suffering, the American political establishment appears cold and indifferent, concerned only with defending the wealth and privileges of the elite.
Neither the White House nor any leading Democratic Party site carried a response to these figures, these figures that register the impact of the greatest economic crisis since the Depression of the 1930s.
So are these people feeling individual shame, or collective anger?
What happens when people stop blaming themselves, stop feeling any shame, and begin to blame employers & politcians?
What happens when individual shame becomes collective anger?
I foresee civil unrest in the United States, and it will be much more ugly than any strikes we have seen in Europe..
Complain about this comment
It seems that what you must take into consideration is whether these strikes are particularly effective. Are they? As far as I'm aware, the austerity measures will continue to be pushed through, the politicians will remain in their seats, and the bankers are still sitting pretty in their ivory towers. So what does it accomplish exactly?
Currently it does nothing to improve their situation. It does not stabilize the economy, it does not create more jobs, but it instead hinders economic growth by preventing other sectors of workers from working. So what good will marching and mounting barricades do?
I'm all for putting those responsible in the proverbial shark tank, but it can wait until this storm blows over. For now, I'm quite content with continuing to work, but I fully expect economic reform to take precedence once the economy recovers.
Complain about this comment
"So what will happen in the United States when the collective failure exceeds the number of people who have earned the right to work?"
- you're basically asking what will happen when number of masters exceeds number of slaves...they both going to die!
Complain about this comment
Unlike the UK the USA has yet to be infected with extreme socialism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I foresee civil unrest in the United States, and it will be much more ugly than any strikes we have seen in Europe..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh boy, here we go...
Complain about this comment
Government is not yet seen as the answer to all social problems in America as it is in Europe. If that approach works for Europeans, more power to them, but that doesn't mean it's what we want it here in America. If American style capitalism doesn't seem to work then as the strikes demonstrate neither does European style socialism so we see no need to adopt it.
As for empathy for striking unions in Europe, not gonna happen. We came to terms with the need for a higher retitrement age a long time ago. (I won't be able to collect social security until I'm well over 67.) Maybe if Europeans took shorter vacations they'd have more time to put their economy back in shape.
And before you start lecturing us on our poverty rate stop and consider that pverty in America is a lot more comfortable than poverty in most of the world. In spite of the horror stories most poor families have a roof over their head, enough to eat, clothes to wear, electricity, running water and indoor plumbing. Their children go to school and their homes contains refrigerators, televeision and radios. Most even own an automobile, it may not be the latest model but it gets one from point A to point B just the same. This information comes to us from the government's Census Bureau which tracks such matters.
And when comparing the social safety net in Europe with that in the USA don't just compare governemnt programs. A large portion of that net is provided by private charities here. You might also consider that even in hard times like these when Americans grumble at the mention of new taxes they still dig deep and donate generously to charities helping the less fortunate. American are willing to lend a hand to someone who needs help to get on their feet, they're less willing to give handouts to those think they're entitled to the fruits of other people's labor.
Complain about this comment
I foresee civil unrest in the United States, and it will be much more ugly than any strikes we have seen in Europe..
-------------------------
With respect, you seem to have very little understanding of the culture in the US. Response to loss of jobs etc is to push to the right, not the left. In turn we see groups like the "Tea Party" arguing for less government intervention, not more. What exists of "liberals" in the US would usually register closer to the conservative spectrum in Europe, and very rarely call for anything resembling the kinds of changes you seem to think my culture is in for.
That is not to say that more (or better) government regulation would not be a good thing, I am not of the kind that thinks "socialism" is an "infection", just that it is highly unlikely.
Complain about this comment
The U.S. already is a socialist country, and has been since 1936 (Social Security). Despite the rantings of try2begood, poll after poll here in the States confirms that people want government entitlements such as those enjoyed by our socialist brothers and sisters in Europe -- universal health care, decent retirement, unemployment compensation, job security, and the like. We used to have strong unions, too, but Ronald Reagan and the professional union busters fixed that for us in the 1980s. Pay no attention to professional idealogues like try2begood. We’re doing our best to help each other, despite massive opposition from the business and financial greedheads. And Fox News.
Complain about this comment
The idea that the main difference between Europe and America is the attitude towards labour is interesting. I'd like to add a dimension to that.
Labor -- especially organized labor -- in my lifetime has always been religiously coupled to the Red Menace. Anybody that advocated a fair shake for "the workers" -- a tainted phrase in and of itself -- was a either a Commie or a fellow-traveler, out to destroy America as we know it. As a boy, I listened to the McCarthy hearings on the radio with my parents, and it was pretty obvious to me then that a Communist was about as close as you could get to Satan in the flesh. In my school, no less an iconic figure than J. Edgar Hoover and his G-men assured me that I needed to keep on my toes to avoid being sucked in by the false promises of the Politburo's propaganda machine. I don't remember if you could earn a boy scout merit badge in "Anti-communism," but probably so.
And the whole Red scare was already old in the USA even in the fifties, having taken firm root in the thirties.
Europe -- despite its closer proximity to the Evil Empire itself -- never got quiet so totally propagandized by capitalist anti-communist agitprop. You could be a worker in Europe without being suspected of being a commie, and you could be a communist without being a worker. Communists ran for European parliament as a matter of routine. They had (still have) a point of view that could be discussed openly in something like a "Worker's Daily" newspaper. So the activities of European labor were never subjected to a long and vigorous government-sponsored demonization the way they were here.
But I ramble. My point is that a lot of the American attitudes toward labour are just an echo of the anti-communist indoctrination several generations of us were subjected to -- and that our European friends had enough sense to pursue in moderation.
If you poke an American conservative in the eye with a comment or two about "the proletariat" or "the rights of the workers," you'll be astonished (and, if you're like me, delighted) at how quickly you will be compared to Marx or Lenin -- usually by people with no clue as to who or what these men were about. The phrases are like Pavlovian food pellets dropped into the conservative cage: reflexive salivation still occurs, even after all these years.
Sorry for going on so long.
Complain about this comment
It is unbelievable that in XXI century there are still people who think it’s ok to force other people (with the help of government) to work for free so they can dispose the fruits of that labor.
It’ called slavery! Something USA fought years ago.
If the author of this article educated himself just little bit of history he would know that USA was founded on individual (human) rights not on collectivism as are most countries in Europe.
Adiventure, if you don’t think countless milions of people slaughter in the name of socialism (not only in Europe) is an ‘infection’, I don’t know what is.
Complain about this comment
Doyle Harcavy, government doesn't have any entitlements, in order to give someone anything government has to size somebody else's property with force. Is that what you call civilized society? Forcing others to work for free so you (or anybody else) can enjoy "free" staff is called slavery.
Curt Carpenter, Europeans (especially East Europeans) wish they had somebody like Hoover or McCarthy to scare people of brutality of communism, instead they were as naive as you and ended up in half a century virtual slavery, concentration camps, labor camps.
And don't forget Europeans can afford to be naive, after all they have Americans who again will come and save their a...s.
We can't - we have nobody to save us.
Complain about this comment
Americans are extremely resourceful and eternal optimists but we also have our breaking point too. I don't think we've reached it just yet but if and when we do, the world will surely hear about it.
Complain about this comment
As an aside, the so-called "House Rules" that BBC (a Socialist entity) coerces everyone to agree to before engaging in freedom of speech in the commentary section of this site is a piece of Stalinist and Orwellian drivvel that offends American 1st Amendment sensibilities and would be laughed off of any website run by freedom-loving Americans.
Now to address the ignorance of a British Socialist as to why Americans are not also class-envyist, layabout, egalitarian Socialists as well, who like to burn cars in the street like troglydite hooligans all in the name of "Labor", I defer to Patrick Buchanan who lays it out better than I can at this time of night. It must be remembered that Americans have a tradition of freedom of opportunity, not freedom of equal outcome. The state must first steal before it can give away to those it deems more worthy than those who earned it, of its largesse and in the meantime it skims off it's bit of the take for the mindless-bureaucrat class, which I'm sure make up most of Mr. Frei's circle of friends in DC.
To quote Mr. Buchanan: "...If inequality of pay is a result of human nature and a free society, a greater equality of rewards can only be achieved through coercion, a government declaring its value, economic parity, to be supreme, and imposing its value and its preferred pay structure upon employers.
If this is where America is headed, why not go all the way and dictate that Asians and Hispanics, Muslims and Jews, women and men, blacks and whites, gay and straight must all be paid the exact same for the same work -- and let the EEOC hire 100,000 more bureaucrats to see that it happens?
Would that be a great country or a socialist hell?
And before we empower the EEOC to monitor every business for sexism and racism, perhaps the commissioners will explain why African-Americans are 40 percent of all EEOC employees, while only 10 percent of the civilian labor force. Not a single white male sits on the commission.
Whence comes this egalitarian fanaticism?
Not from our Declaration of Independence, which spoke of all men being equal in their Creator-endowed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nor from the America Revolution, which was about liberty not equality, not this alien ideology of egalitarianism.
Equality is not even mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause did not even make an appearance until after the Civil War. And that was about equal justice under law, not the socioeconomic equality of all Americans.
No, this egalitarian ideology is traceable to the French Revolution, where the royalty and aristocracy went to the guillotine in the name of "egalite."
America's decline is directly related to the growth in government power and the concomitant loss of freedom.
Except in God-given and constitutional rights, we are not equal. We are all unequal. The utopian promise of equality is but the banner of every power-hungry politician in modern history. And the rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society." Europe knows well the loss of freedom and the rise of unemployment, because these are the inevitable results of "Labor Party", i.e. Socialist, i.e. Communist policies which try what Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Ceaucescu, Tito, and other sundry European dictators pretend they're all about. Europeans like to declare a "right to work" and then put forth economic policies which keep unemployment in double-digits decade after decade. Americans acknowledge there is no such right and yet keeps unemployment most of the time below 7% (when Socialists like Obama are kept in check). Who are the enlightened ones, pray tell?
Complain about this comment
Less than 3 years ago, I was among those enjoying a 6 figure salary on Wall Street - after three transcontinental relocations for work, I'm unemployed for the second time in 18 months. And yes, I do feel a sense of personal shame and not collective failure; I live in a country where this fierce sense of "individualism" equates to most as a complete inability to view society and one's place in it as having any sense of responsibility. And yes, I am made to feel almost daily that despite my Fortune 500 resume and education, there must have been something wrong with ME that I'm in this unfortunate state. These same sanctimonious folks fail to realize that the US version of capitalism, so sacred as to have been sanctioned by God himself (so say they), has failed. (As an aside, if one read the NY Times earlier this week, it was proven that the denizens of our deeply religious country are completely ignorant of matters of the faith, when compared to the average atheist or agnostic.)
The US version of capitalism has become an oligarchy, plain and simple, and the saddest part of it all is that 80% of Americans don't even know what that word means and the other 20% are too busy deluding themselves that they will get into that elite 5%, while shopping at Walmart and playing Lotto.
Complain about this comment
The US is part socialist already. We take up collective fees and apply them to common projects. Roads, public schools, workmen's comp,Postal service, fire departments, police and a million other things are a result of what we call socialism. We're a hybrid between socialism and capitalism and the sooner we realize this fact the sooner we can have a sane debate about how we go about balancing the two. Social institutions are deeply embedded in our the US and they aren't going away; these are just the real facts of our government. Demonize socialism all you want, but realize that we have been part socialist ever since we opened our public school, and that is a long time ago.
Complain about this comment
I find this debate lively and important. As an American, I can say that my country's history of nationalism has caused us to resist the notion of global community and of a global economy. In Europe, there has been a long history of at least attempted cooperation between the various nations. As for Frei's article on the American view of labor versus the UK view of labor, I believe that it is the American ideology of individualism and individual effort that causes us Americans to frown upon too many social institutions and policies that create an atmosphere of entitlement. Indeed, my own father raised me to "pull myself up" after a setback. I find the social programs in England and the rest of the UK that try and level the playing field to be compassionate and well-intended. However, I feel that such programs will not do as well in the US due to the much larger population here in the states versus the UK. Where would the funding come from unless taxes are raised across the board and we Americans are a rebellious lot when it comes to taxes. This is my first time to this website. I find it informative and I will visit it often.
Complain about this comment
"one in seven adults of working age is now deemed to live or survive in poverty."
Hmmm, there are over 20 million illiterate, 3rd world adults illegally in the U.S. Wonder if there is a connection? LOL!
Complain about this comment
Thank you jan (11 above) for the supportive demonstration. Have another pellet.
Complain about this comment
Socialist progammes, like welfare, unemployment benefits, old age pension, health care, etc, are a form of insurance. Most Americans like the idea of purchasing personal insurances, as far as I know. The difference between the government providing an insurance and a private insurance company providing that same insurance, is that the goal of the government is to serve *you* the citizen and ensure that you get back on your feet and be a productive, tax-paying member of society, and the goal of a private insurance is pure and simply profit, for their shareholders, and to try and deny *you* the client as many benefits as possible. In fact, they have teams of lawyers who write devious contracts with the sole purpose of screwing their clients out of any payouts.
Now don't get me wrong, the government can and does fail in its mandate many times over - lots of corruptions, scandal, etc. Who runs the government? Other *CITIZENS* like you. Who runs private corporations? Oh! Surprise! Citizens! And they can be just as corrupt, theiving, etc, can't they??? Or are they cut from a different cloth?
So the question is, do you want to pay tax dollars to an institution that will ensure you in times of trouble, with obvious pitfalls of corruption laced in, or pay insurance premiums to a company whose goal is to take your money and give it to someone else as profit, while trying their best to deny you of anything should you need it????
Complain about this comment
In Europe and the UK unemployment rarely dips below 10%,this is because of massive government interference with business.Here in the US we don't want the massive taxes and loss of independence that comes with these huge nanny states.So much money is soaked up in taxes from the economy is why the EUSSR economy will always be a quagmire.
Our current administration is trying to turn us in this direction hopefully they will fail and we can go on living in freedom with the choices we currently have.
Complain about this comment
texanNYC
You are obviously part of the problem blaming your situation on things you cannot control may be you were not so good at guessing the flow of the stock market,may be you ought to look at another line of work.
What is poverty in today's world,only driving one car?only having a 32" tv,only being able to afford to eat out once a week?
Who ever wrote this article is obviously a weak willed socialist who thinks government creates jobs and some how corporations are evil.Large corporation's have decent pensions,and many other benefits,i would trust a corporation more than a government who can turn around and raise retirements and lower wages when ever they feel like it as is currently happening in Europe.
Complain about this comment
doyle_istre wrote: "The US is part socialist already. We take up collective fees and apply them to common projects. Roads, public schools, workmen's comp,"
----------------------------------------------------
It appears that your education is sorely lacking.
socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
As you can see, your examples have NOTHING to so with socialism. Now, under Obama, we have started moving that way with the Gov't taking over GM as the owner. It was attempted with HC and thwarted. Both actions being unconstitutional of course. This is a prime reason why his party is crumbling now.
Complain about this comment
Elena asked: "So the question is, do you want to pay tax dollars to an institution that will ensure you in times of trouble,"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I choose to be a free person able to make that decision for myself, WITHOUT threat of bodily harm. How about THAT Elena?
Complain about this comment
What evidence does the author provide for his claim that American workers "shrug" at the strikes undertaken in Europe? Where does the author get his data that suggests that American workers look at their counterparts in Greece and France with "derision" or "disgust?" This is pure impressionism based on a false notion of American exceptionalism.
When the workers of the U.S. have been drawn in the maelstrom, as they will be, this writer's impressions, based as they are on nothing, will be proven wrong. Until then, this author either needs to find supporting data, or else to admit that his argument is merely an impressionistic editorial.
Complain about this comment
Allow me to say that the bailouts of the banks and auto industry by Obama is not socialism, but state-supported capitalism, or corporate welfare. If you want to think of what real socialists think of Obama, read the World Socialist Web Site. Obama is anything but a socialist. He's a corporate shill posing as a reformer.
Complain about this comment
America (the USA, actually) doesn't shrug. It whines. It complains bitterly if the latest fix doesn't work RIGHT NOW. It blames all its problems on whoever is in power at the moment, and it has a pretty short memory. It threatens to throw out everybody in power at the moment, and less than half of it actually does vote. It's impatient. And it's pretty irrational.
Complain about this comment
The U.S. already is a socialist country, and has been since 1936 (Social Security). Despite the rantings of try2begood.
Where did i say the U.S was not a socialist country? I said "extreme" socialism, my intention was to highlight the massive amount of government control programs and distribution of wealth in the UK.
I am fully aware of some socialized programs in the USA, like medicare for example which is a federal controlled miserable failing mess.
Complain about this comment
walden9, whenever you say "state supported" something than you can't add capitalism in that sentence. Capitalism means free markets. Free from state regulation. You have to make up your mind, either state controlled system or capitalism. Can't have both.
What we have now in USA is fascism, strongly regulated economy by government without formal ownership. Think Italy or Germany in the 30's
Fascism is a form of socialism, benign one compare to communism. They all have in common hatred of the individual, free market, capitalism.
They all praise state, collectivism and "common good" (whatever that means).
Complain about this comment
Elena asked: "So the question is, do you want to pay tax dollars to an institution that will ensure you in times of trouble, with obvious pitfalls of corruption laced in, or pay insurance premiums to a company whose goal is to take your money and give it to someone else as profit, while trying their best to deny you of anything should you need it????"
is this a rhetorical question of for real?
do I have a choice?
the answer is obvious and very sad.
Complain about this comment
I would suggest that Mr. Frei's statement "In the United States, the right to work has to be earned by each individual" would be more accurate if it were stated instead as "In the United States, the right to work is available to anyone who is legally in the country and who WANTS to work." The unemployment figures would be dramatically different if many of those who are unemployed felt less entitled to government hand-outs and less inclined to refuse jobs they consider too menial or undesirable. Better they get off their lazy duffs instead and get to work! Jobs are out there to be had in this country, even in today's economy, but it is oh so much easier instead to cry "foul" or "poor me" and then fraudently collect monthly unemployment checks, food stamps, and housing subsidies. Socialists don't know the meaning of the word "entrepreneur" because they have never been introduced to it and wouldn't have a clue how to go about becoming one. It really isn't "all about the money" that socialist rhetoric preaches, but having never known the freedom, the pain and the lessons learned from having to stand on one's own two feet, they will never "get it."
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS