June 8, 2020
Economics for Everyone (E4E) stands in solidarity with the uprising and rebellion against racist police violence. We actively support the struggle for self-determination that has rocked the status quo. We recognize that the current battle is part of an ongoing historical fight against police brutality that dates back to slavery and the indigenous genocide. George Floyd’s murder by members of the Minneapolis Police Department sparked the latest round of resistance. The people of Minneapolis fighting back inspired uprisings all over the country. This uprising has spread worldwide. We support a diversity of tactics. People are expressing their justified rage through a variety of means. We condemn any collaboration with the police and/or right-wing militias. Long live George Floyd! Let us not limit our focus and become pacified by minimal police reforms. We must continue to build a multi-racial movement against racism and capitalism. We demand collective liberation and justice for all oppressed peoples.
0 Comments
Matt Lester recently asked Savvina Chowdhury to talk about gender inequality in the US economy, especially considering the alt-Right claim that it doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. Chowdhury teaches feminist economics at The Evergreen State College.
ML–Instead of wading into the debate over the best method to challenge white supremacy in its alt-Right form, I want to ask you about how to oppose a particular aspect of the alt-right program. Certain alt-Righters like Milo Yiannopoulos deny that gender inequality exists in the workplace. If they acknowledge it, they blame the victim. How does a feminist economist see patriarchy and gender inequality in the economy? SC–Well, when I started learning about economics, I was struck by how economists tell the story about the economy. I started thinking about what is defined as “the economy”, what activities are considered economic, what activities are considered productive, and the other side of that: who or what is then seen to not be part of the economy or of economic well-being? If you look at what is called the dominant paradigm in neoclassical economics, much of the story focuses on how households and firms interact with markets. Well, in most of the world, especially in the global south, many people do not necessarily interact through markets. If you look, women are involved in work on a non-market, non-monetized basis: taking care of the household, neighborhood, and community. It is unpaid work. So I started questioning why the dominant paradigm doesn’t talk about this part of the economy that is necessary for capitalism to function. The work involved in taking care of people, taking care of family members, neighbors, and the community—feminist economics literature calls this reproductive labor. As a feminist economist, I see reproductive labor as the fundamental basis for all other activity. It is the daily and generational work involved in caring for people who work. ML—What is reproductive labor? SC—The economy produces goods and services, but it also produces people; so reproductive labor is done on a daily basis. When the worker comes home, you have to feed, clothe, and take care of that worker. To work we need a place to sleep, warm meals, but also we need affection and nurturance, so that is the daily reproduction of labor. Then there is the generational reproduction of labor—the raising of children. Someone needs to take care your children, to socialize them in the customs of your society and your culture. Primarily women do that. Much of this work is not accounted for in formal measures of the economy such as Gross Domestic Product or the unemployment rate. In fact, women who are doing all this work in their communities, neighborhoods, and families are not considered part of the formal workforce. Because they are balancing this non-market work, this unpaid work, with their formal sector jobs they have to balance what is called a “second shift.” For example, a working woman works 9-to-5, a full day of work in the formal economy, then comes home and has to work another 5-hour shift. In the evening she has to pick up her children, make them meals, help them with homework, put them to bed, pack a lunch for the next day, clean the kitchen, and so on. ML–I think this is a great introduction to how a feminist economist looks at the economy differently than your average economist. More importantly, this is an insight into how we can challenge people on the alt-Right when they say there is no wage gap. What you’re saying is that there’s a disproportionate amount of unpaid work done by women, so it’s not just comparing “person a” with “person b” within a profession. Still, there is a difference in the wages of men and women, right? SC—For every dollar that a man makes women make about 81¢. A number of factors drives this: one factor is that women tend to work fewer hours so they can balance their family responsibilities with their paid jobs. If you look at the statistics on part-time job holders the majority of them are women. If you look at the statistics on minimum wage workers 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women. Not only are they more likely to work part time, but they’re also more likely to be working in lower paying jobs. I wanted to clarify and emphasize that the gender pay gap is driven by the fact that women exhibit part-time work patterns because they are balancing reproductive labor with paid jobs. Feminist economists call this the gendered segregation of occupations, whereby women are over-represented in what is called the caring economy. Child care workers, receptionists, preschool teacher, secretaries, nurses, domestic work are overwhelmingly women. Men, on the other hand, are over-represented in higher paying masculinized professions such as auto mechanics, truck drivers, firefighters, airline pilots, mechanical engineers, and computer software engineers. Lastly, there is discrimination in the workplace, so that even within the same occupational categories, women are paid less than male workers. ML—How would you respond to the claim that if you look at how unhappy women are since entering the workforce it’s clear they should go back to the kitchen and family? SC—What I am struck by is how difficult it is to condense all of this. It is like what Noam Chomsky said, “It takes one minute to tell a lie, and an hour to refute it.” The truth is complex. Milo Yiannopoulos would say that it is women’s choice to try to balance reproductive labor at home with their paid jobs. But this misses the context. In the post-World War II era the structure of the economy changed towards what we call neoliberal capitalism. There was a decline in blue-collar manufacturing jobs, and a concurrent downward trend in the percentage of men who are in the paid workforce. On the other hand, the service sector of the economy expanded and became the dominant sector of employment. Service sector jobs tend to have this bi-modal distribution, which roughly means they can be separated into high paying service sector jobs—management consultants, financial analysts, hi-tech jobs—and low-paying jobs—maids, nannies, wait staff in restaurants, and retail jobs. If you look at big cities like New York, San Francisco, LA, and Seattle, women who have entered these higher-paying jobs have to modify a lot of their reproductive labor: more meals out, hiring Merry Maids, house cleaners, hiring live-in nannies because they work 60 hours a week. So now, we no longer live in a context where you have the male breadwinner/female caregiver roles—well-defined gender roles that we associate with the nuclear, heteronormative, patriarchal traditional family. Now we live in a society that is more accurately described as the universal breadwinner society where everyone is expected to work and we take it for granted now that both parents are working. For Milo to say that women should go back into the care giving role overlooks the fact that even if some women want to—and I think some women do want to—I don’t think they have that luxury because we have to make ends meet. Secondly, there is a history of the caring economy seen in a feminized way that ghettoizes that sector of the economy. ML—I think your point is that people on the alt-Right have taken a grain of truth about dissatisfaction with the economy and put forth a solution that would make our situation worse. Maybe a way to challenge the alt-Right is to expose the full truth of how reproductive labor is a necessary component of any economy but is particularly frustrating and exploitative under capitalism. Maybe social movements can anchor their activity by sharing reproductive labor as they attempt to create a better future and build toward an economy that is not capitalist. SC—Not only is reproductive labor not seen as a valuable part of the economy, it is not seen as part of the economy at all! It is often seen as a private sector— hidden in the privacy of the family, even though it is the bedrock on which all economic activity rests. I think we need to move toward a universal caregiver economy where everyone participates in taking care of the community, the neighborhood, the family, and the home. That means gender roles have to change so we socialize young boys to learn how to empathize with others, take care of others, spend time with grandparents; and we design work places with on-site daycare. We need to consider organizing our economy along the lines of what are called balanced job complexes. Everyone takes turns doing reproductive labor whether it is preparing communal meals, arranging collective daycare facilities, or making elder care arrangements. If we look back at history, early socialist communities designed homes and work places with communal kitchens and daycare. Early socialists, like Robert Owen said both men and women have to take care of our children and our elderly. If elders live with us, they can also participate in taking care of our communities—not being lonely and separated from family members. There is a grain of truth to what Milo Yiannoplis is saying: our families and communities are under duress in the neoliberal period. But he doesn’t address the fact that if we continue to feminize reproductive labor it will continue to be devalued in a sexist patriarchal society. We need to break the gender binary, in part by changing gender roles. This means rethinking masculinity. We need to move society away from a self-centered individualistic way of being a man into one where caring for others, empathy, and solidarity is also part of masculinity. If we address the reproductive sector according to the prescription of the alt-Right, then we will continue to exclude women from important participation in the public sphere of society where many decisions are made—in city councils, political institutions, and in the workplace. Understanding and addressing reproductive labor through balanced job complexes and communities will help guide us toward an equitable society and a more humane one where we value caring for each other–where we all participate in this work because we think it is important. By Kelly Miller, October 2017
A wave of activity from white supremacist and fascist groups has accompanied the Trump administration’s rise to power. From the burst of reported hate crimes immediately following election day to the violent Charlottesville clashes this August, such groups have been emboldened by Trump’s openly nativist, nationalistic and militaristic rhetoric. Debate around the best way to resist these dangerous far-right demonstrations has been heated and unceasing. The Left seems divided over what an effective “antifascist” is or should be and what tactics they should embrace. Knowing our history might help resolve that debate by reminding us what people have done in the past in the face of the unthinkable. The “Battle of Cable Street” that took place in London’s East End in 1936 indicates that inter-community cooperation can be a powerful means of countering fascist actions. During this historic antifascist stand, immigrant Jewish and Irish communities, labor unions and radical leftists collaborated to stop the British Union of Fascists, or “Blackshirts,” from marching through their neighborhoods. Today, the Battle of Cable Street is regarded as an influential antifascist victory, as well as a testament to the strength of collective community action. Because these groups forged strong organizational links, they were able to mobilize a mass of people large enough to physically block the fascist parade from proceeding. These links survived long after the battle, and continued to serve cross-community needs in the form of tenants’ rights campaigns. As Nazism gained steam in Germany in the 1930s, an active fascist movement emerged in England as well. Led by Sir Oswald Mosley, an admirer of Hitler and Mussolini, the British Union of Fascists (BUF) pushed an agenda of virulent anti-Semitism, nativism and nationalism. Using language that has an echo today, a pamphlet distributed by the BUF claimed “Fascism alone [would] deal with the alien menace because fascism alone [put] ‘Britain First.’” The “alien menace” referred to the large immigrant communities of Jews living in London’s impoverished East End. By 1932, more than 60,000 Jews of mostly Eastern European origin lived in the East End borough of Stepney. The BUF, in step with Hitler, blamed them for much of the economic hardship of the Great Depression. In 1936, Mosley planned to celebrate the fourth birthday of the BUF with a uniformed march through the East End. For years, the BUF had instigated anti-Semitic violence and street fights in these very communities. The march was to be a show of force that could foreshadow violence on an even larger scale. Despite this serious threat, the British government refused to ban the march and even gave the BUF a thousands-strong police escort. Communists, anarchists, socialists and trade unionists had been leading antifascist organizing efforts in the East End since the emergence of the BUF in 1932. To oppose and prepare for Mosley’s march, these groups teamed up with the Jewish People’s Council against Fascism and Anti-Semitism (JPC). Many of the trade unionists were Irish dockworkers — immigrants themselves — who had received support from Jewish unions and community groups during previous strikes. Together they planned for a mass mobilization of people to block the BUF from entering the East End. On October 3, 1936, the day before the march was to take place, its proposed route was published in the communist paper The Daily Worker, along with a call to block the march at several key points. Tens of thousands of East End residents answered that call when the BUF approached the next day. Antifascist protestors greatly outnumbered both Mosley’s fascist Blackshirts and the mounted police escorts. Though police tried to hold them back with baton beatings, the antifascists managed to erect effective road blockades with overturned trucks. Women, children and elders who were not in the streets participated in the action by throwing glass bottles and jars, marbles, rotten food and waste from chamber pots out of their apartment windows. This rain of debris made it difficult for police on horseback and BUF marchers to advance. The Communist Party organized on-site medical care for the wounded. Free legal support for arrestees was arranged by the JPC. Eventually the police informed Mosley that the BUF would have to turn around without marching through the East End. The mobilized opposition had been able to halt the parade, thanks to the broad participation of an array of different groups within the community. While the “Battle of Cable Street,” as the mass confrontation came to be known, did not put a definitive end to all anti-Semitic violence in the East End, it did forge lasting connections between participants. Leftist radicals, Jewish community groups and labor activists united by the antifascist struggle soon formed the Stepney Tenants Defence League, a political group that advocated for better housing conditions and fair rents. The mass antifascist mobilization in 1936 was borne of deeply connected community organizing traditions and was followed by more community-centered projects and efforts, carried out by the same people and groups. The Battle of Cable Street is commemorated with a vibrant mural in London’s East End. It depicts the events of the battle, including the shower of objects thrown from the apartment windows and a banner reading “Mosley Shall Not Pass; Bar the Road to British Fascism.” It is a moving tribute to community power and solidarity. By Matt Lester, interviewing Peter Bohmer
What is the Universal Basic Income? The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is getting increasing attention in the United States, in particular Silicon Valley, and many other countries in the world. The idea of the universal basic income is that every resident in a society would get a certain income that's not attached to their work. The numbers I'm suggesting to start with are $1,000 a month for each person over 18 and $500 a month for each person under 18. These amounts would increase annually to keep up with inflation and would also rise as productivity increases. To illustrate the idea, let's take a family of two adults—two parents 18 and over and two children under 18. They would receive $1,000 for each adult and $500 for each child, which would total 3,000 a month. That is $36,000 a year, which is about 1 1/2 times the official poverty line. In addition, it would offer a housing allowance in high rent cities. That's the basic idea. How could this be funded? Before I answer that, I need to provide some context. The United States population for 2016 was 323 million, 75 million under 18 and 248 over 18. This program being universal should include all immigrants, felons, and all income level; this would make the total cost three and a half trillion dollars. That's what we would have to finance. While that sounds big, there would be some savings; possibly the UBI could replace food stamps, TANF the welfare program, and possibly some disability payments as individuals and households would receive a larger cash payment from the UBI than these programs. But assuming we would keep in most social programs, and even expand some, the total cost of the Universal Basic Income program would be less than 20 percent of national income. To ensure this guaranteed income wouldn't be inflationary we would need taxes of about 20% of national income to cover it. This is a large amount but economically feasible. The challenge is political not economic. Implementing different tax rates for people in the top half of the income distribution with low rates beginning if you are above the median household income, above $57,000 a year; and higher tax rates on the top one percent of the population who earn about 22% of national income. We could cover that 20 percent of national income. So it's feasible. There would still be a lot of inequality in the United States, but it would be significantly less than now. Alternatively we could tax income a little bit less and have, for example, a tax on wealth of just the top 1%. For example, they could pay a tax of 2% on their wealth every year—that would yield a good amount of revenue. So basically by taxes on large wealth and high income, taxing the top 1%, everybody in the bottom half of the population, 50%, would receive this full universal basic income in addition to their wages. Others, the 40% of the population with incomes below the income of the top 10 percent still would have more than now. In this proposal, the UBI would be in addition to Health Care, Child Care, Head Start, education, and housing allowances; that's why we have this high cost of the program. How does this address inequality? It addresses inequality in two ways. It would make income more equal because for low-income people, every household will be above the poverty line because the would receive the universal basic income (UBI). This program would be financed by taxing the wealth and/or the income of higher income people so they would have less income than they have now. So it wouldn't end inequality, but it would make it less extreme. The bottom would be raised up and the top would have a little bit less income. The second way is it increases the bargaining power of workers. If somebody offered you a minimum wage job at Burger King where you are treated totally disrespectfully you would say I'm not going to take that job unless you pay me a better wage and treat me with respect and dignity. So employers to get workers would have to raise wages and treat workers better. Even if it's a rough sketch I want you to imagine how this could unfold in the United States. That’s a difficult question. I don't see the Universal Basic Income as a program we will win in the immediate future. We need to first do popular education to explain this idea, which builds on the philosophy that it is a basic right of each human being to have their basic needs met.The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the embodiment of the belief that income doesn’t have to be totally tied to making profits for somebody else. So we need to do education that makes that belief "common sense"and worth fighting for. The good news is that we're not totally starting from scratch. There is increasing interest in the idea, more in other countries but also in some of the socialist groups like Democratic Socialists of America. A successful movement for the Universal basic income would have to tie itself to other movements. For example, it should connect to issues of anti-racism and women's equality as poverty disproportionately affects women, Latino, Native American, and Black people. The UBI would disproportionately benefit people of color, and women of all racial groups. So when you say popular education where do you think that's going to happen? Is that going to happen in public schools, inside of unions, in workshops like the ones we hold at Traditions? When I say popular education, I am not sure about labor unions as many are worried this will further weaken them. I don't this is so. For example, the UBI would work like an additional strike fund where striking workers would receive the UBI in addition any support from their union. Also unions have really cutback on education of their members unfortunately. I see popular education and building support for the UBI, primarily coming from community groups, like Economics For Everyone, where the idea is really discussed. Also explaining the UBI in the alternate and social media but also getting good coverage of it in the mainstream media. I've already seen quite a few articles in the mainstream and alternative media on this. Doing popular education and debating the universal basic income is a first step. After that first step what comes next? Once people know about the universal basic income then is it a candidate that inspires people like Sanders? Step two! It seems possible to win this on a experimental level like having it exist first in certain communities. Maybe having this in a few communities or in a State like California where there is currently a pretty liberal government. So with developing a campaign for the UBI, it could happen in part of California, then possibly statewide leading to a national discussion. The financing of it would be difficult on a less than national level because taxes on high-income people would increase substantially and they would threaten to and might actually move if their local or State taxes increased substantially to fund the Universal Basic Income. There is an increasing critique of capitalism in the United States, even though most social movements are weak now. I just saw some recent polls that reported that among people under 30 socialism is more popular than capitalism. It’s a 3-2 ratio, which is really significant. For African-Americans as a whole socialism is a more popular concept than capitalism. UBI could or should be one part of an anti-capitalist program and strategy as it puts forward to some extent the principle that income should be determined by need. You were talking about how people in Silicon Valley are interested in this, which seems unexpected. In the past capitalists have occasionally wanted some kinds of reforms but this seems like a pretty significant reform. So in a sense there is momentum behind the first step you laid out. Why would capitalists and managers in Silicon Valley want this? There are several reasons why there is growing interest from wealthy people in the technology industry. One reason is many are predicting with the growth of artificial intelligence and technologies that further automation there will be less jobs and less job security for most. So there is a need for a buffer. The second motivation is connected to job loss. They are worried about decreasing aggregate demand caused by higher unemployment and underemployment, which will lower the abilities of people to purchase goods and services. They're thinking about how to create enough demand when less people have work and sufficient to buy what can be produced. The third factor is that there's growing concern about the extreme income and wealth inequality we are experiencing which Trump's proposed tax cuts will even worsen. Testing this out at the state level reminds me of weed legalization at the state level having to prove itself as a feasible program. Right and that's the idea of showing it at the local level and then gaining much larger support for it. This idea of a UBI does have major interest and not just from the usual suspects, and this raises question for me too. The version I want is a really significant program because it would not replace most other social programs but be in addition to them. So the dilemma is: I see as much more possible in the short a version of a UBI being proposed coming from mainstream Democrats and a few moderate or libertarian Republicans, a much more limited guaranteed income. One version I've read about would be half the income to adults that I'm proposing—$500 a month for adults, much less or nothing or kids, and major cuts to social programs. So I wouldn't actually support that version because it's so inadequate, it's a neoliberal version of the UBI. But then the argument in favor of that moderate beginning UBI is that it would be a step toward the kind of program I'm proposing. If that were the end it would be a really reformist reform. But although it probably would be better than what we have now, it would still be totally inadequate and it wouldn't end poverty or even substantially reduce poverty, especially if it ended programs such as WIC and reduced or free school lunches, which has been proposed. So the details of the UBI matter. Taking the modest reform first is similar to saying the affordable care act—which is inadequate with how high the rates are—is a step toward Universal Health Care such as a Single Payer healthcare system. OK that version that you describe is coming from Silicon Valley and other elites. Can you please talk about a version that you think addresses more issues in a way that actually meets a lot of people's needs for justice? One version of the universal basic income is the libertarian version that can actually be traced back to the influential right wing economist, Milton Friedman. That version is it a lower level of a guaranteed income that I'm talking about and also strips and replaces social programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, public housing—it's the idea to replace all that. Maybe even Social Security. My version of a universal basic income goes back to what Martin Luther King talked about in the 60s or the demands of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). The NWRO talked about and demanded a guaranteed income of $6,500 for a family of four which is almost $50,000 in today's dollars. My idea of a Universal Basic Income is in that tradition. It is not a substitute for but in addition to needed programs like free and quality education through university for all, a single payer universal healthcare, guaranteed childcare, access to housing, etc. The right to live without being poor should and would be a basic human right of the society. An adequate guaranteed income would make it more possible for women to leave abusive relationships because one would at least receive the UBI and if you had kids your UBI would substantially increase. It is also a more generalized version of the wages for housework demand. An artist would receive an income and wouldn't have to take a job they didn't like to put food on the table or to have their art production dictated by the market. Community organizers and activists would receive an income without having to do a wage labor job they hated or at least work less hours. You've mentioned earlier that this guaranteed income would increase the bargaining power of workers. Please tell me about that. In the United States wages are largely determined by bargaining power of workers to improve wages and right now the bargaining power has been decreasing with the decline of unions, firms threatening to move offshore, and this program while being insufficient would increase the bargaining power of workers. Let's say you're facing a minimum wage job where you're really treated badly you could have this UBI as a fall back income. You wouldn't have to take the first job you are offered. You could say you'll only work if working conditions improve if I get offered a better wage; so it would improve the bargaining power of workers. We need stronger labor union laws to make it easier to organize but this is one part of a strategy of improving the dignity of work and people’s wages and working conditions. You mentioned that some programs would still be around. I believe in the right for no one to be poor and for that to happen it means that this guaranteed income would be in addition to healthcare, hopefully universal healthcare. This could not be paid for out of the UBI that is still set at a low amount, but be in addition. So should childcare, university education and training programs, etc. Certainly most social programs would need to continue to improve. Social security and unemployment would need to continue. It could replace programs that are straight cash grants like TANF because this would be a much higher amount. There would be no work required for the UBI. People would only work because the job would improve their lives, not because they absolutely have to. So it would be a way that meeting the basic needs of all beings becomes part of our society. To me, while the UBI could and should exist in a capitalist society, it would not end inequality, worker alienation and exploitation, environmental destruction, racism and sexism. It would improve people's lives and be a step towards a participatory socialist society. Hearing you talk about this, not only would it give workers more collective bargaining power over working conditions, it would also force industries to prove themselves as being worthy of existing. Maybe not, there is collective bargaining as a teacher, for instance, and there is a lot of union representation there, but I think people take out all this debt to get their certification and once their done they don’t really have a choice other than sticking with their original choice. I think that’s true in social work too. But if the guaranteed basic income existed, those careers would have to be appealing not just something people have to do. For all jobs. A UBI would increase wages for low and moderate wageworkers as it would increase their bargaining power. This would lead to more automation as firms substituted machines for workers. But if people had higher wages and in addition the UBI, it would mean that people might be working less and getting higher paid per hour. That’s a benefit. There would be more time for volunteer work and building community; when one works full-time and often overtime or more than one job; one doesn’t have the energy or time to do community activities of fully enjoy life.. If you had this income and in addition more from a job it would leave more time for volunteer work, creative work, recreation, training, education, learning new skills. If this program were implemented would you see a change in art and things that don’t automatically have a commodity form? For instance, people who want to become artists—if they’re not immediately good enough or successful—they have to supplement whatever they’re doing with another job. Even if they’re good enough. Maybe they’re not trying to produce art for commercial success, so they can’t survive. It’s not only artists, writers and musicians and filmmakers and others would benefit. If you are willing to live in a very modest amount, these very modest amounts, you could devote times to basically what you love and want you want to do. By Anonymous Authors
The holiday season will prove to be a challenging time for retail workers. Often working in part-time or precarious positions for minimum wage, these workers are made responsible for the increase in productivity that accompanies the holiday shopping rush. Workers will be pushed to work harder, faster, and longer so corporations can capitalize on the holiday season and cash in on “shopping holidays” like Black Friday. In the spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge, traditional holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve are no longer times of rest for workers either. Instead of spending time with family, they will be exploited for the sake of increased productivity and profits. Productivity and Compensation Since the late 1970s, there has been a growing gap between wages/benefits and productivity. While productivity has climbed upward since the late 1970s, real wages adjusted for inflation have not. They have stagnated or flat-lined. Profits and CEO compensation on the other hand, have skyrocketed. If the minimum wage rose with productivity, as it did after WWII to 1968, it would currently be about $21 an hour. The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, 299-1 in 2014, 286-1 in 2015, and 271-1 in 2016, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. How do we explain this? Why would management ask workers to be more productive if they didn’t all benefit? Companies ask workers to be mindful of productivity and profits because they have to convince them that their interests are aligned with the corporation’s. Convincing workers that no crime was committed is the best way to rob them of the fruits of their labor. The hours that workers put into unloading trucks, putting items on the floor, working carefully with customers so they can make a sale, the outcome of all that sweat and energy and time is returned as profits to the 1% (the richest owners and CEOs of corporations). The portion workers get in the form of wages and benefits are nothing more than breadcrumbs. Holiday Speed-Up During the holidays service sector workers experience a disorienting collision of new demands. Temporary workers are hired, increasing competition between workers for hours; sleep and free time are disrupted by a capricious scheduling system; stores open earlier and close later; customers are stressed by having to “keep up with the Joneses;” and time with family is limited by increasing corporate encroachment on the traditional holiday season. Companies must convince workers that productivity increases can only be attained by speedups— an employer's demand for accelerated output without increased pay. When one of the authors of this piece worked at retail giant JC Penney, he was told that the company was at a “productivity level” of 150 and needed to get up to 180 through harder and faster work—the meaning of these numbers or what they represented weren’t explained. When the goal was reached there was predictably no increase in pay or benefits to the workers, even though their effort had achieved it. Often, seasonal hires are thrust into the accelerated pace of days like Black Friday after only working at the company for a few weeks or even days. They hardly have their bearings before they are suddenly expected to work at a pace that is even difficult for experienced workers. Adequate training covering the store’s layout and organization, counterintuitive technology, return and sale policies, and safety procedures are forsaken in the name of speed. The stress this puts on workers is never considered. To prevent solidarity between workers, it is common for the management to foster competition and rivalries during the holiday season. Contests for which worker can sell the most credit cards or make the most sales are awarded with prizes like gift cards, food, or even early breaks. Pitting workers against one another lessens the chance that workers will bond and slow down to chat with one another while on the job. While this is a year-round practice, managers are especially encouraged to create a competitive atmosphere and extinguish any sparks of mutual aid and collective worker defiance during the holidays. Adding insult to injury, holiday working conditions are often framed as “part of the job” or “what workers signed up for” to provide an illusion to shoppers that workers have consented to these conditions. It is insinuated that workers “choose” or are “excited” to work the harrowing hours and conditions of Thanksgiving, Black Friday, Christmas Eve and other holiday sales. Some stores even force their workers dress up in holiday themed clothing—Santa hats, reindeer antlers, elf ears, etc. In truth, even calling in sick on these days would most likely mean getting fired. How Can We Support Workers? Although the retail sector employs over fifteen million workers in the United States, union organizers have largely forsaken it. Since the 1980s, the trend of de-unionization has sharply decreased overall union density and presently the unionization rates of retail workers are close to zero. This has not always been the case. According to In These Times, “Retail had 15 percent union density in the 1970s, […] with the density rate in grocery stores surpassing 31 percent at its peak in 1983. But, as with the rest of the labor movement, retail unionism has taken a steep fall since the early 1980s.” We don’t currently have the power to destroy the retail industry and replace it with cooperatives. We have the unfortunate but necessary task of agitating, educating, and organizing at these workplaces, as they exist now. Instead of Leftists graduating from college only to work for NGOs as professional activists, we have to remember how to connect with everyday people. We are not superheroes that will swoop in and rescue the day. Yet many frustrated workers are alone with no training or idea of how to change “the way things are.” Management has studied and shaped the workplace to be hostile to unionization, we too need to study and shape the workplace to be friendly to worker power. We can learn from the best practices of workplace organizing and ask why they haven’t all worked in retail in the past. Then, we can refine the ones that work and experiment with new tactics. We can start by developing friendships, networks, and support systems with coworkers. Together we can find a way forward and become the leaders that will make bosses tremble. By Robert Gorrill, December 2017
Throughout recent decades U.S. cities have been transformed. Urban demographics are profoundly changing. Historically Black and Brown communities and working-class neighborhoods are becoming whiter and wealthier. Low-cost housing has been demolished and replaced with luxury housing. Economies have shifted, with the demise of mom-n-pop shops and manufacturing, to the opening of tech industries, corporate outlet stores, expensive bars, boutiques and cafes. Entire cultural landscapes have altered, as old informal mutual aid and kinship networks, often found in working-class, immigrant and POC neighborhoods are slowly eroded by displacement. Blame Hipsters? The term ‘gentrification’ has entered the popular vocabulary to describe this process of urban change. Encouragingly, gentrification is increasingly deployed in a largely pejorative sense. And while gentrification is most often broadly associated with skyrocketing rents, more are beginning to also associate it with aggressive and racist policing practices as well as austerity and privatization. This is indicative of its prevalence throughout cities, but also of shifting political attitudes towards it. Yet, gentrification is very rarely successfully repelled, partly because it's simply a difficult fight to win, but also partly because gentrification is misunderstood by many who seek to oppose it. Dominant understandings tend to analyze gentrification primarily through an identity/lifestyle lens, emphasizing the role of ‘hipsters’ or ‘yuppies,’ most of whom are white and from middle-class backgrounds. This emphasis reflects a certain reality in that gentrifying neighborhoods/cities are characterized by an increase in whiter, wealthier hipsters and yuppies in places that were formerly home to mostly working-class people of color. However, gentrification involves much more than the individual consumer choices of hipsters and gentrification has been occurring long before the lifestyle category of ‘hipster’ has existed. Most fundamentally, gentrification must be understood as a process inherent in capitalism. Under capitalism, the dictates of profit determine all economic decisions, including within the realm of housing. How much housing is built, where it is built, and who it shelters are all decisions made in the interest of profit. From this broad picture we can reasonably deduce that gentrification would naturally occur in a capitalist society. However, to fully analyze gentrification in its current form, specific actors and political, social and economic trends within capitalism must be identified. Causes of Gentrification Three main causes of gentrification I identify are the 1970s economic and ideological crisis, uneven development and the hyper-commodification of housing. First, in the 1970s the U.S. economy suffered a severe crisis. Unemployment skyrocketed and deindustrialization accelerated with industry mechanizing or moving to other parts of the world. The government responded with draconian budget cuts at all levels. This combination of economic collapse and austerity would especially adversely affect cities. Industrial manufacturing had been the economic base of many large cities, providing employment and income for workers, including working class people of color, but also providing tax bases and revenue sources for municipal governments. Moreover cities had relied on federal assistance to provide social welfare services to residents. Budget crisis began to plague municipal governments, epitomized by the 1975 New York City fiscal collapse. In this context cities sought new outlets for economic growth to stabilize their economies and develop new revenue sources. Through material incentives, such as subsidies and tax breaks, cities attracted new white-collar industries that characterize the neoliberal economy, like tech, finance and services, and with them a wealthier and whiter workforce. With a depressed property market, developers and corporations have been able to buy up city blocks on the cheap, fueling displacement. The crisis cities faced in the 1970s wasn’t just economic, but also social and ideological. The social movements of the 1960s were still strong in resident’s memories, particularly the Black liberation struggle. Displacement fueled by gentrification was thus advantageous to municipal governments because it enforced social order by physically removing groups prone to rebellion. Second is urban researcher and geographer Neil Smith’s theory of “uneven development.” Smith contended that gentrification was a component of the broader tendency for the built environment (buildings and physical infrastructure, such as houses, apartment complexes, factories, stores etc.) under capitalism to develop unevenly. Smith showed that making investments in large fixed capital projects also encouraged the subsequent disinvestment in and eventual deterioration of such structures and their surroundings. As investment and subsequent development occur in one region, it eventually becomes cheaper to develop entirely new property or redevelop dilapidated property in other regions than it does to maintain properties in the first region. Investments in the built environment are such immediate expenses that involvement of credit system is guaranteed, adding debt-servicing as an additional cost to development. Consequently, urban development undergoes cycles of renewal and dilapidation as capital flows back and forth between spaces most conducive to profit maximization. An example of this uneven development was the process of U.S. suburbanization. Beginning in the late 1940s investment began to flow to the peripheries of major cities, where land was cheap and larger profits could be reaped. Suburbanization was facilitated by government intervention which subsidized highway construction and home loans for middle-class whites (only). Eventually, as development in the suburbs became less profitable, investment began to return to urban areas where dilapidated property could be bought cheaply in the 1980s, helping to ignite the current wave of gentrification. Third is the hyper-commodification of housing that has occurred over the last few decades. A commodity is a product bought and sold on the market for a profit. Housing, as a commodity, has a dual and contradictory character as being both dwelling space for residents as well as a source of money and profit for landlords, banks and real estate companies. Though the latter characteristic has generally dominated housing throughout the history of capitalism, only recently have virtually all regulations pertaining to the housing market been discarded. As investment has poured into the housing sector, prices have become completely dislodged from local wage levels. Developers build luxury housing and the wealthy buy and sell luxury units simply because the prices are increasing. Meanwhile much of this luxury housing sits empty, while contributing to skyrocketing property values in the given area. While these three phenomena certainly don’t explain gentrification entirely, they make clear that gentrification is indeed a process innate to capitalism itself and can’t be reduced to the actions of lifestyle groups like hipsters or yuppies. Gentrification and Racism Gentrification is a highly racialized process. In many neighborhoods and cities subject to gentrification, the overwhelming majority of those experiencing displacement are people of color. In quickly gentrifying Washington D.C. the black population has decreased from 70% in 1980 to 49% in the 2014 census; during the same years the white population increased from 26.5% to 36%. In other cities, such as New York, overall racial composition has remained stable while neighborhoods have seen dramatic demographic shifts, with people of color frequently displaced to the peripheries of cities. Gentrification is disproportionately displacing people of color because many cities and neighborhoods currently experiencing gentrification have been the same places where people of color have historically been relegated through forms of residential segregation. Racist housing policies that incentivized the “white flight” phenomenon in the 1950s and 1960s, redlining, exclusionary zoning practices and the geographic placement of public housing have all served to institutionalize racial segregation. The displacement of people of color is not, however, the only component to gentrification’s racialized dimension. The advent of the current wave of gentrification has intersected with interrelated, highly racist developments within policing and the criminal justice system. These includes “Broken Windows” policing, a method of policing developed by the NYPD that targets petty crime, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration. Though certainly separate from gentrification to a degree, these practices help facilitate gentrification by criminalizing marginalized residents of gentrifying neighborhoods, making them more vulnerable and thus susceptible to displacement. Research, such as in San Francisco, has shown that police harassment and violence is especially concentrated in gentrifying areas. The Policing of Public Space Public spaces (including parks, public square, sidewalks, benches, public bathrooms etc.) experience severe tensions under capitalism. One the one hand are the interests of private business and governments (which owns and manages public space) who believe public space should be utilized only to facilitate commerce; public space should be of benefit only to consumers in the formal economy. On the other hand, public space is an important site of survival, subsistence and enjoyment for demographics and cultural groups on the margins of capitalist society. Houseless people use public spaces, such as benches and parks as dwelling space, subcultural groups use public squares as sites of lifestyle experimentation, and street vendors, sex workers and drug traffickers and others in the informal economy use sidewalks as sites to procure an income. During the process of gentrification the conflicts over the contradictory uses of public space tend to come to a fore. City governments craft policies prohibiting loitering, skateboarding, public camping and sleeping in cars. Curfews are enacted in parks, public bathrooms are closed and dividers are erected on benches to prevent people from sleeping on them. Police aggressively target and criminalize houseless people, drug users, sex workers, street vendors, people with mental health challenges and subcultural people in an effort to displace them from public spaces. To get involved in local anti-gentrification efforts, check out the following groups and organizations: Just Housing Weekly Meeting: Monday 3-5PM United Churches 110 11th Ave SE, Olympia Facebook: facebook.com/JustHousingOly Email: [email protected] Olympia Solidarity Network: Email: [email protected] Facebook: facebook.com/olympiahousingsolidarity Olympia Assembly Email: [email protected] Facebook: facebook.com/olyassembly By Robert Gorrill, December 2017
Anti-gentrification movements exist in a multitude of forms in most cities across the US. While these movements have been unable to stop the decline in the quantity of rent-controlled dwellings, they have slowed it. In cities with a history of strong tenant movements like New York and San Francisco, anti-gentrification battles have been fought to preserve existing regulations, most notably rent control. In New York, nearly one million apartments are rent stabilized; and due to grassroots pressure, the Rent Guidelines Board in 2015 made the rare decision to ban rent increases on many stabilized apartments for the next 2 years. In the minority of states where municipalities can legally enact rent control, the movement has soared. Richmond, CA has recently imposed rent controls, and organizers in cities from Chicago to Long Beach, CA to Providence, RI are campaigning for rent control. Linking anti-gentrification and houselessness In Seattle, a new coalition called Housing For All/Stop the Sweeps has formed with two demands: end the city and police sweeps of houseless camps; and build 24,000 units of affordable housing. In New York City, the group Brooklyn Anti-Gentrification Network organizes protests linking racism and police violence to gentrification. “Springfield No One Leaves” in Springfield MA, prevents the eviction of foreclosed homes by occupying banks and blockading evictions. “Homes Not Jails” in San Francisco has organized covert squats that directly house people, and engaged in public protest squats in vacant public housing units. The Boston Displacement Mapping Project is an educational tool collecting data on the eviction and housing crisis in Boston. Some of the most important and explosive examples of anti-gentrification resistance have occurred in the realm of public space. During the Tompkins Square riots in New York in 1988, an eclectic grouping of houseless people, punks, squatters, radicals and neighborhood youth confronted police after the city government attempted to enact a curfew in Tompkins Square. After the riots, the city backed off, and the curfew was not enforced until years later. Recent years have seen a spike in houseless solidarity organizing. In Berkeley, organizers with “First They Came for the Homeless” have been organizing protest encampments throughout the city. Across the bay, San Francisco’s Coalition on Homelessness organized demonstrations with others during the 2016 Super Bowl highlighting its role in contributing to displacement and criminalization of houseless people. Gentrification in Olympia: public space and luxury development Gentrification is currently concentrated in downtown Olympia, though rents are increasing throughout the city. In downtown, there is little rental housing and a large houseless population. Thus, criminalizing houselessness and policing public space are fundamental to gentrification in Olympia. Multiple city ordinances ban or limit public camping, loitering and sleeping in cars. Public bathrooms are inadequate and often close by 8 or 9 pm. Public benches are routinely removed or fitted with dividers to prevent people sleeping on them. This winter, the government will not open its Warming Center, which has been a vital resource for houseless people. In this context it is crucial to organize on the terrain of public space in Olympia, and to see that struggles over public bathroom access, or against the removal of a park bench, are as essential as organizing to stop evictions or rent increases. Downtown Olympia is currently host to various “market-rate” (luxury) housing developments. The 1-2-3 4th Project at 4th/Columbia St. and the 321 Lofts at Legion/Adams are completed. 2017-2018 promises to see massive redevelopment with the construction of nearly 100 units of market-rate housing on an empty lot on State Ave. and the conversion of the Mistake-on-the-Lake to almost 150 units of market-rate housing, known as the “Views-on-Fifth” project. Developers Walker John (a Thurston Co. resident who also built the 321 Lofts) and Ken Brogan are responsible for these projects, respectively. These developments increase property values, and with them rents and prices, leading to displacement and the shuttering of local businesses. Currently there is little organized opposition to luxury development, and less that is informed by a radical critique of gentrification. Solidarity organizing in Olympia Currently, much of the resistance to gentrification in Olympia is expressed through houseless solidarity organizing. During the past year, the group Just Housing has made a name for itself with its tireless advocacy and innovative direct action tactics. Just Housing has occupied public bathrooms to protest early closures; shut down the OlyFed bank after they evicted houseless campers on their property; disrupted City Council meetings and city hall functions and staged perhaps two dozen “camp-ins” on city property in opposition to the camping ban. Just Housing also engages in advocacy, such as City Council speak-outs and writing letters-to-the-editor, which, while unable to obstruct the operation of institutions in the way that direct action can, is useful in reaching a broader base of supporters. The recently re-formed Olympia Solidarity Network (OlySol) also seeks to confront gentrification and the housing crisis by organizing direct action campaigns with tenants against landlords’ greed and abuse. OlySol could fight rent hikes or unmet repair needs by picketing a landlord’s home, occupying a landlord’s office, distributing flyers discouraging prospective tenants from renting from a particular landlord or by destroying a landlord’s online reviews. OlySol’s current campaign is demanding that a property management company return a stolen deposit to a former tenant. Although little resistance to luxury development currently exists, Olympia Assembly has taken the lead in organizing against the luxury redevelopment of Mistake-on-the-Lake. Thus far a range of educational, advocacy and direct action tactics have been deployed or discussed, including anti-gentrification workshops and poster campaigns, City Council speak-outs or protests like shutting down city meetings where building permits are issued, or occupying project construction sites. To get involved, reach out to one of the following groups: Just Housing Weekly Meeting: Monday 3-5PM United Churches 110 11th Ave SE, Olympia Facebook: facebook.com/JustHousingOly Email: [email protected] Olympia Solidarity Network: Email: [email protected] Facebook: facebook.com/olympiahousingsolidarity Olympia Assembly Email: Olympia [email protected] Facebook: facebook.com/olyassembly |
ArchivesCategories |