I took a longer break from blogging than I thought--to think, observe a bit, rest the brain, cycle New Zealand's spectacular South Island. But, what stirred me to break this hiatus, at the very moment that people are switching off their computers to turn to libations and debauchery, was, well, the modest observation that the rumbling throughout the globe is just beginning--and the 2012 elections won't change much because neither party wants to challenge the bankruptcy of the so-called "free market".
That seemed obvious to me for a long time but what might help explain this are two pieces worth dipping into. First, from the Financial Times yesterday:
Thousands of employees at an LG Display factory in eastern China went on strike this week over year-end bonuses, part of a wave of industrial unrest across China this autumn as workers become increasingly assertive.
By Wednesday evening the dispute, which involved some 8,000 people and forced a partial shutdown of production at LG Display’s factory in Nanjing, appeared to be moving towards resolution after three days of protests.
...
“The so-called cheap labour model has created a lot of problems and is not working anymore,” said Kirk Yang, tech specialist and managing director at Barclays Capital.
...
“The public’s awareness of democracy, equality and rights is constantly strengthening, and their corresponding demands are growing,” said Zhu Mingguo, an official who helped broker the Wukan settlement, in comments published in state media. “Their channels for voicing grievances are diverse, and there is a tendency for conflicts to become more intense.”
Although Mr Zhu was referring to political protests, labour action also threatens the Communist party’s grip on power. China has a party-sanctioned, nationwide labour union – the All China Federation of Trade Unions – but it is essentially an arm of the government and independent organisations are banned.[emphasis added]
Then, turn to Louis Uchitelle's piece in The New York Times today:
Manufacturers are hiring again in America, softening a long slide in factory employment. But for a new generation of blue-collar workers, even those protected by unions, the price of employment is likely to be lower wages stretching to retirement.
That is particularly true of global manufacturers like General Electric. With labor costs moving down at its appliance factories here, the company is bringing home the production of water heaters as well as some refrigerators, and expanding its work force to do so.
The wages for the new hires, however, are $10 to $15 an hour less than the pay scale for hourly employees already on staff — with the additional concession that the newcomers will not catch up for the foreseeable future.
And:
Linda Thomas, 37, one of the first to be hired in 2005 under the new arrangement, amends that explanation. Her hourly wage, $18.19, has almost topped out, although it is nearly $14 an hour less than Mr. Masden’s. But she keeps silent. Too many unemployed people, she explained, would clamor for her job and her wage if she were to protest.
“You don’t want to rock the boat,” Ms. Thomas said. “You take a chance on losing everything you have if you do.” [emphasis added]
So, why are these related? And what does it mean? I'd make three Rules of Reality observations.
Reality: The Big Lie is exposed. The "Big Lie" essentially goes like this: the new "global competition" means someone has to suffer, wages have to go down and people just have to suck it up.
People don't buy that anymore. The truth is this: plenty of wealth is being created, even at a time of financial crisis. There is nothing--nothing--new about global trade. Human beings have traded all over the globe since we walked upright.
What has changed are the rules. More and more of the created wealth--what the 99 percent created--is flowing into fewer and fewer hands--and into the same hands who are calling for lower wages in the name of "efficiency" and "competition" and who are just hell-bent on imposing austerity on the very people who had nothing to do with creating the crisis. It's morally perverse but, logical, if you happen to be one of the people with their hands firmly on the levers of power.
To be clear, this is an argument about the immorality of the "free market"--which has effectively confiscated the wealth from the 99 percent--NOT an anti-business argument because, after all, if you are a pro-labor person, you want a sane business model that creates jobs and a sustainable world. That we do not have.
Reality: People who have less to risk fight back first (though not always) but others will follow. The revolt in China is just in its infancy--these strikes and protests are nothing new, and they will only increase in intensity. Chinese workers were, for a long time, the point on the sword of the low-wage model--they bore the brunt of 16-hour days, squalid working conditions, abusive management but they are done with that.
And, for a long time, the low-wage factory in China has been used to cow people like Linda Thomas. There is a very direct line from the fear sowed on the factory floor in China to the fear in Ohio that wags its finger at anyone who would dare step out of line.
But, intimidation has its limits. Recall that intimidation and fear could not overcome a Tunisian fruit seller setting himself on fire, nor the Tahrir Square revolt--largely, in my view, driven by economic deprivation--which, then, ignited protests worldwide.
I can't tell you when or how long it will take or where the next uprising starts as the anger ricochets across the globe. But, the growing ebb and flow of resistance is unmistakeable and unstoppable. At least in terms of blind obedience, the "free market" is done.
Reality: the 2012 elections won't matter--other than increasing the volume of the rumbling.. Look, let's not argue whether there is a choice in the election. Of course, there is--and that's why I added "much" to the title of this post. That argument is pointless.
But, what is far more important is to pull back the lens and recognize one simple fact: neither party, at least at its leadership and ideological core, fundamentally rejects the truth about the bankruptcy of the "free market" model. Both parties are seeking to try to hold on to a nonsensical and destructive "winning the future" or "America should be #1". With that message, you can bank on one thing: the rumbling will grow.
And, sadly, trying to hold on to the myth of greatness (imagined, in most respects) misses the more important moral question: how do we manage the globe for the benefit of a fair and decent living for humanity?
So, personally I am far more interested in 2012 and beyond in what unfolds outside the electoral circus and wish everyone a Happy Rumble for 2012!