Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Capitalism Hits the Fan

By Richard Wolff, Dollars and Sense. Posted November 3, 2008.


The current crisis did not start with finance, and it won't end with finance.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Richard Wolff

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Let me begin by saying what I think this crisis is not. It is not a financial crisis. It is a systemic crisis whose first serious symptom happened to be finance. But this crisis has its economic roots and its effects in manufacturing, services, and, to be sure, finance. It grows out of the relation of wages to profits across the economy. It has profound social roots in America’s households and families and political roots in government policies. The current crisis did not start with finance, and it won’t end with finance.

Rising Productivity, Wages, and Consumption

From 1820 to around 1970, 150 years, the average productivity of American workers went up each year. The average workers produced more stuff every year than they did the year before. They were trained better, they had more machines, and they had better machines. So productivity went up every year.

And, over this period of time, the wages of American workers rose every decade. Every decade, real wages—the amount of money you get in relation to the prices you pay for the things you use your money for—were higher than the decade before. Profits also went up.

The American working class enjoyed 150 years of rising consumption, so it’s not surprising that it would choose to define its own self-worth, measure its own success in life, according to the standard of consumption. Americans began to think of themselves as successful if they lived in the right neighborhood, drove the right car, wore the right outfit, went on the right vacation.

Wages and Productivity Diverge

But in the 1970s, the world changed for the American working class in ways that it hasn’t come to terms with—at all. Real wages stopped going up. As U.S. corporations moved operations abroad to take advantage of lower wages and higher profits and as they replaced workers with machines (and especially computers), those who lost their jobs were soon willing to work even if their wages stopped rising. So real wages trended down a little bit. The real hourly wage of a worker in the 1970s was higher than what it is today. What you get for an hour of work, in goods and services, is less now that what your parents got.

Meanwhile, productivity kept going up. If what the employer gets from each worker keeps going up, but what you give to each worker does not, then the difference becomes bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Employers’ profits have gone wild, and all the people who get their fingers on employers profits—the professionals who sing the songs they like to hear, the shareholders who get a piece of the action on each company’s profits—have enjoyed a bonanza over the last thirty years.

The only thing more profitable than simply making the money off the worker is handling this exploding bundle of profits—packaging and repackaging it, lending it and borrowing it, and inventing new mechanisms for doing all that. That’s called the finance industry, and they have stumbled all over themselves to get a hold of a piece of this immense pot of profit.

The Working-Class Borrowing Binge

What did the working class do? What happens to a population committed to measuring people’s success by the amount of consumption they could afford when the means they had always had to achieve it, rising wages, stop? They can go through a trauma right then and there: “We can’t anymore—it’s over.” Most people didn’t do that. They found other ways.

Americans undertook more work. People took a second or third job. The number of hours per year worked by the average American worker has risen by about 20 percent since the 1970s. By comparison, in Germany, France, and Italy, the number of hours worked per year per worker has dropped 20 percent. American workers began to work to a level of exhaustion. They sent more family members—and especially women—out to work. This enlarged supply of workers meant that employers could find plenty of employees without having to offer higher pay. Yet, with more family members out working, new kinds of costs and problems hit American families. The woman who goes out to work needs new outfits. In our society, she probably needs another car. With women exhausted from jobs outside and continued work demands inside households, with families stressed by exhaustion and mounting bills, interpersonal tensions mounted and brought new costs: daycare, psychotherapy, drugs. Such extra costs neutralized the extra income, so it did not solve the problem.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: capitalism, economy, debt, lending crisis

Richard Wolff is professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is co-author of Knowledge and Class: A Critique of Political Economy, Economics: Marxian vs. Neoclassical, and Bringing It All Back Home: Class, Gender, and Power in the Modern Household.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great Article
Posted by: Ahimsa on Nov 3, 2008 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beautifully said, concise and clear.
Your proposal at the end, the direct public involvement in corporate economics as policy, seems brilliant. Is it too simple and beautiful to become true?
I need to think more about it, but it surely is seductive. And it surely sounds like the "S" word. So much that I feel self conscious about it.
Why am I so afraid..?
Gee, I always wonder how much of this online alternative media is read by the people that actually make policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please make a profit
Posted by: weathered on Nov 3, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but don't be a f-kin pig.

Well that's what we've got, swines dining at the trough of greed and the biz press trying to make it look like silk from a sows ear.

See all MSM for exactly what they are, an accomplice to the crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please make a profit Posted by: Spot
And, how would it apply to global-owned businesses?
Posted by: FP2U on Nov 3, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many U.S. businesses are owned by foreign conglomerates, private equities. CEO's and boards have offices in USA, but masters are overseas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Credit and Money Creation Should be a Public Utility
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 3, 2008 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need a mixed economy ... Capitalism has its place, regulated and financed by the public sector.

Without control of money creation the public always loses.

The benefits of credit and money creation belong to the public, but are being stolen and pillaged by the Federal Reserve. Despite what most think, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation whose members the private member banks, enjoy control of the profit from the creation of money while the public assumes all the risk.

We need capitalism, but it has to be under the right of regulation and ownership of credit and money creation by the public sector.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worker Ownership
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 4, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what it's called. Note that it's within each enterprise.

The idea's been around since at least the 70's - technically, it's what Marx actually meant by "socialism." And it's perfectly compatible with a market economy, so compatible that most of us are familiar with examples. There are at least two in my town, stores called, respectively, Winco (a large chain) and Bimart (a small chain.)

There also used to be worker-owned plywood mills up and down the West Coast, but they've all gone bust: plywood mills are fugitive at best, and there just may have been some discrimination.

The classic example is the Mondragon companies, in Spain.

The hard part is the transition, which he doesn't get to. A follow-up article, perhaps? This really is a solution to the problems of capitalism; we need to give it more attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: P.S.: a clarification Posted by: oregoncharles
Nice idea, but impossible to impliment
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 7, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Workplace democracy is a fantastic idea, but it suffers from the same problem as all other utopian ideas... It fails to take into consideration, as Greenspan the Destroyer put it so recently, 'the tendency of the banks to self-regulate'. In other words, the rich and powerful who sit at the tops of these corporations will do ANYTHING they deem necessarry to keep their stolen power and wealth. By nature, I'm a progressive, but its tempered by reality... In reality, the rich and powerful rule with an absolute iron fist and can and will never be peaceably persuaded to remove themselves from power. Unlike most of the sheeple in america, the rich know we are in a class war and they have all but won. Only by brute and brutal force will those who currently hold the reins of power in our society, be they politicians, CEOs or otherwise be made to relinquish them. Though I don't like the idea of a redistribution of power and freedom to the people at the point of a gun, its the only realistic way it could ever be done here. The system is built in such a way to make it impossible do do any other way despite the heated claims of self-blinded Constitutionists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The model already exists and is thriving.
Posted by: jleman on Nov 7, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Finns are credited with bringing cooperatives to this part of the world, Minnesota, and making them work. We have very good natural food cooperatives as well as farmer cooperatives, energy cooperatives and so forth. Even a developmental bank which supports the cooperative movement. Credit unions are another form of ownership. The success of all of these forms says that this author is correct. Mondragon in Spain, which is studied in this country shows us the viability. Just across the border in Canada, there is a very large grocery cooperative chain which continues to grow and thrive. These are all grassroot, community based organizations. It works people! You just have to get off of your duff and work with others. Go find a cooperative and join. Get involved! Can't find one? Go on the net and ask! Not one in your area? Ask cooperatives to help you start one! They will! They network! A whole wealth of resources await your asking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]