Socialist Alternative is launching a new journal, Marxist Left Review.
The idea is to publish articles with a deeper, more abstract, theoretical content.
In their editors' words: "Our title is deliberately chosen. We aim to produce a clear argument for revolutionary Marxism, rather than an eclectic collection of left-wing ideas. The articles will be polemical and argumentative, critiquing arguments on the Australian and international left, revisiting theoretical and political questions in Marxism which we feel need some debate and clarification".
I think this is an important initiative. Marxism has long left the ideological field empty and the results are near catastrophic, as I intend to argue here.
If the reader bears with me, I'll try to be brief.
Any left leaning blogger, I'm sure, has faced many an uneducated and alienated poster who is dead-set against socialism, and yet, has never bothered to enquire what on earth socialism is: their only references on socialism come from self-interested anti-socialist ideologues, so, it's not surprising they are radically, almost furiously, opposed.
An associated, but much more disturbing phenomenon is the self-proclaimed "progressive" intellectual. Middle class in lifestyle, if not by birth, these persons often profess to have liberal tendencies in social, cultural and environmental matters. And although I am a rather cynical guy, in general I believe their sincerity (perhaps not their commitment, though) on this, too. The readers may think of some Greenies they might happen to know: that's probably the kind of people I'm talking about.
Less often, but still common, they may use quite a leftist rhetoric, which may induce even greater confusion.
And yet, for all their education and their rhetoric, their posturing and even their good intentions, when one reads what they have to say one realizes their proposals, whatever their theoretical value from a strictly reformist point of view, are dangerous.
Have a look at "What you consume or what you produce?" for an example of a "progressive", self-described as environmentally conscious hippie, advocating globalization (a.k.a. "free trade"), on the grounds that it's a good deal for the Australian working class to export manufacturing jobs to underdeveloped countries: these jobs will be replaced by newer, better jobs in Australia (in the services sector, of all places), created not by the providence of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand (that's what a foolish right-winger would say), but by the wisdom of the Government deficit spending (so, the reader can see how different progressive intellectuals and right-wingers really are).
Now, you may ask which Government will undertake these social programmes financed by debt, like Job Guarantee? The Labor Government, already promising a budget surplus in 2013, or a Coalition one, promising a slightly greater budget surplus in 2013?
And how good are those new jobs, anyway? This is explained with a quote from an American study (after repeated attempts, I haven't been able to download the article): "the iPod supports nearly twice as many jobs offshore as in the US, yet wages paid in the US are over twice as much as those paid overseas."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Friday night I did manage to download the article alluded to before.
The word "wage" mentioned above is meant in the sense of "total payroll"; thus my original comment, below, is irrelevant. Worse still, for not waiting until the site was active, I failed to characterize the post "What you consume or what you produce?" accurately. For this I sincerely apologize.
To keep the record of my mistake, while calling any readers' attention to this note, I decided not to delete the text, but to change its color. A similar note will also be posted to En Passant.
"Those [wages] paid overseas", according to The New York Times, means "about [US$] 75 cents an hour". Including overtime loading, this makes for "$235 a month" for 13-hour-long shifts, six days a week (but the meals, costing $0.65, are subsidised or free, woohoo!). And that was before Foxconn, the company actually manufacturing iPods, decided this year to almost double the wages of their employees, after a wave of suicides, obviously completely unrelated to their working conditions. And, let me warn the reader: one must realize that Foxconn is probably one of the best employers among the large Chinese contractors! So, if Chinese workers have it that easy, imagine how happy American workers involved with iPod must be, making on average "over twice as much money" (or how Australian workers in similar situations should be). --------------------------------------------------------------------
My point after all this digression: the author of the post, for example, specializes in labour economics and is an advocate for "progressive policies", believe it or not.
People like this self-styled progressive are probably among the most left leaning we can find in the Australian intelligentsia today.
Now, that's a sobering thought.
NOTE: A version of this post, slightly edited, was sent to En Passant.
Friday, 10 September 2010
Saturday, 29 May 2010
iJump
The iPad is out! I can die in peace now, knowing that human kind is in its way to a better future. Yes, siree.
Newspapers all over this sunburnt land were jubilantly reporting “long lines in Europe and Asia to buy Apple's iPad”. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! What excitement!
You probably saw the images on TV: long queues of customers snaking outside Apple shops in Australia and Japan hours before their opening and similar huddled masses turned out at stores in six European countries.
Is there anything more emblematic of this brave new world we live in? Think about it: ordinarily, people hate queuing, as any unfortunate “customer service” officer will readily tell you. I know that, I’ve been there.
Yet, here we have thousands of anxious people, happily queuing for the opportunity of coughing up at least US$ 499 for the latest miracle gadget.
And remember: we’re supposed to be just leaving the greatest global recession since the 1930s, with Europe in the grip of what could easily turn out to be the second chapter in the GFC (or should I say iGFC v2.0?)
So, what’s so great about the iPad, anyway?
Frankly, I haven’t laid my hands on one of those gadgets. And, there ain’t no person less qualified to review it than yours truly. God, I’m yet to own my first garden-variety, no-frills mobile phone!
So, I’m ready to accept anyone’s word that this contraption is great, beautifully designed and user-friendly, too. In other words: the best thing since the invention of sandwich bread.
Still, I have difficulty understanding this generalized enthusiasm. Maybe I’m just a bitter old fart, but to me this all looks kinda childish.
Of course, some people have plenty reasons to feel genuinely excited about the iPad.
For starters, the good people at Apple, obviously. Judging by their 8GB iPhone, which started selling at US$ 599 in July 2007, but now costs US$ 99 (hopefully, still profitable), they could make a buck or two. [1]
And we might be justified to lay our worries to rest, because the market, in its infinite wisdom, provides the best testimony to Apple Inc. financial health: its 52-week low was 52 weeks ago ($132.03 precisely on the 28/05/2009) while its last closing price was on the 28/05/2010, at $256.88. 94.56% up! [2]
Another person who may feel legitimately excited about the iPad is Rupert Murdoch:
“The multi-functional device is tipped by some pundits to revitalise media and publishing, with many major newspapers and broadcasters launching applications. (…)
Newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch has said the iPad has the potential to save the newspaper industry”. [3]
“Not happy, Jobs!” Or is it “no happy jobs”?
Still, I don’t know how happy Chinese workers ought to feel about this whole thing.
You see, Apple Inc. contracts the production of its wonderful gadgets to overseas factories.
The iPhone itself is assembled in China by Foxconn (whose parent company is the Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision). In fact, a host of other large corporations have extensive dealings with Hon Hai, including Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Sony, Nokia, Motorola and Nintendo.
As you might imagine, although the products exhibit the customer’s logos, they were produced by the same people!
Between 01/01/2010 and 27/05/2010, 11 Foxconn workers killed themselves, at or near their workplaces. Apparently, by jumping from buildings.
Some people could be tempted to conclude that this suicide wave might be indicative of severe industrial relations problems in Foxconn. After all, the media has reported on young workers having to work 12-hour long shifts, 6 days a week, for a monthly pay of $300 (overtime included). [4]
However, as the editorial team of The Wall Street Journal online (which belongs to Mr. Murdoch's media empire) stated: “suicide is too complex an issue to rush to conclusions”. [5]
According to the same WSJ article, these suicides are best explained by non-work related causes: “love affairs gone wrong”, “adjustment difficulties” created by a mass-society, lack of family support.
Undoubtedly, low pay and terrible working conditions commonly associated to sweatshops are too simplistic an explanation to be taken seriously, even though the article also revealed that “a young manager killed himself last July [i.e. July 2009] after an Apple iPhone prototype went missing, and his final messages to friends suggest he had been interrogated and beaten”.
Nor that this was an isolated incident, either. The same WSJ editorial team goes on to say: “In a separate incident the following month [i.e. August 2009], the company confirmed its guards beat employees after the incident was caught on video.”
However, if one gives credence to the WSJ (and I have no particular reason to doubt it), Foxconn is far from your garden-variety sweatshop. The campus contains a hospital and a bookstore. Karaoke contests are organized for its workers and local streets are palm-tree lined. [6]
More importantly, management has taken measures to remedy the situation. For starters, nets have been installed around its buildings, so that workers would be caught if they do jump. As importantly, workers have been asked to sign a letter pledging they will not try to harm themselves and “saying that workers or their families, wouldn't sue Hon Hai if a worker died or was injured in a suicide attempt”. [7]
Furthermore, on the 29/05/2010, Hon Hai/Foxconn management decided to increase wages to its Chinese workforce by an average of 20%, in a measure described by Hon Hai/Foxconn management as “unrelated to the suicide wave” and to the enquiries made by their foreign clients (among whom was Apple). I just hope such generosity will not endanger Hon Hai/Foxconn’s financial health. Time and markets shall tell.
So, it is entirely possible that pay and working conditions in Hon Hai/Foxconn are not exceptionally worse than in the whole of China. In fact, they might be among the best.
The road to Monowitz.
Most readers probably have never heard of Monowitz. I can’t blame them.
Monowitz was built as a work camp, in what today is Poland, at the request of IG Farben.
In this pioneering Public-Private Partnership, the private sector contribution made by IG Farben consisted on the installations themselves, equipment and raw material.
Other large corporations, eager to fulfil their patriotic duty, like Siemens and Krupp, also arrived at similar agreements. In fact, the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex had 45 subcamps.
And the public sector, that is, the Nazi Government, through the SS, agreed to provide onsite security, and slave workers (charging IG Farben 3 Reich Marks a day for each unskilled worker, 1.5 for children, and 4 for skilled workers) to work in IG Farben’s synthetic rubber production facility.
The products, obviously, had IG Farben’s name attached to them.
Workers who did not perform satisfactorily were beaten to death on the spot (sometimes at the request of visiting executives) or sent to Birkenau, where they would end sooner or later, anyway, as a result of overwork, starvation, disease, mistreatment and cold. [8]
I suppose no sweatshop today can really be compared to Monowitz: undoubtedly we have come a long way.
But I fear for the future and I hope apologists of globalization and outsourcing, some of whom describe themselves as leftists, are right. They better be.
[1] iPhone Wikipedia entry. Accessed 29/05/2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
[2] Data from http://online.wsj.com
[3] Carole Laundry. iPad-mania as thousands queue for global roll-out. SMH. 29/05/2010.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/ipadmania-as-thousands-queue-for-global-rollout-20100529-wlsj.html
[4] I promise not to kill myself: Apple factory workers 'asked to sign pledge'. SMH. 26/05/2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/i-promise-not-to-kill-myself-apple-factory-workers-asked-to-sign-pledge-20100526-wddd.html
[5] The Foxconn Suicides. 28/05/2010. WSJ online. Accessed on 29/05/2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270031332376238.html
[6] Jason Dean and Ting-I Tsai. Apple, H-P to Examine Asian Supplier after String of Deaths at Factory. 27/05/2010. WSJ online. Accessed 29/05/2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html
[7] It appears that workers are no longer required to sign the letter.
[8] Monowitz concentration camp. Wikipedia entry. Accessed 29/05/2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz
Newspapers all over this sunburnt land were jubilantly reporting “long lines in Europe and Asia to buy Apple's iPad”. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! What excitement!
You probably saw the images on TV: long queues of customers snaking outside Apple shops in Australia and Japan hours before their opening and similar huddled masses turned out at stores in six European countries.
Is there anything more emblematic of this brave new world we live in? Think about it: ordinarily, people hate queuing, as any unfortunate “customer service” officer will readily tell you. I know that, I’ve been there.
Yet, here we have thousands of anxious people, happily queuing for the opportunity of coughing up at least US$ 499 for the latest miracle gadget.
And remember: we’re supposed to be just leaving the greatest global recession since the 1930s, with Europe in the grip of what could easily turn out to be the second chapter in the GFC (or should I say iGFC v2.0?)
So, what’s so great about the iPad, anyway?
Frankly, I haven’t laid my hands on one of those gadgets. And, there ain’t no person less qualified to review it than yours truly. God, I’m yet to own my first garden-variety, no-frills mobile phone!
So, I’m ready to accept anyone’s word that this contraption is great, beautifully designed and user-friendly, too. In other words: the best thing since the invention of sandwich bread.
Still, I have difficulty understanding this generalized enthusiasm. Maybe I’m just a bitter old fart, but to me this all looks kinda childish.
Of course, some people have plenty reasons to feel genuinely excited about the iPad.
For starters, the good people at Apple, obviously. Judging by their 8GB iPhone, which started selling at US$ 599 in July 2007, but now costs US$ 99 (hopefully, still profitable), they could make a buck or two. [1]
And we might be justified to lay our worries to rest, because the market, in its infinite wisdom, provides the best testimony to Apple Inc. financial health: its 52-week low was 52 weeks ago ($132.03 precisely on the 28/05/2009) while its last closing price was on the 28/05/2010, at $256.88. 94.56% up! [2]
Another person who may feel legitimately excited about the iPad is Rupert Murdoch:
“The multi-functional device is tipped by some pundits to revitalise media and publishing, with many major newspapers and broadcasters launching applications. (…)
Newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch has said the iPad has the potential to save the newspaper industry”. [3]
“Not happy, Jobs!” Or is it “no happy jobs”?
Still, I don’t know how happy Chinese workers ought to feel about this whole thing.
You see, Apple Inc. contracts the production of its wonderful gadgets to overseas factories.
The iPhone itself is assembled in China by Foxconn (whose parent company is the Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision). In fact, a host of other large corporations have extensive dealings with Hon Hai, including Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Sony, Nokia, Motorola and Nintendo.
As you might imagine, although the products exhibit the customer’s logos, they were produced by the same people!
Between 01/01/2010 and 27/05/2010, 11 Foxconn workers killed themselves, at or near their workplaces. Apparently, by jumping from buildings.
Some people could be tempted to conclude that this suicide wave might be indicative of severe industrial relations problems in Foxconn. After all, the media has reported on young workers having to work 12-hour long shifts, 6 days a week, for a monthly pay of $300 (overtime included). [4]
However, as the editorial team of The Wall Street Journal online (which belongs to Mr. Murdoch's media empire) stated: “suicide is too complex an issue to rush to conclusions”. [5]
According to the same WSJ article, these suicides are best explained by non-work related causes: “love affairs gone wrong”, “adjustment difficulties” created by a mass-society, lack of family support.
Undoubtedly, low pay and terrible working conditions commonly associated to sweatshops are too simplistic an explanation to be taken seriously, even though the article also revealed that “a young manager killed himself last July [i.e. July 2009] after an Apple iPhone prototype went missing, and his final messages to friends suggest he had been interrogated and beaten”.
Nor that this was an isolated incident, either. The same WSJ editorial team goes on to say: “In a separate incident the following month [i.e. August 2009], the company confirmed its guards beat employees after the incident was caught on video.”
However, if one gives credence to the WSJ (and I have no particular reason to doubt it), Foxconn is far from your garden-variety sweatshop. The campus contains a hospital and a bookstore. Karaoke contests are organized for its workers and local streets are palm-tree lined. [6]
More importantly, management has taken measures to remedy the situation. For starters, nets have been installed around its buildings, so that workers would be caught if they do jump. As importantly, workers have been asked to sign a letter pledging they will not try to harm themselves and “saying that workers or their families, wouldn't sue Hon Hai if a worker died or was injured in a suicide attempt”. [7]
Furthermore, on the 29/05/2010, Hon Hai/Foxconn management decided to increase wages to its Chinese workforce by an average of 20%, in a measure described by Hon Hai/Foxconn management as “unrelated to the suicide wave” and to the enquiries made by their foreign clients (among whom was Apple). I just hope such generosity will not endanger Hon Hai/Foxconn’s financial health. Time and markets shall tell.
So, it is entirely possible that pay and working conditions in Hon Hai/Foxconn are not exceptionally worse than in the whole of China. In fact, they might be among the best.
The road to Monowitz.
Most readers probably have never heard of Monowitz. I can’t blame them.
Monowitz was built as a work camp, in what today is Poland, at the request of IG Farben.
In this pioneering Public-Private Partnership, the private sector contribution made by IG Farben consisted on the installations themselves, equipment and raw material.
Other large corporations, eager to fulfil their patriotic duty, like Siemens and Krupp, also arrived at similar agreements. In fact, the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex had 45 subcamps.
And the public sector, that is, the Nazi Government, through the SS, agreed to provide onsite security, and slave workers (charging IG Farben 3 Reich Marks a day for each unskilled worker, 1.5 for children, and 4 for skilled workers) to work in IG Farben’s synthetic rubber production facility.
The products, obviously, had IG Farben’s name attached to them.
Workers who did not perform satisfactorily were beaten to death on the spot (sometimes at the request of visiting executives) or sent to Birkenau, where they would end sooner or later, anyway, as a result of overwork, starvation, disease, mistreatment and cold. [8]
I suppose no sweatshop today can really be compared to Monowitz: undoubtedly we have come a long way.
But I fear for the future and I hope apologists of globalization and outsourcing, some of whom describe themselves as leftists, are right. They better be.
[1] iPhone Wikipedia entry. Accessed 29/05/2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
[2] Data from http://online.wsj.com
[3] Carole Laundry. iPad-mania as thousands queue for global roll-out. SMH. 29/05/2010.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/ipadmania-as-thousands-queue-for-global-rollout-20100529-wlsj.html
[4] I promise not to kill myself: Apple factory workers 'asked to sign pledge'. SMH. 26/05/2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/i-promise-not-to-kill-myself-apple-factory-workers-asked-to-sign-pledge-20100526-wddd.html
[5] The Foxconn Suicides. 28/05/2010. WSJ online. Accessed on 29/05/2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270031332376238.html
[6] Jason Dean and Ting-I Tsai. Apple, H-P to Examine Asian Supplier after String of Deaths at Factory. 27/05/2010. WSJ online. Accessed 29/05/2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html
[7] It appears that workers are no longer required to sign the letter.
[8] Monowitz concentration camp. Wikipedia entry. Accessed 29/05/2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz
Friday, 26 March 2010
Why people kept jobs in this recession: Uh oh! Here we go again...
So, the name of the game is workplace flexibility. Why I am not surprised?
The esteemed Business Council of Australia asks for continued "support FLEXIBILITY in workplace relations policy, given its importance to the economy". [1]
Surprisingly, the opposition leader, Mr. Abbott, agrees with the BCA: "The phrase Work Choices is dead. No one will ever mention it again, but, look, we have to have a free and FLEXIBLE economy." [2]
After being credited with saving Australia from an economic collapse and devastating unemployment, the RBA seems to recognize that this wasn't quite so: "This outcome [low unemployment] is partly explained by the greater degree of FLEXIBILITY in employment and wage-setting practices, compared with those in the 1980s and 1990s recessions". [3]
And even our leftist journalists, as Ross Gittins, seem to be warming to this flexibility thing: "Why did employers respond to the downturn so differently this time? The Reserve says the first reason is because they could: reforms of the labour market going back even before the Keating government's shift of bargaining to the enterprise level have made relations more FLEXIBLE, thus making lesser-of-two-evils style deals more possible". [4]
Will surprises never end?
The bureaucrats.
Let's start with the RBA:
"This outcome [lower unemployment] is partly explained by the greater degree of flexibility in employment and wage-setting practices, compared with those in the 1980s and 1990s recessions. Following a succession of reforms over recent decades, rigidities in the labour market were significantly reduced. THIS MADE IT EASIER FOR FIRMS AND EMPLOYEES TO NEGOTIATE WORK AND PAY ARRANGEMENTS THAT ENABLED FIRMS TO PRESERVE JOBS during a period of subdued activity, partly by reducing average hours worked. While lower hours reduce compensation per employee, they avoid the significant social and economic costs associated with unemployment, including detachment from the labour force, skill atrophy and reliance on government assistance." [5]
So, this miracle was the product of a mutually beneficial agreement between employees and employers: before sacking their staff when the downturn started, employers consulted them and offered them a reduction in working times/wages as an alternative.
After a negotiation, employees decided to take on the offer.
This might sound absurd to anyone who has actually worked for a living, but I am sure the RBA has the statistics at hand to prove that these negotiations took place.
Or maybe not.
The Journo.
This might be why Mr. Gittins found it necessary to introduce his own explanation: "If you work 38 hours a week and I put you onto a four-day week, that means you change categories from full-time to part-time". [6]
So, it wasn't so much a negotiation, but a decision coming from "above": you go part-time or "you're fired".
Regardless, old Ms. A was working full-time until the crisis, was forced to accept a part-time, but she at least is still working. Everyone is happy. And this is what the RBA and ABS say, right?
Not quite. The exact same result (almost stable employment) could be achieved if old Ms. A was given the flick and remained unemployed, but her position was taken up by young B, who was unemployed, but is now replacing Ms. A, only on a part-time or even casual basis, on lower wages: less hours worked, but the same number of people employed(*).
Mr. Gittins recognizes this possibility, but draws a questionable conclusion from it: "reforms of the labour market (...) have made relations more flexible, thus making LESSER-OF-TWO-EVILS style deals more possible". [7]
Maybe Mr. Gittins should ask Ms. A her opinion: I can't see why this is so hot for her. In fact, I don't think young B is doing that well, either: part-time and lower wages.
On the other hand, I can understand why Ms. B's former employer is so enthusiastic about this. This whole thing might well be the lesser of two evils for Ms. A and young B, but it sure sounds good to their employer!
Perhaps is that just me?
Evidence to the contrary.
Well, not really. Other media and journalists have focused on this topic:
"Announcing its latest first half profit - a record $100 million - the retailer David Jones confirmed that a variation on this strategy [replace full-time workers with part-time/casuals] was the key to its profits during the downturn. DJ's chief executive Mark McInnes said the company hasn't employed a single full-time retail salesperson since 2004 - so it's been able to adjust the working hours of it store staff to match sales volumes". [8]
Imagine that Ms. A was sacked last June, and young B was hired around that time. They could have been working for DJ!
Academic circles, even in Australian limestone universities, have reported on this in releases widely available to the public:
"During the global financial crisis workers who stayed in their jobs did not reduce their working hours, despite widespread government and commentator claims that cuts in hours had helped stem job losses during the downturn. (…)The study found no evidence to support the contention that job losses have been mitigated by de facto work-sharing. The most significant change in work hours was experienced by those who changed jobs. Workers who entered new jobs during the study period were also worse off in other ways, the researchers found. Some 35 per cent of those who changed jobs experienced a cut in pay. Workers who entered the job market or who changed jobs in the past year were also more likely than other workers to enter into precarious forms of employment, such as casual jobs without entitlements to paid leave." [9]
A copious body of scientific literature, analyzing both the Australian and overseas cases, has been produced since at least 10 years ago, warning of the consequences of this "workplace flexibility":
"Since the beginning of the 1990s Australia has experienced a gradual but far-reaching process of labour market deregulation. (...) Labour market deregulation is amplifying existing trends to growth in precarious employment, wage dispersion and the development of a low-pay sector amongst full-time employees". [10]
Even private sector experts have warned that this phenomenon is real and is affecting the Australian workforce. [11]
And, in spite of the evidence, we find business circles, political parties, governments and regulators remain oblivious to the noxious effects of these policies.
It's understandable that business interests, and their direct promoters in Parliament, have incentives to ignore the devastating effects these policies have for a large (maybe the largest) proportion of the population. In other words: they can't hear, because they don't want to.
It's much less understandable that regulators, bureaucrats, and journalists still repeat the same mumbo jumbo as if it was the truth revealed by god on Mount Sinai.
Regulators and bureaucrats are supposed to be public servants, and they are failing in their duty to serve the whole public. Maybe this is a product of ideological blindness. I would like to be proven wrong here, but I am afraid I don't trust their competence.
But it's in Mr. Gittins' case, that this becomes particularly disappointing, as I am sure he means well. I would not like to use the words "gullibility", and "sloppiness" in relation to Mr. Gittins, but what alternative is left?
PS: I would advise Australian workers to learn yoga, not only to learn how to contort their bodies (and maybe, just maybe, get a job in the Cirque du Solei), but also for the ability to withstand deprivation.
NOTE: (*) Correction added, with thanks to Sean Carmody.
SOURCES:
[1] BCA President Graham Bradley's interview on the Sky News 'PM Agenda' Program. BCA. 05/03/2010.
http://www.bca.com.au/Content/101662.aspx
[2] Jacob Saulwick. Forgive my sins and let me start anew, leader says. SMH. 02/12/2009.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/forgive-my-sins-and-let-me-start-anew-leader-says-20091201-k3xs.html
[3] Michael Plumb, Mark Baker and Gareth Spence. The labour market during the 2008-2009 downturn. RBA Bulletin - March Quarter 2010.
http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/mar/pdf/bu-0310-1.pdf
[4] Ross Gittins. Why people kept jobs in this recession SMH. 27/03/2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-people-kept-jobs-in-this-recession-20100326-r34s.html
[5] Plumb, Baker and Spence. Op. cit. page 2.
[6] Gittins. Op cit.
[7] Gittins. Op cit.
[8] Stephen Long. Employment myths cloud Social Trends Survey. ABC. 25/11/2009.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/18/2849017.htm?site=thedrum
[9] Australia at work: in a changing world. Workplace Research Centre, The University of Sydney. 26/11/2009.
http://www.wrc.org.au/index.php
[10] Iain Campbell, Peter Brosnan. Labour market deregulation in Australia: the slow combustion approach to workplace change. International Review of Applied Economics, 1999, vol. 13, issue 3, pages 353-394
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713673027~db=all
[11] Australia's underemployment rate growing: experts. SMH 26/03/2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/trends/australias-underemployment-rate-growing-experts-20100326-r1a5.html
The esteemed Business Council of Australia asks for continued "support FLEXIBILITY in workplace relations policy, given its importance to the economy". [1]
Surprisingly, the opposition leader, Mr. Abbott, agrees with the BCA: "The phrase Work Choices is dead. No one will ever mention it again, but, look, we have to have a free and FLEXIBLE economy." [2]
After being credited with saving Australia from an economic collapse and devastating unemployment, the RBA seems to recognize that this wasn't quite so: "This outcome [low unemployment] is partly explained by the greater degree of FLEXIBILITY in employment and wage-setting practices, compared with those in the 1980s and 1990s recessions". [3]
And even our leftist journalists, as Ross Gittins, seem to be warming to this flexibility thing: "Why did employers respond to the downturn so differently this time? The Reserve says the first reason is because they could: reforms of the labour market going back even before the Keating government's shift of bargaining to the enterprise level have made relations more FLEXIBLE, thus making lesser-of-two-evils style deals more possible". [4]
Will surprises never end?
The bureaucrats.
Let's start with the RBA:
"This outcome [lower unemployment] is partly explained by the greater degree of flexibility in employment and wage-setting practices, compared with those in the 1980s and 1990s recessions. Following a succession of reforms over recent decades, rigidities in the labour market were significantly reduced. THIS MADE IT EASIER FOR FIRMS AND EMPLOYEES TO NEGOTIATE WORK AND PAY ARRANGEMENTS THAT ENABLED FIRMS TO PRESERVE JOBS during a period of subdued activity, partly by reducing average hours worked. While lower hours reduce compensation per employee, they avoid the significant social and economic costs associated with unemployment, including detachment from the labour force, skill atrophy and reliance on government assistance." [5]
So, this miracle was the product of a mutually beneficial agreement between employees and employers: before sacking their staff when the downturn started, employers consulted them and offered them a reduction in working times/wages as an alternative.
After a negotiation, employees decided to take on the offer.
This might sound absurd to anyone who has actually worked for a living, but I am sure the RBA has the statistics at hand to prove that these negotiations took place.
Or maybe not.
The Journo.
This might be why Mr. Gittins found it necessary to introduce his own explanation: "If you work 38 hours a week and I put you onto a four-day week, that means you change categories from full-time to part-time". [6]
So, it wasn't so much a negotiation, but a decision coming from "above": you go part-time or "you're fired".
Regardless, old Ms. A was working full-time until the crisis, was forced to accept a part-time, but she at least is still working. Everyone is happy. And this is what the RBA and ABS say, right?
Not quite. The exact same result (almost stable employment) could be achieved if old Ms. A was given the flick and remained unemployed, but her position was taken up by young B, who was unemployed, but is now replacing Ms. A, only on a part-time or even casual basis, on lower wages: less hours worked, but the same number of people employed(*).
Mr. Gittins recognizes this possibility, but draws a questionable conclusion from it: "reforms of the labour market (...) have made relations more flexible, thus making LESSER-OF-TWO-EVILS style deals more possible". [7]
Maybe Mr. Gittins should ask Ms. A her opinion: I can't see why this is so hot for her. In fact, I don't think young B is doing that well, either: part-time and lower wages.
On the other hand, I can understand why Ms. B's former employer is so enthusiastic about this. This whole thing might well be the lesser of two evils for Ms. A and young B, but it sure sounds good to their employer!
Perhaps is that just me?
Evidence to the contrary.
Well, not really. Other media and journalists have focused on this topic:
"Announcing its latest first half profit - a record $100 million - the retailer David Jones confirmed that a variation on this strategy [replace full-time workers with part-time/casuals] was the key to its profits during the downturn. DJ's chief executive Mark McInnes said the company hasn't employed a single full-time retail salesperson since 2004 - so it's been able to adjust the working hours of it store staff to match sales volumes". [8]
Imagine that Ms. A was sacked last June, and young B was hired around that time. They could have been working for DJ!
Academic circles, even in Australian limestone universities, have reported on this in releases widely available to the public:
"During the global financial crisis workers who stayed in their jobs did not reduce their working hours, despite widespread government and commentator claims that cuts in hours had helped stem job losses during the downturn. (…)The study found no evidence to support the contention that job losses have been mitigated by de facto work-sharing. The most significant change in work hours was experienced by those who changed jobs. Workers who entered new jobs during the study period were also worse off in other ways, the researchers found. Some 35 per cent of those who changed jobs experienced a cut in pay. Workers who entered the job market or who changed jobs in the past year were also more likely than other workers to enter into precarious forms of employment, such as casual jobs without entitlements to paid leave." [9]
A copious body of scientific literature, analyzing both the Australian and overseas cases, has been produced since at least 10 years ago, warning of the consequences of this "workplace flexibility":
"Since the beginning of the 1990s Australia has experienced a gradual but far-reaching process of labour market deregulation. (...) Labour market deregulation is amplifying existing trends to growth in precarious employment, wage dispersion and the development of a low-pay sector amongst full-time employees". [10]
Even private sector experts have warned that this phenomenon is real and is affecting the Australian workforce. [11]
And, in spite of the evidence, we find business circles, political parties, governments and regulators remain oblivious to the noxious effects of these policies.
It's understandable that business interests, and their direct promoters in Parliament, have incentives to ignore the devastating effects these policies have for a large (maybe the largest) proportion of the population. In other words: they can't hear, because they don't want to.
It's much less understandable that regulators, bureaucrats, and journalists still repeat the same mumbo jumbo as if it was the truth revealed by god on Mount Sinai.
Regulators and bureaucrats are supposed to be public servants, and they are failing in their duty to serve the whole public. Maybe this is a product of ideological blindness. I would like to be proven wrong here, but I am afraid I don't trust their competence.
But it's in Mr. Gittins' case, that this becomes particularly disappointing, as I am sure he means well. I would not like to use the words "gullibility", and "sloppiness" in relation to Mr. Gittins, but what alternative is left?
PS: I would advise Australian workers to learn yoga, not only to learn how to contort their bodies (and maybe, just maybe, get a job in the Cirque du Solei), but also for the ability to withstand deprivation.
NOTE: (*) Correction added, with thanks to Sean Carmody.
SOURCES:
[1] BCA President Graham Bradley's interview on the Sky News 'PM Agenda' Program. BCA. 05/03/2010.
http://www.bca.com.au/Content/101662.aspx
[2] Jacob Saulwick. Forgive my sins and let me start anew, leader says. SMH. 02/12/2009.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/forgive-my-sins-and-let-me-start-anew-leader-says-20091201-k3xs.html
[3] Michael Plumb, Mark Baker and Gareth Spence. The labour market during the 2008-2009 downturn. RBA Bulletin - March Quarter 2010.
http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/mar/pdf/bu-0310-1.pdf
[4] Ross Gittins. Why people kept jobs in this recession SMH. 27/03/2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-people-kept-jobs-in-this-recession-20100326-r34s.html
[5] Plumb, Baker and Spence. Op. cit. page 2.
[6] Gittins. Op cit.
[7] Gittins. Op cit.
[8] Stephen Long. Employment myths cloud Social Trends Survey. ABC. 25/11/2009.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/18/2849017.htm?site=thedrum
[9] Australia at work: in a changing world. Workplace Research Centre, The University of Sydney. 26/11/2009.
http://www.wrc.org.au/index.php
[10] Iain Campbell, Peter Brosnan. Labour market deregulation in Australia: the slow combustion approach to workplace change. International Review of Applied Economics, 1999, vol. 13, issue 3, pages 353-394
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713673027~db=all
[11] Australia's underemployment rate growing: experts. SMH 26/03/2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/trends/australias-underemployment-rate-growing-experts-20100326-r1a5.html
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Liebe ist fuer alle da (II)
In a personal conversation a friend argued that Spanish photographer Eugenio Recuenco's cover art for the newest Rammstein album, Liebe ist fuer alle da, is much more in line with early baroque painters like Caravaggio.
For instance, the setting (lighting, background, surroundings) in Recuenco's photos is very similar to that in Caravaggio's The Calling of St. Matthew.
Caravaggio, unlike the Flemish and Dutch masters, did not shy away from representing grotesque topics (similar to Goya), and, much more to the point, Recuenco:
Caravaggio's Severed head of Medusa
Judith beheading Holofernes
Although not fully convinced, I admit my friend has a strong argument (thanks, mate). Then, again, I am no art expert.
Now, with Rammstein's lyrics... There is a shared characteristic in most of Rammstein's lyrics: they are a bit like seeing the world through the eyes of monsters. Rammstein represents what I call the Pathological Dada.
And although the view from Rammstein's eyes is far from sympathetic, its mere being empathetic makes the experience unsettling.
Let me give an example: as in the Reise, Reise album, there is a theme evocative of a criminal event: Wiener Blut (there is another theme evocative of Austria, but it's otherwise unrelated: Donaukinder).
A common translation is "Viennese spirit", as in Johann Strauss' operetta and waltz. But these Rammstein guys have a perverse sense of humor: it also can be translated, much more literally, as "Viennese blood". This gives you a general idea of the mood and content of the song.
Although not explicitly mentioned, there are elements (apart from the title itself) in the song alluding to the notorious Joseph Fritzl case: a brief infantile giggling in the background, allusions to darkness, a basement and suffering…
This is not the first time Rammstein finds inspiration in cases like this. In Reise, Reise, there was Mein Teil, inspired by the "German cannibal" case.
Unlike Mein Teil, though, which had some black humor and sarcasm sprinkled around what was also an extremely creepy song, Wiener Blut is strictly sinister, unpleasant and gloomy.
Don't get me wrong: it's not a bad song (although I don't know if the adjective "good" is appropriate, either). It achieves, in my opinion, what its authors aimed at: to disturb the listeners by confronting us with aspects of reality we know exist, but are beyond our daily experience.
This doesn't mean that all Rammstein songs are equally effective. As in previous releases, there is a song that seems aimed at shocking by its mere shock value: Pussy. It shares similarities with the older Te Quiero Puta (I Want you, Whore). As the title suggests, it's not fully in German. As I see it, it's the weakest song in the album, although I wouldn't be surprised it was a hit in nightclubs (not in radios, though, as it uses some English "forbidden" words, pronounced with a distinct German accent, that makes them, somewhat comical).
But the song that speaks more to me, given my ideological leanings, is Mehr (i.e. "more"). I suppose for a band that dwells on the pathological and morbose, it was just a matter of time until a song about what makes capitalism tick appeared.
In Reise, Reise, we already had Amerika and Moskau (which from a humorous, and pained points of view, respectively, alluded to globalization and the move towards a "free market" society in the former USSR) we had hints to this. But Mehr attempts to go to the core of what capitalism is:
All die anderen
haben so wenig.
Gebt mir auch das noch
sie brauchen's eh nicht
(Everybody else/has so little/Give me that too/they don't need it).
I don't know why, but I could imagine a few politicians and talking-heads starring in a video clip for this song. If the Rammstein agent reads this, please remember, the idea was mine: Gebt mir geld und credit, bitte.
PS: There are other remarkable songs in this release. I will comment on them later on.
For instance, the setting (lighting, background, surroundings) in Recuenco's photos is very similar to that in Caravaggio's The Calling of St. Matthew.
Caravaggio, unlike the Flemish and Dutch masters, did not shy away from representing grotesque topics (similar to Goya), and, much more to the point, Recuenco:
Caravaggio's Severed head of Medusa
Judith beheading Holofernes
Although not fully convinced, I admit my friend has a strong argument (thanks, mate). Then, again, I am no art expert.
Now, with Rammstein's lyrics... There is a shared characteristic in most of Rammstein's lyrics: they are a bit like seeing the world through the eyes of monsters. Rammstein represents what I call the Pathological Dada.
And although the view from Rammstein's eyes is far from sympathetic, its mere being empathetic makes the experience unsettling.
Let me give an example: as in the Reise, Reise album, there is a theme evocative of a criminal event: Wiener Blut (there is another theme evocative of Austria, but it's otherwise unrelated: Donaukinder).
A common translation is "Viennese spirit", as in Johann Strauss' operetta and waltz. But these Rammstein guys have a perverse sense of humor: it also can be translated, much more literally, as "Viennese blood". This gives you a general idea of the mood and content of the song.
Although not explicitly mentioned, there are elements (apart from the title itself) in the song alluding to the notorious Joseph Fritzl case: a brief infantile giggling in the background, allusions to darkness, a basement and suffering…
This is not the first time Rammstein finds inspiration in cases like this. In Reise, Reise, there was Mein Teil, inspired by the "German cannibal" case.
Unlike Mein Teil, though, which had some black humor and sarcasm sprinkled around what was also an extremely creepy song, Wiener Blut is strictly sinister, unpleasant and gloomy.
Don't get me wrong: it's not a bad song (although I don't know if the adjective "good" is appropriate, either). It achieves, in my opinion, what its authors aimed at: to disturb the listeners by confronting us with aspects of reality we know exist, but are beyond our daily experience.
This doesn't mean that all Rammstein songs are equally effective. As in previous releases, there is a song that seems aimed at shocking by its mere shock value: Pussy. It shares similarities with the older Te Quiero Puta (I Want you, Whore). As the title suggests, it's not fully in German. As I see it, it's the weakest song in the album, although I wouldn't be surprised it was a hit in nightclubs (not in radios, though, as it uses some English "forbidden" words, pronounced with a distinct German accent, that makes them, somewhat comical).
But the song that speaks more to me, given my ideological leanings, is Mehr (i.e. "more"). I suppose for a band that dwells on the pathological and morbose, it was just a matter of time until a song about what makes capitalism tick appeared.
In Reise, Reise, we already had Amerika and Moskau (which from a humorous, and pained points of view, respectively, alluded to globalization and the move towards a "free market" society in the former USSR) we had hints to this. But Mehr attempts to go to the core of what capitalism is:
All die anderen
haben so wenig.
Gebt mir auch das noch
sie brauchen's eh nicht
(Everybody else/has so little/Give me that too/they don't need it).
I don't know why, but I could imagine a few politicians and talking-heads starring in a video clip for this song. If the Rammstein agent reads this, please remember, the idea was mine: Gebt mir geld und credit, bitte.
PS: There are other remarkable songs in this release. I will comment on them later on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)