The United Way advertisements have begun appearing on the Toronto subway again. There are about three or four versions of the ads, all variations on the same theme. They all show people shedding a former version of themselves -- like a snake shedding its skin -- in favour of a new, presumably happier version. One for example, shows an elderly woman shedding a housebound version of herself in favour of a more active version with sneakers and sun visor hat, getting off the easy chair, ready to take on the world. Another shows a man -- apparently homeless -- being transformed into someone gainfully employed and wearing a worker's uniform, the implication being that he has been assisted by the work of the United Way. These two examples are uncontroversial enough and leave the viewer of the ad with the impression that the United way is performing an admirable function that improves peoples' lives.
But there is a third version of the ad that left me feeling a bit puzzled. It shows a young man who appears to have been making his living as a dishwasher in a restaurant. He sheds the dishwasher version of himself and underneath the discarded chrysalis is the uniform of someone who works in the medical field (either as a doctor, nurse or technician; it's difficult to tell). At any rate, he seems ready to leave the world of dirty dishes behind in favour of a more respectable and lucrative future.
Now this is all well and good, but it does leave me with one uncomfortable thought: Who is going to do the dishes, now that their star dishwasher has left for a happier field? Somebody has to do them. And is the United Way going to step up to the plate and help the replacement dishwasher move on as well?
Clearly, this is not the same as helping shut-ins become more mobile or or helping the homeless find jobs -- as a society, we don't want people being either immobile or unemployed if we can help it. And granted, dish washing is not the most pleasant of occupations, but like many unpleasant occupations -- collecting garbage, cleaning toilets, changing bedpans -- it is socially necessary and, to repeat, somebody has to do them.
Once again, there is something telling in the way the media has portrayed the world of the working class. We see their labour as something shameful, an anomaly of sorts, like homelessness, something that needs charity to fix -- or something we'd rather not think about at all. The dignity of labour is a notion to which we often pay lip service, but clearly we don't believe it.
Friday, 10 June 2011
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Get a Job, Kid!
Flipping through the Globe business section last month (after reading Dilbert of course), I see this headline: Student dropout rate too high? Let's try child labour. Well, I immediately throw on a pot of Earl Grey tea and prepare to settle in for a cracking bit of Swiftian satire. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I discover that Neil Reynolds, the author of this piece, is entirely serious. Or at least I think he is.
Reynolds points out that, although Canada's dropout rate has fallen (from 16.5 per cent in 1990 to 8.5 per cent in 2010), the dropout rate is still too high, particularly among many immigrant and aboriginal students. And at the heart of the problem is the fact that young people without high school diplomas have an employment rate of only 40 per cent, compared to 65 per cent for those with diplomas. Well, I agree this is bad, but I think the problem is partly one of definition. Is this a dropout problem or an unemployment problem? I think it's the latter.
Cast your mind back to your grandparents' generation. Unless you came from a long line of University professors, chances are your grandparents didn't finish high school. Hell, one of my grandfathers never even finished elementary school, yet he ended up with a well-paying unionized job that allowed him to buy a house, a car and support an extended family. That, of course, doesn't happen anymore. For almost any employer to look at you, you need that diploma.
So, of course, the solution is to put the dropouts to work. And for that, I will give Reynolds his Nobel prize for economics and a hero cookie. But wait. Reynolds leaves two questions unanswered: Who is going to hire these kids? And maybe even more important, how much are they going to get paid? "...[W]e're not returning children to "Dickens's dark satanic mills," Reynolds reassures us. So of course we're going to give them jobs that pay at least minimum wage. There we go, problem solved. Can I share that hero cookie with you?
Alternatively, we're going to pay them something far less than minimum wage, in which case we are returning to something that does indeed look suspiciously Dickensian. Not only that, but we would be creating a parallel market of much cheaper labour that would be in competition with adults looking for "real" jobs.
So which is it -- young adults supporting themselves with reasonable paying jobs, or children being exploited with wages that are far below the norm? The problem is, Reynolds doesn't say one way or the other. This is interesting in itself. Imagine, if you will, a business press that talks about corporations without ever making a reference to profit or loss or talks about commodity markets without any reference to price.
If I were a real Marxist, I would say this is no coincidence but rather is symptomatic of a bourgeois press that always glosses over questions that are of interest to the working class. As Marx said, "the working class is the bourgeoisie's dirty secret." But I'm not a real Marxist, just a humble indoor Marxman, so I'll assume it just slipped his mind.
Reynolds points out that, although Canada's dropout rate has fallen (from 16.5 per cent in 1990 to 8.5 per cent in 2010), the dropout rate is still too high, particularly among many immigrant and aboriginal students. And at the heart of the problem is the fact that young people without high school diplomas have an employment rate of only 40 per cent, compared to 65 per cent for those with diplomas. Well, I agree this is bad, but I think the problem is partly one of definition. Is this a dropout problem or an unemployment problem? I think it's the latter.
Cast your mind back to your grandparents' generation. Unless you came from a long line of University professors, chances are your grandparents didn't finish high school. Hell, one of my grandfathers never even finished elementary school, yet he ended up with a well-paying unionized job that allowed him to buy a house, a car and support an extended family. That, of course, doesn't happen anymore. For almost any employer to look at you, you need that diploma.
So, of course, the solution is to put the dropouts to work. And for that, I will give Reynolds his Nobel prize for economics and a hero cookie. But wait. Reynolds leaves two questions unanswered: Who is going to hire these kids? And maybe even more important, how much are they going to get paid? "...[W]e're not returning children to "Dickens's dark satanic mills," Reynolds reassures us. So of course we're going to give them jobs that pay at least minimum wage. There we go, problem solved. Can I share that hero cookie with you?
Alternatively, we're going to pay them something far less than minimum wage, in which case we are returning to something that does indeed look suspiciously Dickensian. Not only that, but we would be creating a parallel market of much cheaper labour that would be in competition with adults looking for "real" jobs.
So which is it -- young adults supporting themselves with reasonable paying jobs, or children being exploited with wages that are far below the norm? The problem is, Reynolds doesn't say one way or the other. This is interesting in itself. Imagine, if you will, a business press that talks about corporations without ever making a reference to profit or loss or talks about commodity markets without any reference to price.
If I were a real Marxist, I would say this is no coincidence but rather is symptomatic of a bourgeois press that always glosses over questions that are of interest to the working class. As Marx said, "the working class is the bourgeoisie's dirty secret." But I'm not a real Marxist, just a humble indoor Marxman, so I'll assume it just slipped his mind.
Equality is Great...Not!
Back in January (just catching up on some pre-blog reports) Margaret Wente decided to turn her heavy artillery against British author Richard Wilkinson's new book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. Wilkinson suggests that more equal societies are less prone to crime, drug abuse and even health problems like heart disease. Wente claims she has nothing against equality but suggests you can "fire a cannonball through his thesis", then proceeds to do so.
Or at least Wente tries. She begins with Japan, a country which scores well in the equality rankings. Japan, Wente says, is "sexist" and "xenophobic." Well, it probably is, and I think the Japanese have bizarre tastes in rock music as well, but since when did these problems stem from equality? I think that Wilkinson is not trying to say that egalitarian countries are perfect, just that equality ameliorates a whole host of social problems. She also points out that in Japan "nobody has children any more." In fact, in worldwide terms, Japan's birthrate is not much lower than Canada's. And if high birth rates were an indicator of a country's desirability as a place to live, sub-Saharan countries like Niger would be paradise. Something tells me they're not. Also, low birth rates usually occur in countries where women have rights and make their own reproductive choices. So maybe Japan is not as sexist as Wente suggests.
So Wente then takes aim at the other big winners in the equality derby, the Scandinavian countries, . Ah, but these countries are more homogeneous, Wente suggests. "Small nations where everyone is basically related tend to foster more equality and trust than big nations where they're not." Well, Japan is homogeneous too, but in their case she calls it, not homogeneity, but xenophobia. Perhaps it's the equality that fosters the homogeneity. After all, a country (like Norway) that pays its janitors the equivalent of $50,000-a-year and gives them five weeks vacation, doesn't have to import people from poorer and more desperate countries to do the low-status jobs for them, so they tend to remain homogeneous (not that homogeneity is necessarily a good in itself).
Wente concludes by saying that "Canada's $6 million CEOs" are the wrong target for our moral outrage. Rather, we should direct our attention towards the hedge fund managers and investment bankers who contitute the "new super-duper global uber-elite." Wente says these people with their isolation and arrogance "scare the heck out of me." Well, they kinda scare the heck out of me too, but I think you'll find the "uber-elite" tend to live, not in countries like Canada that are fairly equal, but rather in countries that tolerate, nay promote, inequality. So I'll stick with the egalitarian countries, thank you very much, and if Canada moves closer to the top of that list, then I'm all for it.
Or at least Wente tries. She begins with Japan, a country which scores well in the equality rankings. Japan, Wente says, is "sexist" and "xenophobic." Well, it probably is, and I think the Japanese have bizarre tastes in rock music as well, but since when did these problems stem from equality? I think that Wilkinson is not trying to say that egalitarian countries are perfect, just that equality ameliorates a whole host of social problems. She also points out that in Japan "nobody has children any more." In fact, in worldwide terms, Japan's birthrate is not much lower than Canada's. And if high birth rates were an indicator of a country's desirability as a place to live, sub-Saharan countries like Niger would be paradise. Something tells me they're not. Also, low birth rates usually occur in countries where women have rights and make their own reproductive choices. So maybe Japan is not as sexist as Wente suggests.
So Wente then takes aim at the other big winners in the equality derby, the Scandinavian countries, . Ah, but these countries are more homogeneous, Wente suggests. "Small nations where everyone is basically related tend to foster more equality and trust than big nations where they're not." Well, Japan is homogeneous too, but in their case she calls it, not homogeneity, but xenophobia. Perhaps it's the equality that fosters the homogeneity. After all, a country (like Norway) that pays its janitors the equivalent of $50,000-a-year and gives them five weeks vacation, doesn't have to import people from poorer and more desperate countries to do the low-status jobs for them, so they tend to remain homogeneous (not that homogeneity is necessarily a good in itself).
Wente concludes by saying that "Canada's $6 million CEOs" are the wrong target for our moral outrage. Rather, we should direct our attention towards the hedge fund managers and investment bankers who contitute the "new super-duper global uber-elite." Wente says these people with their isolation and arrogance "scare the heck out of me." Well, they kinda scare the heck out of me too, but I think you'll find the "uber-elite" tend to live, not in countries like Canada that are fairly equal, but rather in countries that tolerate, nay promote, inequality. So I'll stick with the egalitarian countries, thank you very much, and if Canada moves closer to the top of that list, then I'm all for it.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Why the title?
The term Indoor Marxman probably first reached a general audience with the publication in 1949 of Malcolm Lowry's stunning novel, Under the Volcano. Lowry adopted this term from the American poet Conrad Aiken who Lowry greatly admired -- even though, by using the phrase, Aiken was being critical of Lowry who he thought had been overly influenced by the Marxism of many European poets at the time.
I've been a fan of Lowry's work ever since the early 1980s when I was living in Vancouver and discovered Forest Path to the Spring, a short story about the author's sojourn in nearby Dollarton. You won't find anything in this blog about Lowry or his works, however -- I leave that to people much more learned than me. What you will find here is media criticism from the perspective of a guy who works in a blue collar job in Toronto and is often puzzled and sometimes outraged by certain blind spots in the mainstream media.
In other words, it's my blog and I can rant if I want to. Just letting off some steam after a long day of giving my labour to the man. There's a certain self-deprecating tone to the term Indoor Marxman that I like. I hope I can do it justice.
I've been a fan of Lowry's work ever since the early 1980s when I was living in Vancouver and discovered Forest Path to the Spring, a short story about the author's sojourn in nearby Dollarton. You won't find anything in this blog about Lowry or his works, however -- I leave that to people much more learned than me. What you will find here is media criticism from the perspective of a guy who works in a blue collar job in Toronto and is often puzzled and sometimes outraged by certain blind spots in the mainstream media.
In other words, it's my blog and I can rant if I want to. Just letting off some steam after a long day of giving my labour to the man. There's a certain self-deprecating tone to the term Indoor Marxman that I like. I hope I can do it justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)