| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 07:46 - Sep 4 with 3598 views | Darth_Koont |
Not until we realise that the more rapacious neo-liberal thinking of the 80s and onwards isn't sustainable.
Turns out greed isn't good. Who'd have thunk it? |  |
|  |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 08:28 - Sep 4 with 3535 views | Guthrum |
A lot of good points about modern, contractor-based business.
However, comparing 1987 (in the midst of an expansive economic up-swing) with 2017 (in a long and continuing depressed period) is a little misleading. Ms Evans' meteoric rise from janitor to exec was also unusual. And it wasn't Kodak Eastman's paternalistic policies which led to its virtual collapse, but a series of poor (very conservative) business decisions. Pretty much the opposite of Apple, who leapt on innovations and marketed them as hard as possible.
The increase in standards of living (technology in the home, foreign holidays, vehicles owned) and home ownership (at least in the UK) is quite marked between 1987 and now. Expectations have risen and job permanence is one of the prices we've had to pay for that.
Plus these things tend to be cyclical. Back in the interwar period, job security was very fragile. It was the boom of the late '40s to early '70s which created the "job for life" we now fondly look back upon. |  |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 09:57 - Sep 4 with 3468 views | blue_oyster |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 08:28 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
A lot of good points about modern, contractor-based business.
However, comparing 1987 (in the midst of an expansive economic up-swing) with 2017 (in a long and continuing depressed period) is a little misleading. Ms Evans' meteoric rise from janitor to exec was also unusual. And it wasn't Kodak Eastman's paternalistic policies which led to its virtual collapse, but a series of poor (very conservative) business decisions. Pretty much the opposite of Apple, who leapt on innovations and marketed them as hard as possible.
The increase in standards of living (technology in the home, foreign holidays, vehicles owned) and home ownership (at least in the UK) is quite marked between 1987 and now. Expectations have risen and job permanence is one of the prices we've had to pay for that.
Plus these things tend to be cyclical. Back in the interwar period, job security was very fragile. It was the boom of the late '40s to early '70s which created the "job for life" we now fondly look back upon. |
No such thing as job security before the 40s eh? Did the industrial revolution not come to your area? |  |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 10:53 - Sep 4 with 3429 views | Guthrum |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 09:57 - Sep 4 by blue_oyster |
No such thing as job security before the 40s eh? Did the industrial revolution not come to your area? |
As I said, it goes in cycles. Of course there were better and worse phases before then (also depended where you were - agricultural lanouring has rarely been secure, except in the period following the Black Death). | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 11:25 - Sep 4 with 3410 views | blue_oyster |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 10:53 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
As I said, it goes in cycles. Of course there were better and worse phases before then (also depended where you were - agricultural lanouring has rarely been secure, except in the period following the Black Death). |
Nothing cyclical about it. It's been downhill for a very long time, since strong industry in the country has been destroyed, accelerated by the liberalisation of the markets. | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 12:11 - Sep 4 with 3366 views | Guthrum |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 11:25 - Sep 4 by blue_oyster |
Nothing cyclical about it. It's been downhill for a very long time, since strong industry in the country has been destroyed, accelerated by the liberalisation of the markets. |
Don't disagree with you about the length, timing or even, to a large extent, the causes of this down-swing.
When I say cycles, I'm talking multiple decades in length. The troubles between the wars have their roots in the couple of decades before 1914. Prior to that was the growth period of the "High Industrial Revolution", itself preceded by the slump after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 13:29 - Sep 4 with 3323 views | blue_oyster |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 12:11 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
Don't disagree with you about the length, timing or even, to a large extent, the causes of this down-swing.
When I say cycles, I'm talking multiple decades in length. The troubles between the wars have their roots in the couple of decades before 1914. Prior to that was the growth period of the "High Industrial Revolution", itself preceded by the slump after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. |
Vast majority of people were in stable jobs over that time, compared to now. So what point exactly are you trying to make? | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 14:01 - Sep 4 with 3282 views | Guthrum |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 13:29 - Sep 4 by blue_oyster |
Vast majority of people were in stable jobs over that time, compared to now. So what point exactly are you trying to make? |
Simply not true. In the periods I mentioned, there was a surplus of itinerant, unskilled labour, doing what work they could, when they could get it. One purpose of the 1601 and 1834 Poor Laws was to tie those people down.
Even among the skilled an professional classes, job security was ephemeral.
It was the big industrial enterprises, such as the railways or the "never had it so good" businesses of the post-War boom, which provided jobs for life - being significantly more immune to minor variations in national/global prosperity.
The only point we seem to be disagreeing on is that you see the current situation as unprecedented, I don't. [Post edited 4 Sep 2017 14:24]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 16:23 - Sep 4 with 3231 views | blue_oyster |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 14:01 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
Simply not true. In the periods I mentioned, there was a surplus of itinerant, unskilled labour, doing what work they could, when they could get it. One purpose of the 1601 and 1834 Poor Laws was to tie those people down.
Even among the skilled an professional classes, job security was ephemeral.
It was the big industrial enterprises, such as the railways or the "never had it so good" businesses of the post-War boom, which provided jobs for life - being significantly more immune to minor variations in national/global prosperity.
The only point we seem to be disagreeing on is that you see the current situation as unprecedented, I don't. [Post edited 4 Sep 2017 14:24]
|
Please provide evidence of all this job insecurity since industrial revolution. | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 17:32 - Sep 4 with 3191 views | JohnTy |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 14:01 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
Simply not true. In the periods I mentioned, there was a surplus of itinerant, unskilled labour, doing what work they could, when they could get it. One purpose of the 1601 and 1834 Poor Laws was to tie those people down.
Even among the skilled an professional classes, job security was ephemeral.
It was the big industrial enterprises, such as the railways or the "never had it so good" businesses of the post-War boom, which provided jobs for life - being significantly more immune to minor variations in national/global prosperity.
The only point we seem to be disagreeing on is that you see the current situation as unprecedented, I don't. [Post edited 4 Sep 2017 14:24]
|
You seem to have very superficial view of history if you think the world we live in now bears any relation to that in 1834, let alone that in 1601. |  | | |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 18:42 - Sep 4 with 3145 views | Guthrum |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 16:23 - Sep 4 by blue_oyster |
Please provide evidence of all this job insecurity since industrial revolution. |
Any book on the Great Depression in the USA or Europe.
Accounts of the struggles between workforce and management in some of the great American building projects, such as the Hoover Dam (use of strikebreakers).
"The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists", by Robert Tressell. Altho a work of fiction, he was writing from his own experience.
That was a period of economic and social strife, but so it is now, also. | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 18:43 - Sep 4 with 3144 views | Guthrum |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 17:32 - Sep 4 by JohnTy |
You seem to have very superficial view of history if you think the world we live in now bears any relation to that in 1834, let alone that in 1601. |
We're talking about one specific aspect, job security. | |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 19:30 - Sep 4 with 3119 views | blue_oyster |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 08:28 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
A lot of good points about modern, contractor-based business.
However, comparing 1987 (in the midst of an expansive economic up-swing) with 2017 (in a long and continuing depressed period) is a little misleading. Ms Evans' meteoric rise from janitor to exec was also unusual. And it wasn't Kodak Eastman's paternalistic policies which led to its virtual collapse, but a series of poor (very conservative) business decisions. Pretty much the opposite of Apple, who leapt on innovations and marketed them as hard as possible.
The increase in standards of living (technology in the home, foreign holidays, vehicles owned) and home ownership (at least in the UK) is quite marked between 1987 and now. Expectations have risen and job permanence is one of the prices we've had to pay for that.
Plus these things tend to be cyclical. Back in the interwar period, job security was very fragile. It was the boom of the late '40s to early '70s which created the "job for life" we now fondly look back upon. |
I disagree with you on that, as I think you're confusing job security with economic performance, but this is beside the point. The comparison is recent, post tech-boom, and the US economy today has long recovered from its recession, so the comparison isn't misleading. There's no way any 'cycle' is going to magic back any opportunity for low-paid workers, they are continuing to be marginalised and there are no signs of this being reversed.
(Apologies, I meant to reply to your most recent post to me). [Post edited 4 Sep 2017 19:31]
| |
| |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 19:38 - Sep 4 with 3106 views | JohnTy |
| 1987 vs 2017: Progress means inequality on 18:43 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
We're talking about one specific aspect, job security. |
I understand that - but you are comparing pears with apples and oranges if you think that you can somehow abstract something you call "job insecurity" from totally different societies and claim that there is some kind of cyclicality at work. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
