Competeing Narratives of the 1990s

[One Eyed Cat]

First let me state: I have reached no conclusions.

One: The 1990s hailed in an unprecedented increase in freedom. The internet and deregulation of industry has led to the democratization of the press. Many folks began businesses and were rightfully successful. It was/is an age of information. The country became more socially liberal.

Two: The 1990s hailed in an age of inequity. 10% of the population came to control 90% of the money. Big business colluded with governments to increase their hold on the US and world market. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The middle class began being eviscerated. The quality of public schools dissipated. Consumerism took the place of citizenship. Health care became increasingly unaffordable for a large segment of the population.

Both have elements of truth to them. Looking at this board, I definitely support those in the IP industry. I am all for people making a comfortable living or even becoming incredibly wealthy.

At the same time, I tend to see a working class being brutalized. In my home region, it seems folks are in IP or professions or work in the service industry.

How do we keep the gains whilst moderating those who seem to have been left behind? Should we? Is it a matter of inequity? A lack of personal responsibility amongst a portion of the populace?

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Should read "competing* haha. Also, outsourcing should be an additional factor in the pessimistic narrative. It cost manufacturing jobs, yet benefits folks in terms of consumer prices (which would come us no solace to those working at mickey d's as opposed to steel mill) ugh.

OEC

[Mindgames]

It's the second 'industrial' revolution - when Coalbrookdale started huffing out wrought iron it's estimated they made 90% of the UK population poorer, and created the first millionaires. Rural family-centric life gave way to factories, cities, even the idea of 'a day job'. It's done the world nery-nicely-thankyou until the 50's, when the service sector started to grow in dominance - but before IT services were always an overhead for manufacturing. Owning a bank was pointless unless people made things and sold them first. With the information revolution (that really began in the 80's, not the 90's) you can make information a standalone business, and of course that's going to change the workplace demographics.

When cotton mills first introduced power looms, men (who historically wove cloth at home) were all made redundant, and thousands died of starvation. The work completely reversed, as the mills preferred women (small hands), so men stayed at home and looked after the kids, or spun wool. You can say it was unfair on them, but it was progress and the change had to happen. The same is happening now - people working at a desk don't need to be physically fit, just smart. Far higher percentages of women are the primary earners for a family than ever before, far more 'old' people are able to stay in work, but sure - if it takes 30 guys to make a car but only one woman to make the same profit from IT, 29 people are losing out. Overall society is wealthier today than ever before, but less are working than 100 years ago. It's not a good change or a bad change, it's just a change.

It'll take decades to play out though - the First-World countries push their heavy industry and low-pay jobs to other countries, and for a while make their way in service by supervising, designing and trading the stuff. It doesn't take long for the 'other country' to catch up and start offering the service sector for lower costs, while they push the low-end further down the geographic tree. You end up with three guys in Manhattan watching a head office in Shanghai supervise a factory in the Ukraine, but after a while the pyramid falls over - when all the unemployed factory workers in New York compete for their old jobs back. Generations in the future we'll probably all be earning the same salary from DC to Mumbai, but until then everyone's riding someone else's wave.

mG

[Amelia G]

I think the lack of opportunity for Gen X at the end of the 80's, especially when the decade had come in with such a bang, lead to a lot of new job structures. Human beings are resourceful creatures, so new types of jobs had to be created when the old ones disappeared.

I'm sure there were some farmers who just couldn't make the transition to become steel workers and there were some cotton mill workers who couldn't make the transition to spinning wool. But, as society and technology change, I think there will always be new types of jobs coming down the pike.

As people in America are living to be older, types of jobs are changing. If the Greatest Generation still needs social security and the Boomers are filling middle management positions and the Gen Xers are doing types of jobs not heard of fifteen years ago, people just entering the job market today are going to have some doors closed to them that once would have been open, but they will also have some opportunities that once would not have existed.

I think this is the case at all strata of society. Although I admit that one of the reasons I first made my hair a funny color was a personal both discomfort with the notion of class and lack of identification with any particular class. That said, I suspect more Americans at least identify as middle class than any other social group, so can we really say there is less middle class now in this part of the world?

[One Eyed Cat]

I think the lack of opportunity for Gen X at the end of the 80's, especially when the decade had come in with such a bang, lead to a lot of new job structures. Human beings are resourceful creatures, so new types of jobs had to be created when the old ones disappeared.

I'm sure there were some farmers who just couldn't make the transition to become steel workers and there were some cotton mill workers who couldn't make the transition to spinning wool. But, as society and technology change, I think there will always be new types of jobs coming down the pike.

As people in America are living to be older, types of jobs are changing. If the Greatest Generation still needs social security and the Boomers are filling middle management positions and the Gen Xers are doing types of jobs not heard of fifteen years ago, people just entering the job market today are going to have some doors closed to them that once would have been open, but they will also have some opportunities that once would not have existed.

I think this is the case at all strata of society. Although I admit that one of the reasons I first made my hair a funny color was a personal both discomfort with the notion of class and lack of identification with any particular class. That said, I suspect more Americans at least identify as middle class than any other social group, so can we really say there is less middle class now in this part of the world?

The argument was more in terms of income differential. Middle income?

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

It's the second 'industrial' revolution - when Coalbrookdale started huffing out wrought iron it's estimated they made 90% of the UK population poorer, and created the first millionaires. Rural family-centric life gave way to factories, cities, even the idea of 'a day job'. It's done the world nery-nicely-thankyou until the 50's, when the service sector started to grow in dominance - but before IT services were always an overhead for manufacturing. Owning a bank was pointless unless people made things and sold them first. With the information revolution (that really began in the 80's, not the 90's) you can make information a standalone business, and of course that's going to change the workplace demographics.

When cotton mills first introduced power looms, men (who historically wove cloth at home) were all made redundant, and thousands died of starvation. The work completely reversed, as the mills preferred women (small hands), so men stayed at home and looked after the kids, or spun wool. You can say it was unfair on them, but it was progress and the change had to happen. The same is happening now - people working at a desk don't need to be physically fit, just smart. Far higher percentages of women are the primary earners for a family than ever before, far more 'old' people are able to stay in work, but sure - if it takes 30 guys to make a car but only one woman to make the same profit from IT, 29 people are losing out. Overall society is wealthier today than ever before, but less are working than 100 years ago. It's not a good change or a bad change, it's just a change.

It'll take decades to play out though - the First-World countries push their heavy industry and low-pay jobs to other countries, and for a while make their way in service by supervising, designing and trading the stuff. It doesn't take long for the 'other country' to catch up and start offering the service sector for lower costs, while they push the low-end further down the geographic tree. You end up with three guys in Manhattan watching a head office in Shanghai supervise a factory in the Ukraine, but after a while the pyramid falls over - when all the unemployed factory workers in New York compete for their old jobs back. Generations in the future we'll probably all be earning the same salary from DC to Mumbai, but until then everyone's riding someone else's wave.

mG

That is consistent with what I'm seeing in the world as a whole. You are literally correct in terms of Ukraine. The steel mills are moving there (and a few other E European Countries) I suppose it is a just the time between the balance hits that is the issue for the American laborers.

Thanks for the Response.

OEC

[Mindgames]

...That said, I suspect more Americans at least identify as middle class than any other social group, so can we really say there is less middle class now in this part of the world?

Do the three 'classes' apply at all in modern society? I was arguing this last week over a teensy little beer (gotta say if you put five paralytically-drunk goths in a bar and let them argue loudly about social demographics, you get WAY stranger reactions from the locals!) and I'm not at all sure they do.

"Working" class is supposed to be somehow below "middle", and sure if you're comparing a sheep farmer to an accountant it used to work - but where do modern jobs fit? Manager of a local mall? Firefighter? Internet porn star? Hell, even the sheep farmer now has more business management to do than a factory owner in the 30's ever did, and that accountant could be one of 500 buried in a cube in Enron with nobody under him except the roaches.

"Upper" class used to be about social status (ladies n germs, please pray silence for The Honorable Major Sir Ponsonby Flatulence, Earl of Ripchester), but now people with 'old money and titles' are usually found scratching about to pay their bills, but an 18-year-old with a decent record in NFL can be buying a spare Mercedes to drive from his house to his garage. Is he upper class, or just a kid from the projects with luck on his side?

mG

[hewhoisagod]

Social demographics and political ideas are always swinging like a pendulum. Sometimes it can only take a decade or can last for centuries. Most historians consider the Middle Ages between the fall of the western and eastern roman empires.
Look what happened here from the 50's to the 80's. major progress was made politically and socially. Changes can happen without people noticing.

[Buster Friendly]

personally i feel like things have moved in both directions... socially we have way more choice, financially capital has increased in ever smaller circles...

... i have access to things i could never have dreamed of back in the 80's... like pictures of Scar 13 YAY!!! (other stuff too.)

on the other hand i'm headed to the best job i've ever had, and it doesn't ever remotely pay the rent...

[One Eyed Cat]

personally i feel like things have moved in both directions... socially we have way more choice, financially capital has increased in ever smaller circles...

... i have access to things i could never have dreamed of back in the 80's... like pictures of Scar 13 YAY!!! (other stuff too.)

on the other hand i'm headed to the best job i've ever had, and it doesn't ever remotely pay the rent...

That is kind of the phenomena I see playing out in the U.S. specifically.

OEC