Letting Go of Industrial Regulations Isn’t Bringing Back the Jobs

By SAM URETSKY

It would be the logical successor to Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks.” In the background would be a band of American folk heroes, wandering towards the sunset. Paul Bunyan the logger leading Babe the great blue ox, Alfred Bulltop Stormalong the sailor, Pecos Bill the cowboy riding his great horse Widowmaker, and Joe Magarac the steelworker.

In the foreground, also seen from the rear, would be the only one who would remain, also seen from the rear: Johnny Inkslinger, Paul Bunyan’s clerk and accountant. The others are reduced to memories of the past, of the great industrial economy was symbolized by great factories belching smoke. Only Johnny can survive in the modern service economy.

Fifty years ago, manufacturing employed 25% of the American workforce, today it’s only about 10%. While we, as a nation, are actually producing more manufactured goods than in the past, we’re doing it with fewer people and more robotics. The service economy, even the CATO Institute admits, has been misperceived as a nation of fast-food cashiers.

When the New York Times reviewed the evolution in middle class ($40,000-80,000/year) from 1980 o 2015, they found that the largest gains had been in health-related occupations, with registered nurses showing the highest growth rate, at 20%, and mathematical and computer scientists a close second at 19%. Teachers were also well represented among occupations in demand. In contrast, “machine operators and tenders, except precision” had shown a 33% drop while “production supervisors or foremen” declined by 23%.

While it’s generally accepted that the answer to the change in in-demand occupations is retraining, President Trump, with his campaign focus on returning to a 1950s economy, convinced many coal miners and others employed in heavy manufacturing that he would create a reverse renaissance that they rejected re-education offers. But last year Fox news reported that the first new coal mine to open would employ 70 people, fewer than the 92 people employed in the average supermarket. Corsa Coal Company CEO George Dethlefsen told Fox News that 400 people applied for the 70 positions. Business Insider headlined, “Pennsylvania coal miners are so convinced Trump will bring coal back that they’re refusing training in other industries.”

The challenge is at once economic, since, in general, businesses survive only by adapting to consumer demands and technologic change. There is no longer a market for bustles and leisure suits any more than there is a market for quill pens and CRT televisions – but there is a serious political impediment, the Republican Party. The Washington Post reported, “Sen.-elect Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee said falsely in the lead-up to her campaign that the Earth has started to cool, and argued inaccurately that scientists have not reached a consensus on climate change.” Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said, “We are not going to destroy our economy, make America a harder place to create jobs, in order to pursue a policy that will do nothing, nothing to change our climate, to change our weather.”

Finally, the Union of Concerned Scientists reports that the anti-science attitudes of the party extend beyond aspirants for political office, and reach into the actions of agencies that were created to protect the public: “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently conducting risk assessments on ten common yet dangerous chemicals in order to determine whether they should be banned or restricted. However, the agency appears to be limiting the types of exposures being considered and, in most cases, is only assessing exposures that occur through direct contact with the chemical. This approach fails to consider the risk of exposure to chemicals in air emissions, drinking water, and hazardous waste products.”

Denial of climate change, in fact denial of any scientific report that would reduce corporate profits has become the hallmark of the Republican party. When the United Nations published a report warning that climate change threatened serious harm as soon as 2040, Sen James Inhofe, (R-Okla.) one of the leading climate change skeptics (he has received over $2 million from fossil fuel interests and and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming) said “That’s the UN. That’s the group that was formed to sell this in the first place.”

When the United States Climate Change report, which warned of the devastating effects of a changing climate on the economy, health and environment, including record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South was published, the government did not attempt to suppress it, but the release, on the day after Thanksgiving, was probably chosen to reduce coverage of the report. The New York Times reported, “A White House statement said the report, which was started under the Obama administration, was “largely based on the most extreme scenario” of global warming and that the next assessment would provide an opportunity for greater balance.”

There is probably no answer outside of the ballot box, but there is the need for constant vigilance, not only as the price of liberty, but pretty much for survival as well.

Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in New York. Email sdu01@outlook.com.

From The Progressive Populist, January 1-15, 2019


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2018 The Progressive Populist

PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652