Ehrenreich, conclusions

I don't have much to say about Chapter 5.  It was mostly about the 80's, yuppies, and materialism.

Chapter 6 is her concluding analysis.  There are several points that I like:
1) The "New Class" was not actually the cause of hedonism, but the place where people argued over it.  One argument that people often make is that the comfortable people in word-driven occupations have the intellect, savings, and support network to afford a bit of foolishness, so they can dismiss traditional values in ways that others dare not.  This argument is often abused, and she has no sympathy for its abusers (nor do I), but I think it's one of those things that we should not just dismiss either.  Of course, I'd be more sympathetic to its proponents if they weren't standing behind a twice-divorced sexual assaulter.

2) She notes that economic inequality was growing in 1989, and 30 years of experience have seen no reversal of that trend.  She also notes the ways in which that trend has increased inequality within the "New Class" or the people in word-driven jobs.  It only got worse since then.  Information is cheap now, which has destroyed business models that supported writers and creators of various sorts.  In that sense, competition really is more fierce, and so cheap information and abundant competition can sometimes lead to a bifurcation rather than equalization of outcomes.

But bifurcated outcomes, while certainly possible in the real world, are not always the outcome of competition.  Econ 101 isn't everything, but it isn't nothing either.  There's rent-seeking to be found out there, if any journalists can be paid to seek for it.  De Tocqueville noted that competitive societies tend to become equal, and so I'm far from convinced that we're seeing fair competition.

I think we're definitely seeing a lot of competition in the more precarious segments of the upper-middle class, the segments that really do have to compete and spend considerable time "paying dues."  I've noted before that competition is a tough subject because too much of it makes people indistinguishable rather than bringing out variety, but too little leads to corruption and a choking of opportunity. I think we're seeing a split-level game, with those who have many advantages making everything of them (because, hey, who wouldn't?) while those with fewer (not the same as no) advantages really do compete viciously.

One irony is that the "New Class" now has to proclaim its commitment to bringing in more competition, i.e. expanding equity and opportunity, in order to show that they are virtuous enough to win the competition.  It's a strange thing.  A laudable thing in many ways, but a strange thing.

3) Ehrenreich ends by calling for a moral reform, a move away from consumerism.  In principle I agree, and I hope everyone uses their smart phone to like and share this blog post.  Of course, I think we've gotten one, but it isn't the one she called for.  She called for a revival of class consciousness in a country where most people want to think of themselves (accurately or otherwise) as middle-class.  Instead we've gotten identity-consciousness.  Let me tell you, there's nothing that a middle-class scholarship kid loves more than hearing an Ivy League legacy admit explain that our shared lack of melanin and estrogen makes us equally privileged.  (True story.)

4) She also calls for a revival of "professionalism" in an era where the knowledge-driven professionals of the "New Class" are now getting squeezed.  She makes the fascinating and compelling point that knowledge workers (many but not all of whom are in some segment of the broad "middle class", albeit usually the upper segment) actually like their work.  They do things that they find fascinating.  The rich might like their work but they tend to like their leisure more.  The poor might like some of what they do at work, but often they get treated badly and their jobs take a toll.  That is another sense in which the rich and poor resemble each other more than the middle class.  I need to think about that.

She sees professionalism as a cure for consumerism, treating the right kind of work as a satisfying thing in its own right rather than a means for more consumption.  I think this would be a nice thing, but I don't know how to change a society.

5) Of course, in the end she calls for an abolition of even the privileges of the "professional middle class" knowledge workers and professionals.  I think we're seeing more of that, but without the societal flattening that she hoped would accompany it.

That's all for this book.  I will eventually blog another book, but not sure when.

Fear of Falling, Chapter 4

This chapter focuses on the "New Class", a term originally coined by Marxists to refer to the technocratic class running Communist societies.  They weren't capitalists (by definition), but they also weren't workers.  It got appropriated to deride liberal technocrats in the West, and apparently in the 70's was applied to upper-middle-class people with degrees and desk jobs.  She highlights a few ironies that many others have noted as well, but in 1989 I think these were somewhat fresher insights:

1) Many of the conservative intellectuals critiquing this class were comfortable urban dwellers who wrote for a living and (politics aside) were remarkably similar to those they critiqued.  They were class traitors, in a way.

This is often noted when conservative pundits critique "liberal elite" culture.

2) Of course, the liberal technocrats were class traitors themselves, in that they support policies that required progressive taxation of people with upper incomes. This is inevitable if the project of modern policy is the improvement of society and remediation of social inequality.  It's a big, expensive project, and you can only fund big, expensive projects by taxing the people who actually have the money.

3) At the same time, these upper-class advocates for redistribution are disliked by the "working class".  Some of this is because of cultural differences (which also makes the situation of conservative pundits ironic), but not solely.  If you want to "fix" society and "fix" inequality then you will have to, at a minimum, do something about the poor.  Fears of moral hazard (sometimes justified, but not always) mean that you can't just hand out money.  And the systems in which people exist also matter, so beyond handing money to the poor you'd need to look at infrastructure, regulations, etc.  All of this means that you'll be addressing a certain stratum of society, and trying to engineer them.

If you hand enough largess to a certain stratum of society then maybe they'll accept your efforts to engineer them.  Maybe.  But this stratum is not perfectly demarcated from the "working class" that is not necessarily super-comfortable but at least doesn't feel an acute need for redistribution.  Because they are not perfectly demarcated, efforts to engineer the social conditions affecting the poor will also affect the "working class" or "lower-middle class."  They won't like that.

They'll like it even less if they're facing social engineering (with its downsides) while their taxes go into redistribution to others.  Some of those others might be objectively undeserving layabouts.  Many more will be perceived as such.  Some might be objectively deserving hard luck cases, but not all will see them as such.

An over-simplified view of the left and right in 21st century America is that the left is a coalition of the upper-middle class and the poor, while the right is a coalition of the lower-middle class and the rich.  This is very over-simplified, but it captures something:  The left has technocrats and the people they focus their efforts on, the right has plutocrats and the people that the technocrats look down on but don't give largess to.

4) She also talks about how the right critiqued liberal social policy as "permissiveness" while business needs a consumer culture that is all about avoiding self-restraint.  She references Daniel Bell's Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism here.

She also notes that the right blamed the government for "permissiveness" because they couldn't bring themselves to blame consumer culture and its enablers in the advertising industry.

Ehrenreich, start of Chp. 3

I've started chapter 3.  She's chronicling the way that the media "discovered" the "white working class" and "middle America" after Nixon's win in 1968.  It sounds a lot like the media's discovery of conservative whites after 2016.  Of course, the backlash against 60's liberals and hippies and civil rights and whatnot was broader than lower-income whites, there were plenty of affluent whites who were plenty reactionary, there were plenty of liberal and moderate white people with modest incomes, and there were plenty of non-white people who worked similar jobs and had similar lifestyles.  But the media became obsessed with a certain stereotype of working-class white men, and vacillated between treating them as distasteful and Authentic.  Sometimes the focus was on how to appease them, sometimes on why the Better Classes should never appease them, but they were definitely the focus.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.