backbones

So here we have middle and upper class workers who literally don’t have to leave the house for anything that isn’t a legitimate emergency. Plenty of people, even my own partner, have just gone and rented properties like cabins and such by beaches or lakes or in the woods so they can have a change of scenery and be isolated with a view in a fresh place. And- so the middle and upper class (who also tend to have better healthcare) are doing fine asides some cabin fever more or less.

But what did we do for people who can’t afford to pay an extra $10 to get things like paper towels delivered to them? We gave them like $1200 over six months ago? But that’s about it. And these people don’t have the luxury to work from home, some still have to take public transit like trains and busses to get around. They literally can’t afford to stay home. They can’t shoulder the costs and they don’t have the space to have privacy and be able to keep active and healthy without going out.

And the sad truth is.... most people don’t know and don’t care. It doesn’t matter. The world is full of poor people. 36% of the world population lives in poverty. About 1% lives as well as average Americans or Canadians etc, and even those countries have people below poverty. So there is no shortage of skilled labor. There won’t be. Not anytime soon. Not even if corona virus had killed every single person it has infected. Even if all those people died- we’d still have people who’s only option, or best option, was to take their place.

And even IF somehow all the minimum wage type workers were wiped out- most could be replaced by automation. It isn’t cost effective in every case, but the main reasons that we don’t just replace unskilled workers with automation are that there would be massive backlash from society, and it would hurt the economy. Not as straight forward as “a bunch of people can’t buy things because they can’t get jobs.” That’s true- if you sell things that people can’t buy- you aren’t going to sell much. Property is a bigger issue though. There is TREMENDOUS wealth in land. The more people want to live in a place- generally the more land is worth. The more land is worth, the more land owners are worth. The more credit can be extended. It creates a circle of wealth, and those who can’t afford land must rent, which then funnels money from those without money to those with money. The land itself generally has no actual value as an instrument of trade. It’s just land. But those paying rent...

... funnel actual capital and units of labor back into the system to finance the imaginary money value of the land and credit. But if we take that land value away- as is what happens when people don’t want to it cannot rent land- the worth of land owners and loan holders plummets. This generally drives remaining people to more fertile markets. This is how “ghost towns” are usually formed. When the production of wealth dries up it triggers a cycle that unchecked, devolves to a point where economic growth cannot be made without an infusion of capital to restart the system. But that still requires a consumer base of some sort- unless you have a sealed economy where funds are just passed around but the total available wealth stays relatively constant.

But it goes deeper than all that simple stuff. Say we automated every job it was cost effective and practical to do so. Every retail store was reduced to 1 worker for every 5 it used to have. Cashiers and guest services replaced by automated kiosks and such- with one human to handle issues with the machines or pocket cases the machines cannot- where there used to be 5 or 10 humans. You now have massive unemployment. The thing about under employment is it keeps people busy.

Janice makes minimum wage. Janie works 30 hours a week. Janice can’t just drive to work everyday. Janice uses public transportation or relied on rides, Janice would have a 30 minute commute, but it’s actually an hour because she can’t drive herself. Janice works two jobs for a total of 44 hours a week to get by. Her total commute time for both jobs is 2 hours a day. MAYBE Janice has taken the “bootstraps” advice and is also going to school- and putting hours into that and the extra commute time. Janice is busy most of the day. Janice is tired.

This is pragmatic. Janice has little or no benefits. Poor health comparatively. Poor diet comparatively. Little opportunity and little money and doesn’t have a great home situation or finances. But she’s too busy to really think about that. She’s too busy to really join a gang or hang out on the street or get in to a lot of mischief that she might if she was in her situation and not tired and busy all the time.

Massive unemployment makes people angry, bored, etc. bored people, angry people, bored angry people- sometimes they do things they wouldn’t of they had better things to do. Sometimes they organize and they protest or even riot- because they don’t have anything and don’t see any way that is going to likely change. When we all feel we are contributing to a big project that we also get to benefit from- most people will chip in. When we feel like we are working and not getting anything for it- we tend to get upset, but if we don’t have a choice- we just survive. But when we are rejected, unable to participate, seeing what others have and we don’t, and we feel like we don’t have anything to lose- as humans we often will figure we may as well take what we can or destroy what others have to “make it even.”

So pretty much the only things keeping a lot of people from being replaced by machines- asides perhaps a sliver of human compassion- is that the current economy and social stability won’t bear the switch. But if something like a pandemic were to suddenly wipe out our “lower class” work force- the economy could be adjusted to function on a new system. A new “base” of service workers who keep machines running to serve to wealthier.

Or.... well... we also could just get more poor people. There is no global shortage. The only thing that separates the “unskilled” labor forces of many countries like America from places where there are sweatshops that pay pennies a day is government regulation. But corporations have been finding ways to use technology and née structures and terms to subvert those regulations, while public support for deregulation has been growing. Recent cases and votes concerning companies like ride-shares and other “crowd sourcing” are setting a precedent that allows companies to be unburdened of things like minimum wage and benefits. In the tech industry and other industries “except” employees allow skirting worker protection laws and setting salaries that pay based on a 40 hour week for a job that takes 60+ hours a week. More generous use of things like the “independent contractor” label, and there are many more clever tricks.

And it isn’t just apps like Uber or DoorDash planning to use the crowd sourcing model. Many companies that offer delivery services, business to client or business to business, are looking at or already using crowd sourcing to increase their fleet sizes and service capabilities while avoiding the costs associated with actual employees. Companies are popping up that don’t actually do anything themselves- they offer crowd sourcing apps and then make contracts with companies in need of cheap labor, and then connect their app users to those companies- like a “temp agency” for crowd sourcing. And crowd sourcing is finding its way to other industries besides deliver where the business model has “surges” or allows flexibility in staffing.

To all the folks who have clamored for higher minimum wage- add to the already good and long list of reasons that is a foolish request: add that it doesn’t matter what minimum wage is if companies have the ability to classify a worker in a way which they don’t have to pay them minimum wage. This was common in industry such as erotic dancing. It still is. Strippers are often classified as independent contractors. They keep all their tips but must pay the strip club. Fees for dancing and general upkeep, fees for using lap dance rooms and private areas, etc etc. not only does this allow the strip club to not pay minimum wage or provide healthcare, it also means when business is slow, the dancer might not make any money but the strip club still gets paid fees like upkeep by the dancers. In some jurisdictions laws have been passed requiring strippers be paid a minimum wage. But that still doesn’t prevent the club from raising the effective percentage they take from girls in the form of fees

So even where it has been ruled the contractor must be given minimum wage, as a contractor they can still be billed for use of facilities and equipment. Which as it applies outside of strip clubs and in- means that the employer can effectively offset any loss from any gain to your wages. As long as your earnings don’t become so low that no one will take the job, they can take as much as they want really. And in the case of the larger service economy, your wages may be reduced to where YOU quit... but there are plenty of poor people.

There is always someone who has it badger than you. Service jobs already use this strategy. “If you won’t take the shift Joe will...” and then they punitively cut your hours in the next schedule because you weren’t a “team player.” The service managers mantra when asked why so and so got more hours? “I give the hours to the person who wants them...” which is another way of saying: “be reliable and take whatever shit we give you, or we will just cut your hours and eventfully replace you entirely.” Most retail jobs make it very clear in subtle and not subtle ways- you aren’t needed and you are replaceable.

Don’t get me wrong. SOMEONE is needed. That position- the company needs it filled or it wouldn’t generally exist. But you aren’t the only person on earth who can do it or will do it. So you are not needed. Using policy and structure and technology and simple user interfaces, by making jobs simple and procedural and removing most element of individual judgment- modern companies have created systems where almost anyone can be dragged off the street and be able to do the job basics in 15-20 minutes of training. Not only does that mean they can quickly and easily replace more entry level workers- it means that the loss of time and the investment to do so is much smaller than it otherwise would be.

Tl:dr and in conclusion- there are enough poor people that we could lose hundreds of millions of them and it would be but a blip on the economy and most people’s way of life. More over- long term it would decrease the competition for resources and space. The rich, the comfortable, the powerful- largely don’t care of a bunch of “poor people” die. They are insulated. You should be outraged but outrage is cheap. What are you going to do about it? The middle
Class is complicit and most people are part of the whole problem. Short of revolt or massive unionization the people most impacted by this exploitation don’t have the personal power to do much about it. They could refuse to go to work, end up homeless. But that’s not really going to change the system most likely. The people who are able to stay safe at home are the people with the time and resources and voices to help. But.... you’re going to have to pay more for less at the store. Your dollar gets smaller. And well...

Are you going to give up some of what you have and what you want for someone else to have something more? Probably not. I’d like you to prove me wrong. But.... I doubt it will be the case. And after this pandemic- if the pattern holds we have 100 years and over 4 billion people we can sacrifice to keep those Amazon deliveries coming to your door. So it may take awhile to see any serious problem in your own home if you aren’t in that 4 billion.