[R-P] La desindustrialización de EEUU
nmgoro en gmail.com
Dom Ene 27 11:48:13 MST 2008
Gentileza de la lista Marxmail
[Traduzco solo el primer párrafo de un artículo del New York Times. El
artículo completo, en inglés, al pie.]
NY Times Magazine, Enero 27, 2008
Cómo se vive ahora
Economía de la vieja escuela
por CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
¿Porqué los candidatos presidenciales posan con trabajadores de
fábrica cuando expresan su preocupación con la economía, y no con
elencos de ballet? Después de todo, según el Bureau of Labor
Statistics, hay hoy en los EEUU más coreógrafos (16 340) que obreros
de fundición (14 880). Hay más gente que se gana la vida repartiendo
cartas en los casinos (82 960) que manejando tornos (65 840), y la
cantidad de guardias de seguridad (1,004,130) casi triplica la de
operarios de máquina (385 690). En 1960, el 30 por ciento de los
estadounidenses trabajaba en la industria, y hoy lo hace menos del 15
por ciento. La economía, tal como la presentan los políticos, es un
NY Times Magazine, January 27, 2008
The Way We Live Now
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy
pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all,
the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters
(14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people
make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960)
than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as
many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30
percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15
percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing.
If Republicans have had more luck talking about the economy for the
last generation or so, it is because they were the less folkloric of
the two parties. Broadly speaking, they cut taxes and regulation and
trusted that entrepreneurs would hasten the arrival of the economy to
come. There were Democrats who did the same, but they shared a party
with others who were nostalgic for a disappearing world, reflexively
backing unions and fighting management. Republican optimism beat
This campaign season, Republicans no longer look so confident. Mike
Huckabee suggested to a group of Detroit executives that "instead of
talking to people in the corporate boardroom, you talk to people on
the line." He aspires to remind Americans "of the guy they work with,
not the guy who laid them off." The latter guy, in Huckabee's view,
resembles Mitt Romney, who may have triumphed in Michigan, but only
after promising to restore 250,000 factory jobs lost to layoffs.
Republican rhetoric about trusting the transition to a new economy is
not allaying fears as it once did.
The reason is simple. It is that the transition is over. The new
economy we have been promised is in place. While the economy of 1998
was a world away from the Internet-less, land-line-dependent,
non-Nafta, I.B.M.-Selectric-powered, partly Communist world of 1988,
today's economy is fully recognizable as the one we inhabited in 1998.
Today's economic anxiety is not the same anxiety that simmered
between 1980 and 2000. Back then, recessions and slowdowns were
understood as the pangs of a new economy struggling to be born. But
the recession we now seem to be entering is to the information age
what the recession of, say, 1957-1958 was to the industrial age — a
"normal" recession in the midst of an economy with stable bases, an
economy that (to use a current cliché) "is what it is." The "jobs of
the future" that were promised 20 years ago are here. Choreographers,
blackjack dealers and security guards have replaced factory workers
as the economy's backbone, if not yet its symbol.
New economies have always required a kind of initiation fee of those
who would participate fully in them. As the historian Richard
Hofstadter showed in "The Age of Reform," the aftermath of the Civil
War was marked by paeans to the prosperity that would arise from
technological change. The 19th-century farmer went to great lengths
to join it. "His demand for expensive machinery," Hofstadter wrote,
"his expectation of higher standards of living and his tendency to go
into debt to acquire extensive acreage created an urgent need for
cash and tempted the farmer into capitalizing more and more on his
greatest single asset: the unearned appreciation in the value of his
land." These problems will be familiar to many a 21st-century
security guard or Wal-Mart cashier. They are the problems not of
someone "left behind" in the old economy but of someone struggling in the new.
Economic orders have life cycles. Policies designed to "unleash"
business in a fledgling economy offer diminishing returns in a
developed one. To have overregulated or overtaxed Bill Gates 20 years
ago might have killed a goose that still had many golden eggs to lay.
But it seems probable that 20 years hence, regardless of tax policy,
Microsoft will be intact, thriving, based in the United States and
doing roughly what it is doing now.
Yet Republican prescriptions have changed not a whit. Mitt Romney
recently attacked the latest federal energy bill, which mandates
average fuel-efficiency of 35 miles per gallon, as an impediment to
Detroit's ability to crank out sport-utility vehicles. He is quite
right. But does he mean to say we're going to get out of our economic
doldrums by driving 10-mile-a-gallon cars in a world of $100-a-barrel oil?
All Republican candidates want to make President Bush's deep tax cuts
permanent, and even to expand on them. Rudolph Giuliani has promised
to pass the largest tax cut in U.S. history. But this is yesterday's
policy trying to pass itself off as tomorrow's. Americans are evenly
split on whether taxes ought to be raised back to pre-Bush levels.
Large majorities would gladly pay more in taxes for various purposes
(notably more access to health care). Voters, it seems, have begun
asking of entrepreneurs and their champions what they asked of
hippies around 1971: Aren't you liberated enough already?
Cutting taxes and slashing regulations were appropriate strategies
for managing a transitional economy. But we no longer live in such an
economy. This does not mean that Republicans need to embrace a
single-payer health system or subsidized day care. But neither can
they go on automatically favoring the hypothetical needs of
tomorrow's entrepreneurs over the real needs of today's dental
hygienists and landscape gardeners. The future is now, as the late
Redskins' coach George Allen used to say. The promise that prosperity
is just one more tax cut or one more rescinded regulation away is a
rapidly depreciating rhetorical asset.
Christopher Caldwell is a contributing writer for the magazine.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism en lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Más información sobre la lista de distribución Reconquista-Popular