Mad monk musing

I am, in fact, now gainfully underemployed. Until I feel satisfied that we can care for a sufficient number of our needs with the product of our labor, I will continue to write Unemployment Blues.

:.:.:

Ever had a rejection by e-mail? How about by phone? Why does the former feel like you've suddenly gone from a relateable human being to this turd at the employer's doorstep? 

Famous in Russian literary history, the quote goes, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." The quote speaks the pure, unadulterated economic truth that scarcity dictates percieved value. Humans conceive horror when it is individualistic, painted with strokes that highlight its contours, and framed exclusively. There is no such thing as a ubiquitous tragedy because the trauma strikes at our senses so powerfully and constantly that our nervous systems fail.

Parasitic wealth inequality is our generation's most direct tragedy. And unemployment is a symptom of this tragedy that constantly buffets the masses into slumber.

Our society's nerves are shocked. Citizens have become numb to the acute pains and do not question their relationship to the health of our society. Perhaps it should be no surprise that some don't question the role power relations play on wealth inequality, but they will surprise many when consumer apathy continues on and on like a self-cannibalistic march to the sea. This is the extent of the market disequilbrium promoted by the 1% for the 1%.

Individually, I think we are psychologically built to deprioritize the trauma of unemployment. My motivation may be waning, but it is crucial that I keep up with appearances. So how does one weary from several months of being pushed into new direction, judged by employers one doesn't remember contacting, for tasks one may well have no experience attempting, remain confident and strong?

Amusements of the senses are the key to our class unconsciousness. Drained, it's easier to consume narratives rather than make our own derivations. Entertainment, we are taught, ought to come without discontent if we are to maintain our sanity in these unsettling days. Perhaps this is true, but it is probably also true that following that premise to its natural outcome has led us here.

Stop with the arbitrary tests.

 Just go ahead and don't employ me. Stop with the consoling words. Stop with the snail mail (maybe you could expand payroll expenses with the accrued savings). You can keep me in your database, refer me to some openings you know of with competing or cooperating firms, or tell me what I actually did wrong. 

But for god's sake, don't you fucking dare flatter me again.

If you're part of the ranks of the young unemployed, there are three things you might want to understand about our condition.

Long term unemployment can often come at the cost of future lines of credit.

There's a good chance that, even if you get employed, you won't ever have things as financially secure as your parents.

But you are not alone.

There are several key implications to draw from these conditions. With savings deferred come dreams deferred. It's probable that the slump in employment will come at the cost of even greater wealth inequalities in the future as the wealthy and connected get experience and go up the ladder while the plebes are forced to subsist.

Furthermore, I think that conservative pundits who believe savings dictate a certain investment into political causes are right on one level. Life without savings may skew our generation's priorities towards the short-term. Financial triage means telling debtors to fuck off in the face of the decision to give up tools for the job hunt, such as geography, independence, or an on-going education.  In a world without savings, we are willing to hurt our financial flexibility if it means joining the world with savings. Sometimes we are even willing to do this when the job procured is not assuring.

When this condition is extended to the aggregate population, it unsettles me, drawing on apocalyptic scenarios of a burst degree bubble, continued liquidity crisis, and further capitalist stinginess.

An on-going cat fight between the warring identities in the Pacific Northwest.

When you are finally hired, it feels like you a student who has plucked the best pumpkin in the field. A lot of patience and hard work goes into the job hunt, and the quality of the outcome is immediately apparent. There is an evident connection between your work and the rewards you reap. Like a student plucking a good pumpkin, your skills are acclaimed and reinforced for you through due compensation.

An on-going series of laments. It starts now, but it may well have started 76 days ago.

Hypothesis:

When you interview,

If you are fully qualified for the position, you will interview badly.

If you are not qualified for the position, you will interview FANTASTICALLY well.

If you pass the interview, there's a second interview. And while they won't assure you as such, you will not interview well this time.

Hypothesis:

The best, most human potential employers will never hire you, but will be decent enough to let you know that you aren't worthy

The worst, least human potential employers may hire you, but they won't ever let you know whether you're qualified or not.

Hypothesis:

If there's no way you are not qualified for an entry level job, then the employer will probably terminate the job search without hiring. 

If there's a possibility that you are qualified for an entry level job, it will still require experience.

If you cannot possibly be qualified for an entry level job, that's cool, the employer already hired his or her unqualified cousin for the position.

Hypothesis:

Job candidates have less complete information about finances of area firms, more complete information about the local job market.

Employers have less complete information about the local job market, more complete information about finances of area firms.

Joseph Conrad wrote not more than half a decade ago that “the air of the New World seems favorable to the art of declamation”.

Such a quote is suitable for describing the nation in light of events most disingenuous to the sort labor represented by the UK based Trade Union Congress at the turn of the century. It is especially peculiar given opposite circumstances exist domestically. What, could one suppose,  be the conditions and how did they manifest? Could the US branch of the TUC have anything to learn from American labor, or are my previous statements regarding our immutable position substantiated?

First, it is appropriate to comment upon the constituents of this study: who exactly did TUC representatives survey, and why could such a population interviewed by the gazetteer be considered a diverse opinion, accurately portraying labor in the US?  

At the American Federation of Labor headquarters, a particular survey was able to get the opinion of an official not only in the Federation, but was referred to an ex-member of the Knights of Labor. Additionally, we were able to contact a prominent state representative from New England, and a circuit court judge specializing in public law. Finally, the study concluded with statements prepared by a journeyman printer and a first generation Polish foundry worker. Naturally, such a melting pot (exemplary of the United States) represents a visage of labor politics in the country with a dichotomous heterogeneity that covers all arguments: AFL and Knights of Labor’; legislative and judicial; unskilled and skilled respectively. Distilling these broad issues into a consensus is a difficult task, but quite possible if one remembers the goals at hand. Our brave volunteers sojourned forth with the intention of finding the agenda of each of the three, concentrating on explaining whether the particular groups were disenfranchised.

Arriving at the AFL office, the disparate situation became abundantly clear. As the unrivaled dominant union organization in the United States, it has unmatched resources capable of affecting politics as a boon to workers everywhere. Instead of achieving this, however, the organization remains entrenched in a philosophy of exclusion. The AFL is undoubtedly run by plutocrats for the benefit of the well-to-do skilled labors, a so-called “labor aristocracy”.

Lack of advocacy for broad benefits for laborers and politicization in regard to pro-labor legislation can be attributed to the tradition of voluntarism in the country, so claims master Cigarmaker Adolph Strasser. The people want to approach the crisis of labor representation without relying upon the state, using practicality as a pretense to abandon sweeping reform. “You can’t pass an eight hour day without changing the Constitution,” claims Strasser, “I am opposed to wasting our time declaring for legislation being enacted for a time after we are all dead.”.

Formerly rivaling the AFL were the Knights of Labor, a group much less driven by realpolitik, and more disposed to engage in basic strategies political in nature. In opposition to the goals of the AFL, the Knights wanted nothing short of the toppling of corporate tyranny for the sake of legislative reform5. Contravening the AFL’s current plan of action, the Knights were determined to utilize the ballot in order to achieve their goals, currying the favor of local politicians to elect pro-labor officials.

Unfortunately, this tactic proved to have an effectiveness tempered by judicial action. Today, the Knights have disassociated. This was explained to our visiting scholars by the despondent former member: reform by legislation in this manner had died, nullified by the despotic supreme court justices. Finally, it is notable to note that this was the time that the inclusive mobilization of the Knights disintegrated into the AFL, an organization focused upon craft unionists under the auspices of Strasser and ilk.

The state representative was most agreeable with the tenets of the labor cause. It would seem that he constituted an example of the arduous work done by the Knights in voicing their pro-labor values. Passing legislation that allowed collective action was in the best interest of the man, as the public masses had demonstrated. His colleagues in the the House and Senate agreed congenially, and it does not require a keen eye to detect the amount of statutes passed within the previous twenty years alone that have ensured trade union rights. Radical reform fit the demands of popular interest, and as the legislator demonstrated, attempted to pass bills in order to change the system-at-large.

Meeting with the judge provided a foil to the debate, suitable for understanding the harsh reality of the final outcome of legislation in recent past. Rather than being motivated by the demands of the voting public, judges as per the one interviewed preferred to act in line with the more broad sentiments of the time: pursuing a Liberal agenda kind on business for the sake of national economic interests. Class consciousness at this time was seen as merely an irritant to the larger public interests of the country. Thus, the judges voted in such a way to favor big business, in order to make them more competitive in what appears to be an intensifying set of international rivalries: certainly, the little men could swallow a bitter pill for the sake of the whole of the nation.

Operating under this view of American Exceptionalism, judges such as the noted William H Taft struck down all legislation with impunity, ending all immediate hopes for allowing basic labor representation and collective action. Therefore, it can be concluded for the moment that this was the integral branch of US government that ensured the disenfranchisement of labor

Interviewing the journeyman printer allowed for a bit of hope despite apprehension about the state of affairs in the face of continual court losses. With the help of the AFL, skilled laborers such as he could find solace in his representation, even if it remains an informal, illegal one at the moment. Strong evidence exists that beyond the courts and capitol, workers affiliated with the AFL are slowly gaining ground. Workers must rely on cutting deals with employers in this informal arena, but one can only hope that with enough practice this de facto set of operating norms become codified9.

In contrast is the immigrant worker, forced to the drudgery of the steel foundry. Without representation, due to his lowly status and lack of resources, this population is truly alienated. The state exists to accommodate all, and with the death of the Knights of Labor, these lower class workers have nowhere to turn. Market-based solutions rarely offer equal opportunity, and this is no exception, as many of these downtrodden workers can hardly find the money to pay for lodgings, let alone have the surplus necessary to be seated at the bargaining table. My former Knight colleague agrees with my assessment, adding that it has the potential of creating a labor culture unhealthy for America, where a class of men exist only to be as interchangeable as the parts running the dynamos.

Directly compared with Britain, it is difficult to believe that both countries follow similar political traditions. As mentioned before, the key matter seems to be with the American courts: as opposed to the immortal House of Lords in England, the judicial system of the USA casts a shadow upon the legislative system: the former is able to simply strike down whatever bills are drafter in the latter with the simple utterance of “unconstitutional”. Compare the words of Taft (as mentioned previously) with the final result of the Taff Vale court case. While courts killed all laws that attempted to be passed, labor gained the boon of the TUC’s Trades Disputes Bill just four years ago.

Furthermore, the direct result of the case was the creation of politicized labor movements—specifically, the Labor Representation Committee. A formal party was created, the “Great Liberal Party”. When one contrasts the lack of successes found by the Knights in attempting to form parties, even at the basic level of supporting liberal candidates who voiced their sympathy with labor, the disparity between our two nations is startling. An example of this is in the scope of industry standards towards workplace regulations. Britain is aplomb with factory inspectors, boasting the praise of critics as acerbic as Karl Marx himself, and as a whole is far for hospitable towards the common laborers.

Circumstances are different between our two countries. Working men across Britain today are winning a battle in the face of stubborn feudal lords, whereas our compatriots in the USA are entrenched, forced to rely on market solutions to find flexibility with their employers. This signifies a country laden with workshops inhospitable towards the unskilled, the poor, the unaffiliated.

Such inequality is not to blame on inaction, rather it is explained by mostly upon the structural nature of politics in America. The judicial system in the US is strong enough to fend off a legislature frothing with a popular mandate to lift up the downtrodden worker.

Yet, this drive in itself is a function of our times,  where laissez-faire economics are the industry norm, and the primary goal of governments is to ensure the economic security of its constituents (that is to say, its most powerful constituents).

While one may be inclined to favor our circumstances in the pursuit of an system ideal to the cause of labor, this is not completely true. The US may be lacking in facility in regards to the entirety of the working poor, but the skilled are still able to find solace with representation by the AFL, who can act in the marketplace in the place of the political arena. Defining “better representation” as more equal one will assuredly find our environment to be more suitable.