My Response to: "Compared to Other Rich Countries, U.S. Had Big Job Losses"

I tried to change my NYTimes moniker to "radical thinker" but somehow it reverted back to "pambrown15" - oops!  Since everyone knows who wrote the comment already, I figured I'd post it here as well...

Here's the article:

Compared to Other Rich Countries, U.S. Had Big Job Losses

Here's my comment:

It's really not surprising that this post comes via a professor at U of Chicago, the home of Milton Friedman, and the intellectual foundation of the neoliberal thinking that has caused the loss of the middle class in America, and in every country where markets have been deregulated throughout the world.

I have a feeling that most human beings would favor income without expending the energy of labor. And there are many Americans doing just this right now via investing in the stock market, where you make money not from work, but from money. Unfortunately, for most of us, we lack the money to exploit capital in this way, and are left with the crumbs.

In spite of this new American reality, this professor's "logic" makes it sound as if this fundamental problem of late capitalism doesn't matter much at all because all boats are mysteriously rising. Unfortunately, all we have to do is step outside to know that most boats are sinking.

A more thoughtful reading of the same data actually shows that we need to change the conversation in America to HOW we are going to maintain income in the midst of global challenges to the nature of work. I shutter to be called a socialist, so I want to point out that even Milton Friedman proposed consideration of "basic income", so that we can all advantage from increased productivity in spite of decreased opportunities to exchange labor time for capital.

We can thank the technology we love for the breakdown of the relationship between labor and capital. Participation on blogs such as this is exploited by the New York Times, yet none of us is compensated. In fact, we actually pay for the pleasure. It's our act of watching TV that is exploited, yet the viewer is not paid.

It seems only fair that this form of "work" should be accounted for somehow. In this light, it seems to me that the professor's basic point that it's both desirable and possible to maintain income without working is true. But the question of "how" is one of having the courage to examine all of the facts, let go of the assumptions of ideological thinking, and fundamentally change our policies.