Changing Contours of Work. Stephen Sweet
In this first chapter, we focused on the ways that sociological perspectives reshape the consideration of work. Our goal was simply to highlight the observation that a new economy does exist and that understanding it requires that we examine changes in culture and social structure, as well as consider how individuals and groups respond to those changes (agency). Although work is commonly considered a means to obtain a paycheck, we argue that it is much more than that. The design of work corresponds with cultural templates that guide workers to their jobs and script social roles. Workers live within social structures that allocate opportunities and construct barriers that block access to meaningful employment. And within these contexts, workers have responded both individually and collectively to manage their responsibilities and reshape society.
The stresses experienced by workers like Meg, Tammy, Emily, Rain, Kavita, and Mike are probably familiar to readers of this book. Because of the instability of jobs, changing opportunity structures, the challenges of meshing work with family, and the challenges of finding good work, many workers find themselves struggling in the new economy. One of the great contributions of sociology is its capacity to reframe these types of personal problems as being public issues (Mills 1959). In the chapters that follow, we consider the extent to which work opportunities are changing, as well as the impact these changes have on lives on and off the job. Our focus, throughout, is on identifying stress points, opportunity gaps, the ways in which workers adapt to these strains, and what can be done to close the chasms that separate workers from fulfilling jobs and reasonable conditions of employment.
Notes
1 Of course, these are not the only phrases used. Others use the term Fordism to describe the old economy, and depending on the political slant of the analysis, post-Fordism and flexible specialization are used to describe the new economy, as are knowledge economy, global economy, and postindustrial economy.
2 It is worth emphasizing that describing hunting and gathering societies as “poor” is misleading. Though they lack the variety of possessions contemporary Americans enjoy, their members often live healthy and fulfilling lives.
3 Authors’ analysis of the General Social Survey. Retrieved from the General Social Survey website at www3.norc.org/GSS+Website.
4 Approximately one-third of American families rent their homes, one-quarter live at or near the poverty level, and nearly one-half will experience divorce. These facts are seldom represented in television’s portrayals of the “typical” American family.
5 American men now live, on average, to be seventy-six years old, and American women have a life expectancy of eighty-one years.
Chapter 2 New Products, New Ways of Working, and the New Economy
One of the most popular themes in discussions of work is the idea that recent changes in work constitute the equivalent of a second industrial revolution. Consider, for example, the impact computers have had on the ways jobs are performed and designed. Computers enable workers to correspond at great distances, telecommute from home, and access a wide array of information. These “smart machines” have absorbed many workers’ jobs and replaced human hands with robotic pincers that move with exacting precision. Computers also have spawned new markets for software and hardware, creating new jobs requiring new skills. Their reach spans the world, enabling near-instantaneous transmission of information, as well as the coordination of complex trade relationships that link companies with one another in global webs. It is hard not to conclude that computers have sparked revolutionary changes—not only in what is being produced and how jobs are designed, but also in the geographic distribution of work. What impact do these types of changes have on current and future generations of workers?
The use of the concept of a “new economy” (or alternate terms such as global economy) is widely accepted as a shorthand way of saying that work today is remarkably different than it was in the recent past. But in this chapter, we open this assumption to debate. If there is a new economy, what are its distinguishing characteristics? We argue that jobs have changed in profound ways. There are new technologies, organizational designs, industries, and markets. The economy has become increasingly international. These changes have introduced the need to develop new skills to fit changing opportunity structures. But what is equally true is that many aspects of the “old economy,” including the design of jobs to require limited skill, have either survived or been reproduced in new forms. After all, for every successful computer programmer who works at a company like Microsoft, one can find three poorly paid workers laboring on hamburger assembly lines at companies like McDonald’s.1 Understanding the new, the old, and the old in the new is the key to understanding the diverse needs and experiences of today’s workforce.
In this chapter, we consider some of the major changes said to characterize work in the new economy, including the decline of mass production and manufacturing work, new skill requirements, the impact of new technologies, the emergence of new cultures of control, the gradual decline of organized labor, the rise of flexible work arrangements, and globalization. In each case, we argue that there have been significant changes but also that there are persistent features that reflect the perpetuation of the old economy within the new.
A Postindustrial Society?
One of the earliest forecasts of an emergent new economy came from sociologist Daniel Bell (1973), who argued in the early 1970s that America was entering a “postindustrial” era, in which the manufacturing-centered economy of the past was being replaced by an economy directed toward the provision of services. Bell was among the first to note something that subsequently became obvious to most Americans, particularly those located in the so-called rust belt of the industrial Midwest—employment opportunities had shifted away from manufacturing to other sectors of the economy.
Exhibit 2.1 shows that in 1940 the number of employees working in the manufacturing sector in America was more than double that in any other sector of the economy, accounting for over one-third of all employment. Until 1989, the manufacturing sector remained the largest employment sector. But as the population of the United States grew during the latter part of the twentieth century, manufacturing employment did not. Today, instead of employing one in three workers, as it did in the mid-twentieth century, manufacturing enterprises employ fewer than one in ten workers.
There are various explanations for this trend. Some argue that nearly all low-skill, low-wage manufacturing work is being funneled to developing economies, while the advanced economy of the United States focuses on knowledge work and services (Fröbel, Heinrichs, and Kreye 1982). However, it is also possible to argue that this simply reflects something “old”—the continued effort of employers to find the least expensive ways to produce goods (Cowie 2001). From this point of view, manufacturing remains central to the economy; however, it now takes place on a global scale, rather than on a national one. Yet another interpretation emphasizes that the United States is unusual—the decline of manufacturing employment is more pronounced here than elsewhere. Rather than reflecting a long-term, general trend away from manufacturing, the U.S. pattern may reflect a choice by American employers to seek low-wage sites for manufacturing rather than invest more heavily in improving techniques at home (Appelbaum and Batt 1992). It may also reflect domestic economic policy choices favoring a strong U.S. dollar and the U.S. government’s tolerance of policies in countries such as China, which keep their currencies artificially low. Such policies hurt U.S. manufacturing exports and make imported goods cheaper, resulting in stagnant or declining manufacturing employment in the United States (Scott 2015). All of these processes have played a role in shaping opportunity in the new economy.
Exhibit 2.1 Trends in Employment in Twelve Major Sectors: United States, 1940–2017
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The number of manufacturing jobs has declined in the United States and other economically advanced countries, but should we conclude that we are