fAlbert has 10 post(s)

In Sasika Sassen’s “Strategic Instantiations of Gendering”, the author argues about “information outputs” that are missing from today’s dominant global economy. She states that media and policies surrounding the global economy in respect to women suggest that the highly educated professional is the only driving factor of the global workforce. She continues to argue that the contribution and marginalization of immigrant women are key factors to the growth of the global economy but usually go unnoticed in today’s world. In other words, the recognition of hypermobility and capital gain in the world economy is credited to the high wage, highly educated worker, and does not consider the low wage, marginalized immigrant woman worker. The article argues that the overlooked immigrant woman worker is one of the major factors in the gains of the global market and should be recognized as a driving force.

Sassen continues to argue that the global economy’s growth was dependent on producing a labor force of low wage women workers which focused on “first world” women’s domestic roles. Some of these domestic roles included industries such as nannies, maids, nurses and prostitution. The author argues that global cities in the U.S. and across the world contributed to the process of creating these industries and not recognizing the growth in global capital because of them. As these specific roles were being created for capital, the demand for these industries were on high and became highly profitable. These methods are seen across the world but are often not recognized as part of the dominant factor of the global economy.

When we tend to look at how the creation of a labor force happens in our global markets, in my opinion, one thing is clear: the exploitation of specific groups is a constant factor on how to gain capital. I think of how the era of slavery in the U.S. used African Americans as the driving force to its economy and profited heavily on the work of slaves. In this article, we tend to see amazing similarities on how lowly paid women workers and immigrants are exploited in given service areas to help global economies get richer and bigger. The hardest part to understand is that women and immigrants in these industrialized complexes are contained in a system that does not given them an opportunity to grow and build wealth as the ones who exploit them. They are continuously marginalized, discriminated and exploited for the almighty dollar and not recognized as the major element of global economic growth. In order to begin a system to deal with this issue, we must begin to expose the conversation and demand opportunities of equity amongst all. We must look at global cities where these systematic practices and policies exploit women and immigrants, and construct definitive action and conversations to promote change.

In today’s world, the words racism, discrimination and inequality have a direct impact in our daily lives. We see it every day in the media, in education and even in the workforce. Racism and discrimination take on various shapes and form in the realm of work. While we have studied many arguments that have shown the differences of wage and work in our modern society, this week’s readings take us to another level of inequality which has contributed to the prevention of upward mobility for specific groups of people today. These articles talk about the impact of racism and discrimination in the realm of work and how the inequality creates a disadvantage to people of color living in the U.S. today.

In the article by Pager and Sheppard, they begin to unravel the complexity of racial discrimination in the realm of wealth through employment, housing and finance markets as well as provide a system of measurement to see the disparity in each. Through some case studies, the article also presents the different types of discrimination that are embedded in each area of wealth. The article defines the idea of individual, organizational and structural discrimination that are embedded in the four areas of wealth discussed in the article. The authors provide hard data that give the overall impact of how discrimination can influence people of color today.

The other article, “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap…” takes a focused look into wealth inequality today between whites and blacks as well as the factors that contribute to it. The authors argue that elements such as home ownership, income levels, education and accessibility to economic gain directly impact wealth between whites and blacks. The article also argues how these inequalities are created by a combination of individual-cultural choices and institutional policies and practices pre-and post-Civil Rights movement. The studies in the article show how the inequality in the areas of gaining wealth create disadvantages and unequal opportunities for people of color today.

Throughout our semester, the element of inequality has lingered in many ways. We have seen how the relationships between workers and employers affect production and entertain different perspectives of how work should be handled. We discussed how the philosophy of earning wages can be seen differently between worker and employer. Even in our discussion on the idea of capitalism and how the “true spirit of capitalism” might be in some but not all. Point is, inequality exists in many of these arguments but when we see that some of these in-differences are embedded in exposing people’s race, religion, sexual orientation and color of their skin, it is hard to form a constructive argument. The marginalization of people because of race and discrimination is founded in the realm of hate. No constructive argument can be formed when hate is a factor. What these articles did do well was exposed the tangible evidence and possible solutions to combat the inequalities in wealth and work. But to begin to address the issues of race and discrimination, hate must be conquered among people today. It must begin with people themselves.

The benefit author Barbara Ehrenreich obtains as described in her book Nickel and Dimed is not one that is measured by charts and graphs, but by experiencing the relationship and struggle people have with low wage earnings and how they maintain their everyday lives. In her book, Ehrenreich decides to shed her current “work life” as a writer and scholar, and become one of the low wage working class. The author sets to obtain low paying jobs with little to no experience and obtain housing throughout her experiment. She has also set some guidelines for herself in which she strips down her skills and experience, she must take the highest paying low wage jobs and take the cheapest rent option when seeking where to live. Ehrenreich states that she does go into this experiment with some advantage, but she is not dismissing the disadvantages the majority of low wage workers in America experience. While she provides herself some necessities such as a car and not subjecting herself to homelessness or hunger, her journey to experience life as a low wage earner in this society presents itself to be a difficult one.

In the second chapter Scrubbing in Maine, Ehrenreich decides to conduct her experiment in an environment where her “whiteness” is common among the masses. She, who is a white woman, argues that she chooses this environment so that she can get into the low wage workforce with very little involvement of race and prejudices. She stays at a motel while she secures employment and simultaneously tries to find a place to live. She obtains two jobs in Maine; one as a dietary aide in a nursing home on weekends and one as a house cleaner at a home cleaning service. She also obtains housing that can be sustained with her earning wage, but we quickly discover that making ends meet becomes a challenge. We also quickly discover that her relationship to work is one that subjects her to adjust things such as what she eats, her health and how she relates with her co-workers. It is an environment that ultimately tells the tale of how low wage earnings and high stress jobs do not fulfill even the basics of living everyday life.

I truly believe that the goal of Ehrenreich immersing herself into this experiment is one that was necessary. While we can easily use numbers and others stories to measure results easily, the overall experience she demonstrates in the pieces shows the human connection along with the difficulties and sacrifices one has to go through on a day to day when earning low wages. It is within those experiences that we tend to discover the relationship one has to work and life. Where human beings struggle to make ends meet in a society that asks so much in return as far as wages are concerned, it is proof positive that the value one equates to the level of work one does is not balanced in any way.

When it comes to the idea of work ethic, some may question the value of work and its relationship to ones’ self. I believe that when one thinks of what work ethic should consist of, one should entertain the elements of human life and the fulfillment of work from their own personal values. In other words, the meaning you put behind your work should be one that helps you feel accomplished with the personal values in your life. In Terkel’s piece, I believe this is the point that he makes. No matter how industrious, physical or mundane one’s job can be, Terkel argues that one should look into the idea of how work is meaningful to ones’ self. Once a person finds meaning behind one’s work, Terkel believes that one finds their touch with reality.

He also brings argues the point that once one accepts the idea that work is meaningful, people connect to the “human matters” of jobs. Through various stories and experiences he uses in his writing, he captures the back and forth struggle workers have with their jobs by accomplishing mundane tasks. He continues to argue that while these tasks embody what work contains, the way humans connect to them bring a reality to the work. One quote he uses that I enjoyed and best describes his argument is one that summarizes the overall idea of how work connects to human matters. “Most of us…have jobs that are too small for our spirit. Jobs are not big enough for people.” (1972 xxix) I believe this quote captures the meaning that jobs can never satisfy the human spirit, but it is the human spirit that turns jobs into meaningful work.

In my own experience, I try to distinguish the same principles discussed in the article in my own philosophy of work and life. I believe work is based off one’s core principles and values. In my definition, work embodies the effort one makes in order to fulfill what is required to live and feel accomplished. Jobs are just the medium to find meaningful work. One finds various jobs that are filled with tasks that assist in finding that connection to one’s human reality of feeling fulfillment in their work. From the point they find fulfillment, then the work becomes meaningful and substantive in more ways than a paycheck. That is what brings the human reality into it. When work transforms itself from jobs and into careers that develop human life for one’s self and others.

In relation to the articles we read about the relationship between work and education, it can be argued that one’s ability to earn higher wages can be sought through one’s attainment of higher levels in education. It can also be said that a person who obtains higher form of education are less likely to fall into unemployment. We tend to see that higher forms of education attract higher salaries to those who can complete them. People normally enroll into higher education systems in order to obtain good paying jobs and earn decent living salaries. While higher education can equate to decent paying jobs, the guarantee is not always the case.

In our other reading by Cottom, we tend to see that higher education does not necessarily secure employment of a salary which may associate with the degree earned. The author argues that our administration has not done enough to assist obtain employment to those who earn their level of higher education. In fact, in the Fain article, those who have received their degrees come out of colleges more in debt. The Fain article argues that for profit colleges are much more interested in gaining profit from students than anything else. Cotom continues to argue that colleges along with our administration should guarantee federal job security for those who obtain their college degrees in order to obtain a livable wage. Also, Cottom continues to suggest that the current administration should speak to advocating for massive job programing in order to simulate higher education rather than vice versa. It is a concept he believes will balance the obtainment of education and give graduates the ability to secure employment with livable wage.

In the Sadduyat Island piece, we tend to see a disparity between what is stated in the agreement and construction of these educational institutions to the workers and what is actually being done. These high renowned institutions are not valuing the promises made to their workers, which they bring from all over the world and provided them the minimum provisions. Low wages, under par living conditions and even unsafe work environments are the reality of the workers of these institutions while these industries thrive in the profits of the worker sacrifice. We can connect this piece to the for-profit colleges of the U.S. due to the simple fact that these institutions promise for a better brighter future without providing in the long run. It can be argued that both the for profit colleges and the Sadduyat Island construction are profiting at the expense of building promises and hopes but not securing the individuals who they propose to give a successful future and career.

Taylor’s “The Principles of Scientific Management” begins to explore the methods used in creating an industry of workers that are used to build efficiency in the workforce. Taylor’s argument states that the nation’s industry has been inefficient due to the lack of management and growth of the worker. He expresses that a worker’s daily acts when not properly managed wastes the materials (and production) that create a strong industry. He believes that “systemic management” alleviates the lack of efficient industries and builds a strong workforce. In other words, this style of management should result in employer’s maximizing profitability and employee’s increasing their prosperity in all aspects, not just in monies.

Taylor mentions that the difficulties in achieving these goals for both employer and employee is the perception that each side does not believe that they can mutually attain their perspective goals. “Scientific Management” addresses this conflict and argues that both sides are actually one in the same. The main idea of scientific management is that the employer cannot see true success unless the employee prospers through the rewards of his labor, and vice versa. Both employer and employee through scientific management can prosper if they choose to mutually agree to benefit from each other. It is only then when both agree that you will see the highest grade of efficiency in labor and product.

Taylor mentions that one of the problems with achieving maximum efficiency in the workplace is defined in the term “Underworking” or “soldering”. He defines “soldiering” as minimum work effort produced or the smallest amount of effort in work by employee or employer which causes the lack of production. He attributes this to be common in the workforce due to three causes. One, if a man is able to be highly productive in his work, that he would eliminate others from obtaining work. Two, Bad management. And three, using the “rule of thumb” to maximize work effort. The combination of both “soldiering” and its’ three causes are what Taylor argues why maximum efficiency cannot be achieved. The elimination of “soldiering” and its’ causes according to Taylor should double production from both employer and employee. It is only until when it is eliminated that the theory of scientific management can be successful and both worker and employer can achieve mutual gains in the workforce.

I believe that the mutual agreement of both worker and employer sounds great and beneficial. In theory, it does sound perfect but I do not think that it would be able to co-exist in a capitalistic society. As long as the threat of competition exists and the gain of capital is the primary function of either the worker or the employer, the two forces cannot coexist. In the case of the market in this country, the top 1% would have to be willing to sacrifice its’ profits in order to balance the equation in Taylor’s theory. I hate to be the pessimist, but it sounds like a wonderful dream that cannot be turned into a reality during our life time.

Karl Marx begins to define what wages are in this weeks’ piece. Marx describes the relationship between wages and labor in the ideals of work; as well as how the market depends on its relationship. He begins to identify that wages are monies paid by capitalists to people who provide labor. The monies paid to the laborers are in relationship to the amount of work done or the amount of time to complete the work. Therefore, Marx argues that capitalist buy labor power by the amount of time spent on work. In other words, time is what capitalist buy. They buy the time that laborers provide in the realm of work. He calls the time that workers provide as labor power and informs us that this is the commodity that capitalists are interested in. As he states in his piece, Marx describes that the term “wages” is just a special name for the price of labor.

Paying laborers for their time according to Marx is the way capitalist tend to spread the use of their commodities. In other words, when workers are paid for their time, capitalist can use that time paid to have workers work in other areas or on other products capitalist produce. In this ideal, capitalist maximize the overall use of their commodities with time paid to workers. Within the context of time for example, you can have a worker work on 3-4 tasks rather than have them work on 1 given task for a set amount of time. Marx names this the exchange value of labor. The commodity that is produced then has a price attached to it. The price is usually the money that is exchanged for the exchange value of labor. So in summary, Workers sell their time, to work on products for employers and not gain profit or capital for this.

Interestingly enough, Marx argues that a worker’s commodity is his labor. He states that workers sell their labor throughout their life in order to live. He also states that the laborer should know that his labor represents wages. He manages to provide his ability to work in order to obtain all the necessities to live by way of earning wages. This relationship to life becomes one that depends on wages in order to live.

After reading this piece by Marx, I tend to think of how time is such a factor in the ability to earn wages. Today, we see it constructed in our own labor laws and policies. The terms part-time, full-time, temporary and salary are all based on the time in which wages are dispensed. None are determined by production, only time. I wonder what would happen if laborers were paid for the amount of production they produce over time? If we workers would gain some financial ground if time was not the only determining factor of wage. I guess we would all then be capitalist. Interesting.

During our conversations in class, we had a discussion that related to this weeks’ reading. One of the comments made during that conversation was in relation to creating a workforce of “doers” and “thinkers”. “Doers” representing the workers who provide manual labor and/or create thing with their hands. “Thinkers” being represented by the workers who use more of the intangible elements of labor that do not require maximum physical effort. In Braverman’s “The Making of the U.S. Working Class” we tend to dive a bit deeper into this discussion and analyze the development of the workforce in the U.S. and the authors’ perspective on how it works.

It was interesting but not surprising to understand how the workforce is technically divided into categories and then sub categories.  The understanding being that while the working class is broken down into categories of sex, region and race, the underlying goal is to separate them into one of 2 categories. the “employers” and the “employees”. In order for this to work within our society, the workforce has to be created in the fashion that the employers provide the materials and goods, while the employees provide the manual labor that produce the product. He also mentions how not introducing education to the masses of laborers solidifies the separation of these classes and keeps the rich richer, and the work to the side of the laborers.

According to Baverman, the idea of capitalism is the reasoning why these two categories exist. He argues that the goal of producing labor and creating the workforce is to gain capital. The creation of a labor workforce is to maintain employer’s production of capital. As I read into the article, I argue that employees do not reap the benefits of capital but are conditioned to understand that labor is the basis of their work ethic and survival. He uses our history here in the U.S. and slavery to help us understand this ideal as slaves were used as free labor and the land owners benefited through their production.

It just seems interesting to me how the idea of capitalism and the creation of working classes seems to always end in how society benefits from the struggles of others. We tend to see in this article that the privileged, who have access to resources, property and capital still grow off the sweat and tears of the individuals who breaks their backs to survive. Leaves me to wonder if there will ever be a shift in the construction of the working class in the near future.

In the second chapter of Weber’s book “The Spirit of Capitalism”, he uses Benjamin Franklin’s quote to set the tone of his argument and define capitalism. In the quote, capitalism is basically explained in various contexts; time is money, credit is money, money can beget money, money is earned, spent and can grow. Interestingly enough, Weber states that Franklin believed these ideals represent the spirit of capitalism and tied into the virtues of man. He goes to explain that these virtues of man such as honesty, punctuality, moral responsibility, can earn money and credit. Through his virtue and attitude, man can gain capital and increase his way into the world. Weber basically states that Franklin believed that man’s attitude and virtue was the base of capitalism and his ability to earn money.

The idea of greed and want for material things is also one of man’s virtues, according to Weber. In the true spirit of capitalism, Weber explains that man is dominated by the idea of making money and is not satisfied with the simplicity of Franklin’s version of capitalism. He goes on to mention that man’s need for economic acquisition becomes one of the major purposes of his life; not just mere virtue. In other words, man’s earning power and gain of material possessions is tied into their professional activity by any means. The way I am to understand capitalism through this reading is the way it exists today. Survival of the fittest through the power of earning capability; not through virtue or religion as in our previous readings.

When I think of this reading, it reminds me of the discussion in our last class. The question that was proposed for discussion was “If you had to choose between Happiness or Wealth, which would you choose?” In the context of this article, it seems as if the clear answer to the question would be wealth. It seems that the ultimate prize to the spirit of capitalism is individual monetary wealth. It can be argued that the access to anything in life (even virtue) would happen through the access of wealth. Is this what Weber meant when he included the idea of rationalism? In my perspective, I believe he did. I basically believe Weber stated that the world has convinced itself that wealth is the means to access the best quality life. Well, in my humble opinion, I guess this is why we may be so unhappy.

I work as a Youth Program Manager at a non-profit organization in Washington Heights; Northern Manhattan improvement Corporation. My experience and career has focused in the area of workforce development. I have held positions in the field as a case manager, a facilitator, developing curriculum, program management and director. While each of these areas of experience has provided me with various perspectives of workforce development, I believe my work ethic comes from my father and his work history.

Growing up, I had known my maternal grandmother to be a childcare provider (babysitter) since she took care of me and my cousins. She cared for 8 of us to allow our parents to work; so her “work” was caring for us. I don’t know my grandfather’s work history since I did not get the chance to know him; he passed away when I was 2 years old. From what my mother tells me, he was a tailor in the Dominican Republic and by the time he came to the U.S., he had a brief work history in a factory before he passed. I also did not get to know my paternal grandmother, since she passed away giving birth to my dad. My paternal grandfather worked as a driver for a major radio station in the Dominican Republic and after Trujillo was assassinated in the 60’s, he came to the U.S. and worked in a factory.

My mother worked briefly in a factory where her brother was a foreman; she worked for about 5 years and then became a stay at home mom taking care of my sister and I. My dad worked at a printing press for over 25 years. His work history had been in factory work, but settled in the printing press where he would stay the majority of his work history. My relationship to work does come from his work ethic. Visiting him at his job instilled the ideas and principles of work. I learn that he put in hard manual labor to earn money, which paid the rent, gave us food and provided our basic everyday necessities. My father made sure I understood that this is what needed to be done in order to make money. But he also let me know that “my” job should be my education. His rational was that I should work just as hard in my studies as he did in the factory. He also let me know that my education would be essential in my life in order not to work as hard as he did. Basically, If I treated education as work, and worked hard; I would be able to provide for myself and my future.

I believe Weber’s idea of work ethic is what we know it to be today; The idea of economic growth combined with the morals and values of how we do it. It was pretty interesting to see how he used religion as a way to help the reader understand the idea of work ethic; Catholicism to represent values, ideas and beliefs of prosperity, while the Protestant perspective brought on what we know as capitalism and earning money to provide the material aspects of life. As I use my history and work experience to reflect on this idea, it fascinates me that my perception of work ethic focuses a bit more on the morals and values side than the “material gain” and economic growth. I believe this is derived from how I interpreted work ethic in my own personal work history. As I reflect, I see that my ethic of work may come from the idea of day to day survival, rather than long term economic growth. Interesting.