You combine what is, in effect, a zero-sum economic model (where someone else's success comes at a cost to you--and which is both archaic and wrong) and pushing the "explanation" for the lessened opportunities and lower pay and worse working conditions off onto those Other People (rather than corporate practices and policies).
The changes in technology since the 70s have been transformative (in a major way) for the economy--and particularly in the area of what were once high paying, secure jobs.
To remain competitive (employed) you had to be willing and able to up your game through education/re-education and to work outside of "traditional" areas (cultural and gender-role/employment flexibility).
It is usually easier to blame the Other than to change--particularly when the rich and powerful are ready to help you do it and are not ready to foot the bill to help you change.
The shift to a global economy and structure hurt the existing work structure--but, at the same time, it made a lot of things cheaper and more accessible than if they were made here. As in most changes, there were ups and downs (think of the shift from animal travel to internal combustion--new paths were opened, new jobs, etc... but a lot of old ones disappeared or changed).
The current shift is more profound in that it requires more change on the part of workers--more education and training. Different ways and types of work. Moreso than in the past.
Attempts to ameliorate this change and adapt/adjust were effectively hamstrung by the people who were profiting from it... and who pushed a series of narratives that were actually inimical to the interests of those caught up in the change, but which provided a simplistic explanation that meshed well with existing beliefs and prejudices.
In other words, the Moneyed Masters of the Universe played them by arousing their bigotry and resentments to their own detriment.
Yes.
You combine what is, in effect, a zero-sum economic model (where someone else's success comes at a cost to you--and which is both archaic and wrong) and pushing the "explanation" for the lessened opportunities and lower pay and worse working conditions off onto those Other People (rather than corporate practices and policies).
The changes in technology since the 70s have been transformative (in a major way) for the economy--and particularly in the area of what were once high paying, secure jobs.
To remain competitive (employed) you had to be willing and able to up your game through education/re-education and to work outside of "traditional" areas (cultural and gender-role/employment flexibility).
It is usually easier to blame the Other than to change--particularly when the rich and powerful are ready to help you do it and are not ready to foot the bill to help you change.
The shift to a global economy and structure hurt the existing work structure--but, at the same time, it made a lot of things cheaper and more accessible than if they were made here. As in most changes, there were ups and downs (think of the shift from animal travel to internal combustion--new paths were opened, new jobs, etc... but a lot of old ones disappeared or changed).
The current shift is more profound in that it requires more change on the part of workers--more education and training. Different ways and types of work. Moreso than in the past.
Attempts to ameliorate this change and adapt/adjust were effectively hamstrung by the people who were profiting from it... and who pushed a series of narratives that were actually inimical to the interests of those caught up in the change, but which provided a simplistic explanation that meshed well with existing beliefs and prejudices.
Well said.