Work and the Economy
The articles for today touched on several aspects of the labor market, including how employers create competition, effects of education and training levels, as well as comparing the work of today to work of the past. Beth A. Rubin dubs these times the Accord era and the post-Accord era, or the Stable vs. the Flexible workplace. Rubin highlights the Stable workplace, which I’d say we all, at least to some degree, view as the “good ol’ days�. During this time, employers created stability, and employees stayed with companies for year and years and worked their way up, planning their retirement all the way through. This was a time that even those without higher education could start at an entry level position, and end up head of the company down the road. This was beneficial for both sides of the coin, and there was loyalty within companies for the most part.
As for the Flexible workplace, she argues partly that much of the changes have resulted from technologies, as well as just the change in structure of competition. This arguably came about when companies started focusing on productivity, and the getting the “best bang for your buck� attitude. This is often looked upon negatively, but I argue (to an extent) that it was also the logical and necessary route for companies in a growing country to succeed. This change resulted in many types of competition, but our readings identify 2- wage and vacancy, which Rubin considers slightly (more in terms of closed and open hiring) as well as Sorensen and Kalleburg in our Grusky readings.
In Grusky we looked at these competition differences. Wage competition (Neo-classical Theory) is generally related to skill level of employees, and that (in theory) directly transfers to salary and compensation. This would relate to more often to a company with open hiring. Vacancy competition more relates to the “moving up� ideal. Generally these jobs still require a certain amount training/education, but the concept is that when skills increase and when vacancies are available, one is then able to move up the ladder.
We also looked at the effects of strong vs. weak ties in Mark S. Granovetter’s article. This relates to how job openings travel by word of mouth. We all know the saying “It’s who you know, not what you know�, and this is it. So many positions are filled not necessarily from within, but with this notion of weak ties, and how many of them one has. Eric mentioned in class that a very high percentage of jobs are not posted or listed anywhere, rather simply by these ties.
In terms of the inequality that exists in the U.S., I think it’s very important to note that all of these aspects accumulate to create the gap that we have now. The lack of education or training for minorities or those in poverty, a lack of these weak ties between working class looking to move up, and those in the upper class, as well as the changes in the structure of the workplace as a whole.
Discussion Questions-
1. In what ways do the arguments and theories in Rubin’s article differ from those in the Sorensen/Kallerberg article?
2. Do you feel these changes in the workplace have the outcomes that these authors suggest?
3. What are other options for people in positions lacking these necessary weak ties? What are other possible effects?