A Failure Of Performance Art

 

A billboard I recently saw in my city

Lately I've been reminiscing about my years in the abusive church known as the Assembly, and some of the strange teachings and practices which were pushed by this church.  The church I was involved in was modeled in many ways after the Plymouth Brethren pattern, although our head honcho denied that we were an exact copy but he insisted that we were a new and improved model.  (Note to any rabid PB's out there: A. Don't sue me.  You won't get much out of me beside two middle-aged neutered cats.  B.  Don't sue me.  There's already plenty of scathing criticism of you all - including the criticisms voiced by Garrison Keillor, former host of A Prairie Home Companion.  C. Don't sue me.  If you do, the angels of God will put a massive hurt on you on the Day of Judgment!) 

In retrospect, one of the weirder elements of our doctrine and practice had to do with our attitude toward instrumental music in our Assembly meetings.  You see, we firmly believed that in our worship, Bible study, and prayer meetings, any and all hymns sung were to be sung a cappella.  That is, they were to be sung with voices only - with no other instruments allowed.  This was because of a rigid (and frankly erroneous) interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 pushed by one of the granddaddies of Brethrenism, a certain John Nelson Darby, who believed that the presence and use of musical instruments during group worship was a sign of "worldliness".  However, we did believe in the use of musical instruments as a tool of "Gospel outreach" - that is, our attempts to evangelize (or proselytize?) the lost, also known as the "unchurched" in modern evangelical-speak.

Here things get interesting.  Before I met this group, I had been in the military, and had attended a number of live band performances at various bars near my post.  Thus I had acquired a taste for live music.  So when I encountered one of the "outreach bands" of the Assembly at a college campus, I was intrigued.  That bloody band was one of the means by which the Assembly hooked me.  But after a while in the Assembly, I discovered that although the use of instrumental music as a tool of outreach was allowed and encouraged, there was a bit of contention among the leaders and wanna-be leaders about the styles of music that were allowable in our "outreach."  So the Assembly band which I first encountered evolved gradually from 70's acoustic-tinged folk rock (think CSNY, Joni Mitchell, the Eagles before Joe Walsh, or some of the lighter offerings of Jackson Browne or James Taylor), eventually settling on what can only be described as a form of soft country rock.  The countrified phase lasted until some teens from one of the Assemblies in the Midwest formed their own hard-driving high-energy rock group.  (Think of Creed as an example of what these teens sounded like.)  They managed to achieve something that our band had lost the ability to do - namely, that they were able to get passers-by to actually stop and listen to them.  This threatened the narcissism of the long-time leader of the outreach band in my home Assembly, so he responded by amping up his band's performances and pushing his teenage kids to form their own hard-rocking outreach band.  Naturally he made his son the leader of our teen band - an example of living vicariously through one's kids - and talked of them as if they were in the same league as such well-known CCM (Contemporary Christian music) bands as Jars of Clay.

Our music-making for heathen audiences largely came to an end when the Assemblies fell apart in 2003 after the revelations of the criminal activity of our head honcho and his family.  But it is interesting to consider the message we sought to communicate through our outreach, as well as the strategic assumptions behind that message and our delivery of it.  For that message and its strategic assumptions have a parallel among many of the thought leaders in the larger realm of American evangelicalism.

The Message: 

The message we ostensibly sought to communicate was the message of the claims of Christ, namely that He is the eternal Son of God and that God gave Him on the Cross as a sacrifice for our sins so that everyone who believes in Him might be justified from sin and receive eternal life.  We preached that this justification was to be obtained by faith alone, and not by any attempts of our own to do good works.  We preached that this message demanded a response from those who heard it, and that an acceptable response had the following two elements: repentance from sin and receiving Christ as Lord.  Now I must say that although I have said strong things against white American evangelicalism, I am yet a Christian.  Moreover, I would categorize myself largely (but not entirely) as a fundamentalist.  So I have no problem with the Gospel message as I have just now summarized it.  However, I must say that that Gospel has mutated over the last few decades in American society.  (The message has always seemed to suffer from certain distortions as it passed through the lens of American culture.)  For repentance has been confined to merely giving up certain fleshly indulgences, and not to changing the way we relate to each other on a societal level, or the way we relate to money and earthly power. And actually receiving Christ as Lord - as Someone whose words we actually intend to obey - has been replaced by mere assent to "Judeo-Christian (or American) values" as defined by mainstream evangelical preachers. 

Now there are many motives for preaching this message, but in the United States, the motive among evangelicals in recent decades has been threefold, namely, to "reclaim America for God", to "reclaim Christian cultural values", and to "re-establish America as a Christian nation."  This shifting of motive from spiritual transformation to the building of secular, earthly political and cultural power for a certain privileged group is one of the prime causes of the mutation of the Gospel message over time.  

The strategy of delivery:

One of the key strategic assumptions behind our delivery of the message was first and foremost that the Word of God has intrinsic power in itself, apart from any human input.  Therefore, it is necessary only to proclaim the Word in order to fulfill the duty of preaching the Gospel, for the Word is able to do its work all by itself.  Bible verses such as Jeremiah 23:29 ("Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD ...) and Hebrews 4:12 were used as proof texts for this point of view.  (However, one danger of such a viewpoint is that it neglects those parts of the New Testament which speak of the power of a good example and proclaim that preachers of the Word need to practice what they preach!)

The outcome of this strategic assumption can be seen in the multitude of inventive means which evangelicals, fundamentalists, and similarly-minded Protestants devised for the proclamation of their message.  These means have included preaching (obviously), in churches, Gospel halls, city parks, street corners, circus tents, and other places where people congregate.  But they have also included Gospel tracts and other printed matter, bumper stickers, billboards, T-shirts, movies, music CD's (and later, MP3's), live musical performances, "inspirational" or "faith-based" fiction, and other examples of artistic expression.  The arts have especially attracted the interest of those who have sought to inject "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" cultural values into our society, as exemplified by a book written in the 1990's by Bob Briner titled Roaring Lambs.  Briner's book challenged those who call themselves Christians in the U.S. to make their mark in the arenas of moviemaking, television, other visual arts, and literature.  (Indeed, I seem to remember reading somewhere that his book was one of the inspiring influences that led to the formation of the band Jars of Clay.  But I can't find the exact reference to this, so don't quote me.)  Thus the "Christian culture industry" has received a massive boost over the years because of this focus.

Another key strategic assumption has concerned the response of the hearers of the message.  It has been assumed that if these hearers reject the message delivered, it is because of a spiritual or intellectual defect.  The assumption of a spiritual defect is too frequently made by those evangelicals or fundamentalists who are too lazy to actually get to know and understand their audience.  Thus their knee-jerk reaction is to automatically say that those who reject their message do so because "they are in spiritual darkness!" Those who assume that the rejection is due to an intellectual failure on the part of their hearers assume that the hearers are held captive by deeply formulated philosophies such as secularism, Marxism, post-modernism, or similar doctrines.  Evangelicals who assume such motives in those of their hearers who reject the evangelical message fail to realize that most people don't usually have time to think hard about various secular philosophies in detail.  (After all, most of us are too busy working like dogs!  We don't have time to read books ;) )   

Such assumptions have not adequately equipped the mainstream white American evangelical/Protestant church for the present times, in which many, many people are abandoning evangelicalism and church attendance, and some are even abandoning faith altogether - a time which has seen the birth of a new term, namely, exvangelical - a time in which the ranks of these exvangelicals are swelling.  (For an example of this, please listen to a recent podcast interview of one of the former members of the Assemblies I used to belong to.)  So let's close with a brief consideration of these times and the reasons for the people who are rejecting evangelicalism in these times.

Flattening, Breakdown and Failure

As I mentioned earlier in this post, the Gospel message has undergone a certain "flattening" in American culture.  This is seen in the things that the Bible put into the message that modern conservative evangelical/fundamentalist preachers have chosen to leave out.  For instance, there's the fact that the fear of God is seen in the way we treat each other - Job 22:6-9; Job 31:16-28.  And that the love of God is seen in the way we treat each other - 1 John 3:16-20; 1 John 4:20-21.  And that racism is sin, because it is an act of murder - 1 John 3:14-15 ("Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.")  And that God is opposed to the rich - James 5:1-6; Luke 6:24 ("Woe to you who are rich ...").  These are the things which God put into His message which people like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr. and John MacArthur and other ecclesiastical sycophant followers of Trump have left out.  Meanwhile they have condemned things which God never condemned - things such as critical race theory, "woke-ism", social justice, and every other admonition to them that they should treat other people the same way they themselves want to be treated.  

This has led to a certain unpalatability of both these messengers and their message.  Indeed, from 2016 onward, these messengers have become not only unpalatable but downright nauseating.  I mentioned earlier in this post the need for the messenger of the Gospel to practice what he preaches.  This reminds me of a certain part of the third book in Liu Cixin's Three Body (三体, "San Ti") trilogy in which the people of Earth were tasked with configuring their society in such a way that any alien observers from outer space would be able to see that Earth humans posed no threat to the rest of the universe. The nature of the problem was such that this message (a "cosmic safety notice") could not be delivered by words, but only by actions.  (That part of his third book was where I first encountered the term "performance art", by the way.  Also, I'm not going to tell you how things worked out for the humans.  You'll have to read the books.)   This plot twist was a clever way of pointing out that one can learn much more about what kind of people one is dealing with by looking at what they do than by listening to what they say.  

This point is amplified by another book to which I was recently exposed, namely Haruki Murakami's Novelist As A Vocation.  In his description of the violence which ultimately ruined the student protests in Japan in the 1960's, Murakami wrote, “Uplifting slogans and beautiful messages might stir the soul, but if they weren't accompanied by moral power, they amounted to no more than a litany of empty words... Words have power. Yet that power must be rooted in truth and justice. Words must never stand apart from those principles.”  This is obviously true not only of secular social movements, but of white American evangelicalism and Protestantism over the last several decades.

That the words of American evangelicals have largely proven to be empty can be seen in the racism of the white American evangelical church, its misogyny as seen by the staggering levels of spousal abuse (see this, this, and this for instance), its staggering levels of child abuse, its hypocrisy (as seen in its promotion of religious leaders and political candidates who claim to stand for morality yet wind up getting caught with their pants down), its violence (as seen in the "Christian nationalists" armed to the teeth who stormed state capitols during the COVID lockdowns in 2020 and who participated in the U.S. Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021), and its greed.  

Indeed, if we look at what evangelicals actually do instead of what they say, we see that white American evangelicals (and the sons of Gehenna whom they have spawned in places like Brazil and Australia) care only about amassing secular earthly power to themselves.  The only thing they want is dominion, domination, and control.  Their religious profession is merely a tool to achieve this goal.  Their lust for power over others is seen in the ways they treat everyone who falls into their clutches.  It is seen in their treatment of their own women and children.

And this is what will lead eventually to their downfall and eventual loss of all earthly power.  I am thinking of the power of shared stories to illuminate the true character and nature of abuse.  I am thinking of the power of sunlight to disinfect dirty laundry.  I am thinking especially of the power of exposes, of scandals revealed, of things like the Shiny Happy People documentary of the abuse that took place in the family of Rethuglicans Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar even as they paraded their family on national TV as an example of the perfect American family.  Truly, "...there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known." (Luke 12:2)

It will be interesting to see how evangelical power-holders react and respond to the dwindling of their power in the years to come.  Suffice it to say that I expect that their response will complicate our attempts as a society to deal with issues of encroaching limits and the erosion of economic, political and military power in general.  

The Burned-Out Bulb of Bright Ideas

For the last week I have been enjoying catching up on sleep.  This has not been an entirely painless process; as my body has begun to mend itself after a year and a half of excessive work, I have at times physically felt the discomfort of the mending process.  (To use a metaphor, wait until the engine has cooled off before you try to pop the hood and refill the radiator.)  The recent experience of working like a dog has given me further insights and inspiration for the essays on precarity which I have yet to write.  However, I am not going to try to tackle that subject today, except for a few brief observations.  

First, there are a couple of interesting recent articles which describe how the rate of scientific discoveries in the industrial world has been slowing over the last several decades.  The title of one of these articles is "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time" and the other article, "Rate of scientific breakthroughs slowing over time: Study", cites the first article which I have linked.  (It's interesting that both articles have been published on websites which have chosen to support themselves partially by renting space for ads for gadgets, toys, t-shirts, and gossip.  The academic profession seems to be falling on hard times these days ...)  The chief researcher cited in these articles has suggested that a key reason for the decline of truly groundbreaking research is the fact that quantity of published research has begun to be emphasized over quality of research.  This is because funding for research has become tied to the number of papers published by research institutions as well as the number of citations of published papers by other publishing peers.

Second, my past year and a half of crazy busy work has introduced me to design automation tools which I had not had a chance to use during the past several years of my career.  I found that while I had been involved in things unrelated to the production of technical work products, the tools for producing that technical work had undergone a rapid and drastic evolution.  The software products of Autodesk are a particular example of this evolution - and of the consolidation of multiple formerly separate design functions into one software package, available on a monthly or yearly subscription basis.  By the way, I am not singing the praises of Autodesk!  I think they have created a near monopoly racket.  Their subscription model for providing software services is to me like having a family of leeches stuck to one's legs.  I will be using an Autodesk package to do my part of a multidisciplinary design project during the next several months.  Thankfully, the client is paying for the software during the project.  But I have noticed all the things the software can do - things which a human being used to need to know how to do.  This has led me to ponder the de-skilling which is now taking place among many knowledge workers as a result of the automation of much of their jobs by software.

Where will this de-skilling ultimately lead?  And what will be its ultimate impact?  The answer to that question will vary, depending on whom you ask.  I will consider only one prediction, from that group of prognosticators known as "techno-optimists."  That prediction is the same prediction that has been made by such folks over much of evolution of the Industrial Age, namely, that automation of knowledge work would lead to increased leisure for knowledge workers as the tasks that would normally take such workers a day to do were sped up so that they could be accomplished in only a few hours.  After the last year and a half, I must disagree with such a prediction.  Digital task automation may speed up tasks, but what actually results is not that knowledge workers get to go home early each day, but rather, that they get more work to do.  For digital automation tools are not seen by capitalists as a means to grant more leisure to their workers, but as a means of getting more work out of them.  The deployment of such tools is usually followed by the demand that workers produce more each day.  Meanwhile, the workers (at least those whose jobs are not replaced by the automated processes) become more and more stupid as time passes and an increasing portion of their skill sets and the theoretical knowledge they learned in college is taken over by the automated processes they serve.  Thus knowledge workers of the early 21st century may well be turning into the cubicle equivalent of de-skilled industrial factory workers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In short, our society seems to be evolving into a configuration in which the ability to think deeply and outside the box is dwindling, and in which our work is to blame for this dwindling.  (To read further about this evolution, please see "The Woodcutter's Dull Ax.")  We see here a trap to be avoided by those people in search of true craft, people who truly want to learn to engage in beautifully good work in order to meet necessary needs, that they may not be unfruitful.  Learning to avoid that trap should be an interesting experience.

Clear Air At Last?

The past several months have been painfully busy.  The last month has been especially excruciating.  The experience of entrepreneurship has recently seemed to me to be like being a skipper of a fishing boat caught in a gale, or like being a bush pilot for an air freight company whose clients suffer from permanently stormy weather.  However, my client backlog may finally be easing up.  I can hardly wait until I can once again start getting to bed at decent hours, resume exercising regularly, and take time to watch the sunsets.

During some of the worst moments, I found myself fantasizing about what my life would have been like had I become an author of short fiction instead of a technical professional.  The fantasies were triggered one morning at 4 AM while I was finishing writing a narrative and preparing CAD drawings for a schematic design report that was due at noon of the same day.  I hadn't slept since the previous morning.  As a bit of a distraction, I had taken a quick look at an Internet article about one of the crop of new young Chinese writers whose work falls loosely into the category of "magic realism."  The article showed a picture of this writer sitting at his desk while what looked like morning sunshine streamed through the window.  He was reading what looked like a book of ancient Chinese literature while he held a cat perched on one knee.  Both he and the cat looked vastly more relaxed than I was at that moment.  That got me wishing that I could be like Chen Chuncheng, Liu Cixin, Haruki Murakami, Yoko Ogawa, Ketty Steward, Yaa Gyasi, John Le Carre, and others like them who had actually found a way to craft an artistic career that pays the bills.  Ah well, one of these days ...

What I'd like to do all day.  In this picture, the computer actually has technical work on its screen, but let's just pretend that it really is displaying a short story or poem in progress.  The cat in this picture is mine ...

A Short Spring Break, and a Few More Observations on Precarity

I have a ton of things that need to get done in realspace, so I will need to take a break from blogging for a couple of weeks at least.  However, rest assured that there is yet much to say on the subject of precarity.  Note also that rampant inequality has led to a kind of precarity among large corporations.  In the first months of 2023, a number of high profile businesses have suffered bankruptcy, including Bed Bath & Beyond.  This year may be rather brutal for large retail chains.  

One odd thing I have noticed is that the rollout of electric cars by the major automakers has largely been aimed at the luxury market.  Most EV's are therefore priced over $30,000 - in some cases well over $30,000 - which puts them out of reach of large numbers of ordinary people.  Indeed, one such automaker's electric vehicles have a starting price of $73,000.  Most electric vehicle manufacturers (including traditional automakers who have started their own electric vehicle product lines) have thus become similar to other aspirational manufacturers and retailers who are aiming to make large profits from the market of potential luxury buyers.  However, this seems to me to be a sketchy strategy due to the fact that the pool of such buyers is shrinking, while the much larger pool of people who can't afford luxury is rapidly expanding.  The Ford Motor Company has already gotten its fingers burned by pursuing this strategy.  What we are seeing here is therefore yet another symptom of the insanity of trying to pursue infinite profit growth in a finite economy.  It will be interesting to see how things develop as time passes.

The Educated Precariat - A Preview

It is now nearly time to consider a particular subset of the precariat, namely, those people who have college degrees yet who have been forced into precarious employment - especially, those who are in low-wage jobs.  In this consideration we will move beyond the United States to look at the surplus of college graduates and the lack of appropriate employment for these graduates as a global phenomenon.  We will find that among the ranks of these are coffee shop baristas with graduate training in fields such as psychology as well as technical professionals hired by temp agencies and the legions of adjunct professors at public and private universities throughout the United States.  We will consider the underemployed college graduate in both American, European and Chinese contexts, and compare these to the ranks of underemployed graduates in the developing world.  We will also try to examine the phenomenon of college graduate precarity as it exists in Russia.  However, examining the Russian case may prove difficult if one wants a recent and accurate snapshot, due to the fact that the regime of Vladimir Putin has been trying as hard as possible over the last few years to patch up the fig leaf dress which Russia has sewn to cover up its putrid nakedness.  (In fact, it has become much easier to obtain an accurate picture of daily life for ordinary people in China than in Russia.  China is actually more open and honest!)

Today's post will ask some preliminary questions.  First, how did we get to this present place in which a four-year or advanced college degree is no longer a guarantee of stable, middle-class employment?  To answer this question, we will need to answer the following questions:

• What was the original purpose of college?  Note that the word "college" comes from the Latin word collegium, defined by Wiktionary as "colleagueship (connection of associates, colleagues, etc.", guild, corporation, company, ... (persons united by the same office or calling or living by some common set of rules), college (several senses), school ..."
• What did the world's first colleges look like?  You may not know this, but one of the world's oldest continuously operating universities is the University of Ez-Zitouna, which was founded in Tunisia on the African Continent.  What was the mission of the world's first and earliest universities, and how was that mission funded and carried out?  How did the roles of education and research interact?
• What was the origin of the system of public universities in the United States?  (For instance, what was the role of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln in the birth of American public universities?)
• What are the origins of the for-profit college or university, and how did these institutions cause the purpose of college to mutate over time?
• How has the decline in public and private funding for basic research affected the employment landscape for academics?  (You may not know this, but the United States no longer has any major corporately-funded laboratories dedicated to pure research.  Bell Labs, which was responsible for the discovery of radio astronomy and many other scientific breakthroughs, is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nokia, a Finnish corporation.)
• What is the impact of declining numbers of youth and declining college enrollment on universities and colleges?
• How will the defunding of public colleges and universities affect the future of those nations such as the United States which pursue rabidly conservative "free-market" principles?  See, for instance, "Modeling research universities: Predicting probable futures of public vs. private and large vs. small research universities", 2018.
• What can college-educated members of the precariat (especially those college-educated who have been historically marginalized, such as people of color) do both individually and collectively to create a better situation for themselves?  For the present-day contraction of opportunities for the college-educated is being orchestrated by the present masters of our society in an attempt to maintain and amplify existing inequality.  What steps can we therefore take to create our own alternative spaces of collective self-reliance?

I hope to answer these questions (maybe with a little help from some friends) during the next few posts in this series.  I'd like to end with something that's somewhat related to this series of posts and to other posts which I've written for this blog over the last four or five years, namely, another link to a short fiction story which I recently enjoyed.  The name of the story is "Tempus Fugit" and the author is Ketty Steward.

Precarity, American-Style: The American Enterprise Institute and Small Businesses

This post is a continuation of my series of posts on economic precarity and the precariat.  Past posts explored the manifestation of precarity in Russia and China, two nations which returned to the capitalist fold at the end of the 20th century after abandoning free-market capitalism during the early and middle decades of the 20th century.  More recent posts have explored the spread of precarity in the United States, a nation which has been characterized from its birth by a cultural emphasis on laissez-faire, free-market capitalism and the defense of the "property rights" of those who are wealthy.  This post continues the exploration of precarity in the United States.

At the outset, I'd like to state my belief that the solution to the problem of economic precarity and rampant wealth inequality is to create a society in which the role of small businesses is central and in which private concentrations of wealth and power above a certain size are eliminated by a steeply progressive tax with no loopholes for the rich.  Such an arrangement would fulfill the ostensible goal of socialism without requiring the government to be the owner of the societal means of production.  For such an arrangement would place the means of production directly in the hands of even the poorest of people.

I can already hear the screams of rage which the emergence of such a society would produce among the leaders of the American right wing.  That's okay - sometimes people need to see their sacred cows turned into hamburger.  Yet one area in which we all seem to agree is the importance of small businesses in the American economy and the need to provide support to these businesses.  Presidents and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have made strong and warm statements of support for small business from the days of Reagan onward.  Indeed, the Republican Party in particular has branded itself the champion of small business.  This has been part of the Republican Party's branding of itself as the party of economic growth in general and of the promotion of economic policies which guarantee prosperity for all.  (Of course, the fact that Republican policies have created many more losers than winners is blamed on the losers, but that's a story for another post.)

Can the Republican Party truthfully say that it has been and continues to be a champion of American small business?  The answer to that question can be found in the policies and activities of some of the lobbying groups and think tanks which are part of the American right wing.  Let's look at one of those groups today, namely, the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI.  According to Wikipedia, the AEI is "...  a center-right think tank based in Washington, D.C., that researches government, politics, economics, and social welfare... Founded in 1938, the organization is aligned with conservatism and neoconservatism ..."  To call them "center-right" may be quite misleading, as their membership has included several figures who are very much hard-right - figures such as Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, John Lott, Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney.  In addition, the AEI is closely aligned with the Koch brothers, according to a Sourcewatch article.  Moreover, some of the recent posts and articles on the AEI website have seemed to give support to the regime of Vladimir Putin.  The AEI has become the dominant brain trust of the American right wing, "the crown jewel of the conservative policy infrastructure," according to a recent Johns Hopkins University case study.  

In 2005, the AEI published a paper titled, "Are Small Businesses the Engine of Growth?"  The abstract of that paper provides a concise summary of AEI's desired policy toward small business: 

"It is a common belief among entrepreneurs and policymakers that small businesses are

the fountainhead of job creation and the engine of economic growth. However, it has

become increasingly apparent that the conventional wisdom obscures many important

issues. It is an important consideration because many government spending programs, tax

incentives, and regulatory policies that favor the small business sector are justified by the

role of small businesses in creating jobs and is the raison d’etre of an entire government

agency: the Small Business Administration (SBA). This paper concludes that there is no

reason to base our policies on the idea that small businesses are more deserving of

government favor than big companies. And absent other inefficiencies that would hinder

small businesses performances, there is no legitimate argument for their preferential

treatment. Hence the paper suggests ending all small businesses’ subsidies." [Emphasis added.]

The paper sought to make a case for eliminating all government agencies and programs that support or incubate small businesses, both at the Federal and State levels.  It twisted a number of statistics in its attempt to make its case, attempting for instance to convince readers that the net gains in job creation  should be ignored in favor of gross job creation when analyzing the impact of small businesses during any time period of analysis.  This position, by the way, is proven false by the fact that reputable agencies such as the World Bank do count the impact of net job creation in evaluating economic performance.  For an example of the paper's mishandling of statistics, consider the part where the author tries to use gross job gains and gross job losses to "prove" that employment in the small business sector was much less stable than in large companies during the year 2000.  The author neglected to notice that during the time period in question, the net addition of jobs by small businesses was always positive, and for firms between 1 and 49 employees, exceeded 10 percent.  Lastly, I would point out the laughably false claim made by the paper that "... larger employers offer greater job security. For both new jobs and the typical existing job, job durability increases with employer size."  (That has definitely not been my experience as a working stiff and cubicle rat!  I guess the author of the paper never heard of the words "downsizing" or "redundancy"!)

The 2005 AEI paper cited above was part of a sustained effort on the part of American conservatives to make a case for eliminating all government support for small businesses.  One such example is the article, "Terminating the Small Business Administration" (2011), along with articles published from 2008 onward which suggested that government support of small businesses leads to negative economic growth.  I argue that the AEI paper, on closer examination, does not present a scientifically rigorous or accurate case.  However, it definitely does express what rich American conservatives want to do to American small businesses.  Consider the following quotes:

"... the real job growth comes not from people dreaming of being small business owners but from people committed to building big companies." [Emphasis added.]

"The paper will examine whether the pervasiveness of the belief that small businesses are the economy’s main source of job creation is warranted. Section 2 will show how this belief is the foundation for many government policies. Section 3 will expose the statistical fallacies that lead people to see job creation patterns where none exist. Besides it shouldn’t matter. Although job creation receives enormous attention in policy discussions, it is rather misplaced. The mere creation of jobs is not by itself an appropriate economic policy objective. Economic growth whether it takes the form of additional jobs or increase of productivity in existing jobs is all that matters. The paper concludes that there is no reason to base policies on the idea that small businesses are more deserving of government favor than big companies." [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the AEI has backed a policy which favors the continued growth of large companies, and the continued growth of American economic productivity even when that growth is not accompanied by the growth of jobs.  We have already seen the results of such a policy in action, namely, in the jobless "recoveries" from economic crises which occurred during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes.  Such "recoveries" left a lot of people out of work for a long time, while those who still had jobs were subjected to ever-increasing demands on their time from their employers in the name of increasing productivity.  To put it another way, these "jobless recoveries" resulted in ever-increasing concentrations of wealth among the richest members of society while drastically increasing economic precarity among everyone else.  It is quite telling that the AEI has pushed so hard for the elimination of all government help for small businesses even though large corporations are the biggest recipients of corporate welfare from both Federal, State and local governments.

Let us close with a couple of questions.  Does real job growth come not from people being small business owners but from people committed to building big companies?  Is it true that the only thing that matters is economic growth, regardless of whether it takes the form of additional jobs or increase in productivity in existing jobs?  I'd like to give my answer to these questions, but I don't have time today, so that will have to wait.  But as a partial answer, consider the following questions:

• How many really big companies can exist in a society whose economy is of finite size?
• Why should most people rally behind continued economic growth if the fruits of that growth are not fairly and equitably distributed?
• Who wants to volunteer to be one of the many poor, disenfranchised, and unemployed who are produced by a system in which the fruits of increased productivity are not fairly distributed?
• Who wants to volunteer to be a member of the salariat in such an economy if the only way to be a member of the salariat class is to work 80-hour weeks?

Precarity, American-Style: Causative Factors

Today's post is a continuation of my series of posts on the subject of precarity.  Today's post will be rather short, since I don't have much time.  However, when considering the state of precarity in which an increasing number of people in the United States now live, it is helpful to study the occupational and economic factors which have led to our present troubles.  As we study economic precarity in the United States, we should therefore consider the following factors:

• The decline of small businesses in the U.S.  This has been due to "the tilting of the playing field to favor massive companies over small businesses," as reported in a 2020 article by Business Insider.  (See also "Monopoly Power And The Decline of Small Business" for a 2016 snapshot of the problem.)  Note that the laws passed by the U.S. Congress and the executive orders issued under the Trump administration only made this worse.  However, the Biden administration has begun taking steps to reverse small business decline by helping small businesses compete for Federal work, as reported by the Federal News Network in a 2023 article.

• The shifting of tax burdens from the rich to the poor.  A striking case in point is the number of states (red states, particularly) whose legislatures and governors have turned them into tax havens for the rich.  (See also, "How the Ultrawealthy Devise Ways to Not Pay Their Share of Taxes," NPR, August 2022.)  Thus these states have come to resemble enclaves of dirty money that are found in the Cayman Islands.  Note that the U.S has recently surpassed the Caymans to become the "world's biggest enabler of financial secrecy" as reported by the international Consortium of Investigative Journalists in May 2022.  But these are merely one part of the overall shift of tax burdens away from the rich which began in the 1980's under Ronald Reagan.

• The use of monopoly and oligopoly power to create monopsony and oligopsony labor markets.  We all know that a monopoly is a state in which there is only one supplier of a particular good or service which is needed by many buyers.  The monopolist can therefore charge whatever price he wants, even if the price is horribly unfair.  Oligopoly is the condition in which there is more than one supplier, yet the total number of suppliers is very small.  Examples of oligopoly include Airbus and Boeing among aircraft manufacturers, or Microsoft and Brave and Alphabet (owner of Google) among Internet search providers, or CVS and Walgreens and Rite-Aid among drugstores and pharmacies.  A monopsony, by contrast, is a situation in which there is only one buyer of a good or service which is offered by many suppliers.  An example of this is a situation in which there is only one employer who can offer jobs to people in a large geographical area.  Thus the many people in this area become horribly dependent on the one large employer, and if that employer uses his power maliciously or suddenly goes out of business or decides suddenly to cut costs, many people will be devastated.  Oligopsony works the same way.  Monopsony and oligopsony are the natural outcome of monopoly and oligopoly.

• The shifting of regulatory burdens from large businesses to small businesses.  A prime example of this is the case of trying to use your own personal car to earn money by giving people rides.  Most cities and states have laws that prevent you from doing this as a private individual.  In this case, there are only two legal ways you can earn money by giving people rides: go to work for a taxi company, or become an "independent contractor" for a multibillion-dollar ride-hailing service such as Uber or Lyft.  The regulatory burden on these ride-hailing services is very small, as seen in the cases of ride-hailing drivers who are injured on the job, or passengers who are sometimes assaulted by the ride-hailing drivers.  Regulatory burdens are now crafted by state and local legislators for the purpose of expanding opportunities for big businesses by smothering small businesses who can't afford the costs of regulatory compliance.

• The innovation-depressing strategies of big businesses.  It can be argued that once a monopoly or oligopoly economy is established, the big players in such an economy will tend to fear innovation, since innovations can be disruptive and can even destroy the pre-existing monopoly or oligopoly arrangement.  Thus it is no surprise that large businesses (and wanna-be large business owners) have evolved egregious strategies to stifle any potential innovations that might threaten their interests.  One such strategy is the misuse of the "non-compete agreement."  These are agreements which employees force new hires to sign, in which the new hire typically agrees not to work for any other business or start their own business within a certain time frame and within a certain geographical area.  Certain versions of these non-compete agreements also force the employee to give up all rights to any invention or intellectual product which the employee may devise while employed by his employer and for a certain time period after the employee stops working for the employer.  (If you work for such an employer, I can understand why you would not be motivated to think very much while on the job!)  The abuse of non-compete clauses in employment contracts has moved the Biden administration to start taking steps to ban them (see this also), which should provide immediate relief from employers who want to try to turn their employees into personal property.

Future posts in this series will examine these factors in more detail, along with other factors such as the absence of single-payer health care coverage in the U.S.  But for now, consider these factors as the means by which the wealthy in this country seek to prevent the American precariat from building individual and collective self-reliance.