How the service economy fuels white supremacy

White people (by and large) like being served by other white people, especially when that service requires frequent communication or other intimacy. White people have the money, and therefore are the ones being served. Therefore white servants are “better” than blacks or latinos or otherwise. Therefore whites get the jobs, therefore minorities are unemployed, therefore white supremacy is served.


15 Responses to “How the service economy fuels white supremacy”

  1. mad dog Says:

    Don’t know about you, but I personally don’t give a shit who serves me my Whopper at Burger King, whether they be white, black or latino. I do however, prefer that they be quick.

  2. briankoontz Says:

    Service jobs shouldn’t exist. A combination of machines and self-service should be the norm.

  3. mad dog Says:

    Nice idea, but, there are only so many available jobs that are better. I would prefer working at McDonalds to working nowhere.

  4. briankoontz Says:

    If there was no service economy there would be other jobs available.

    It’s just like in the ’80s when there was a manufacturing economy. When that economy collapsed there wasn’t massive unemployment. Most of those workers shifted to the service sector.

    I’d like to see economists focus more on the issue of how to create good jobs, where “good” isn’t defined by amount of pay but by desirability. Desirability is partially a function of the work environment, how engaging the job is (how interesting and consuming).

    Neither manufacturing nor service jobs are enjoyed by many of the people working them. We should be looking for alternatives, both for American workers and for those in (more) oppressed countries.

  5. mad dog Says:

    Economists do not create jobs. That is not what they do. They predict trends for the economy, and advocate solutions to politicians.

  6. briankoontz Says:

    Part of the jobs of economists should be to guide economic policy, and part of economic policy is to guide the types of jobs in the economy. Just like climate scientists guide climate policy, engineers guide NASA, etc.

  7. mad dog Says:

    There are still many low end jobs that cannot be done by robots. And if they can currently be done by robots, then the robots are inadequate or too expensive.

  8. briankoontz Says:

    Your use of “robot” is puzzling. Most repetitive jobs can be done by machine. Robots imply a human-like machine, which is not necessary in the vast majority of cases where machines can be used.

    There is little effort to have repetitive jobs done by machine. If there was it would be fairly easy to shift the economy in that direction.

    Example: some grocery stores now have self-service checkouts. Those are machines that allow customers to check out their own purchases. It’s good that that repeitive job is being done by a machine, but the other side of the equation has to be implemented as well – to create a new job for the previous cashier that is empowering.

  9. mad dog Says:

    There are still numerous jobs that cannot yet be done by machines. Someone has to clean the floors. Someone has to do inventory at the grocery store. There is no machine in existence that can do landscaping all by itself. You also have to think about the small stores, that cannot afford all those high end machines.

    “It’s good that that repeitive job is being done by a machine, but the other side of the equation has to be implemented as well – to create a new job for the previous cashier that is empowering.”

    You have it backwards. Employers do not create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. Employers create jobs because they need someone to do something on a regular basis. If I ran a shop, and needed someone to do bookkeeping, I would hire an accountant. If I needed someone to do my website, I would hire a web designer. If I needed someone to be nice to the customers, or make sales, I would hire someone for that too.

    THAT is how jobs are created.

  10. briankoontz Says:

    That’s not how jobs are created. Employers exist within a structure of laws, knowledge, and customs that create the space in which certain economic roles exist. Whoever controls that structure controls the nature of the jobs, and the employers themselves have little control over the structure. The structure is created by the global economy itself, as well as various governments that set laws as well as various peoples that affect those governments.

    Economists, as opposed to bankers or engineers or other people, are in a particularly good position to affect that structure.

    Illegal drugs offer a good example. Different countries have different laws concerning the legality of drugs. Countries which produce considerable amounts of a drug (of course) tend to legalize it’s production. The economic structure, the legality, of producing a drug in turn determines the legal jobs that affect the production of those drugs. In other words, the simple act of legalizing or illegalizing a drug changes the economy.

    NAFTA changes the economy. The WTO changes economies. Whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected changes the economy. Policies can be implemented which will increase the use of machines for repetitive tasks. Policies can be implemented which will increase the number of empowering jobs.

  11. mad dog Says:

    Just curious, have you ever hired anyone, or dealt with someone who has made hiring decisions? Employers and human resources people are not thinking about the whole economic system. They think about their needs only. They have an extremely narrow field of view.

    For example, they think about whether or not there will be enough sales clerks around to deal with customers for Christmas. If, not, they then go to the filing cabinet to look for resumes from prospects. They think about whether they will have enough landscapers or plumbers around to meet all their customers needs. They think about whether the guy currently working for him is bad enough to be replaced, so on and so forth. These are the kind of thoughts that make them want to hire people.

    To make a long story short, businesses want to make themselves as much money as possible. If they think that a prospective employee will help them make more, they will hire him/her. Are there businesses that think of the economy as a whole? Perhaps banking and investment firms. Stock traders too. Companies like Forbes and Bloomberg. But the majority of companies think of their own immediate needs, wants and goals. A lot of them do not even think about 6 months down the road.

  12. briankoontz Says:

    Employers are controlled by the economy and by laws. When NAFTA was implemented it changed the conditions for employers, hence changing the job structure (shifting manufacturing jobs out of the U.S.) The structure of laws (and the implementation of those laws) binds employers.

    They may have a narrow field of view, but the environment in which they have that view is produced by many outside factors, not by them.

    The reason America is a service economy is not that employers simply decided that’s the way it should be. It’s about a global matrix of politics and economics. So for example if Asia had better human rights U.S. manufacturers wouldn’t be able to get cheap labor there, and the whole economic structure would change.

  13. mad dog Says:

    Yes, employers do respond to the economic environment. There is a certain amount of centralized control from the top. But there is a big freaking world of difference between America and some place like the former Soviet Union, which is what you are effectively describing America as. Unless you are talking about the federal government as an employer, the American economy is comparatively quite decentralized, especially in comparison to back in the days of the New Deal, as well as in comparison to Communist and full blown Social Democratic nations.

    In America, the politicians may have a lot of industries and businesses by the balls in various ways, I go out of my way to show just how much power the government has over the economy. But, this does not mean we have centralized planning. On the news, some politicians say they ‘will create jobs’. They make themselves sound more powerful than they actually are. They usually mean one of two things by that in reality. The first meaning is that they will hire more workers as part of the government. Among other things, this may include ‘make work’ programs, which are not quite as common as in previous decades.

    The second meaning (when the politicians say they will create jobs) is that they will cut tax rates. What they hope to accomplish by doing this is employers using the extra dough from the tax cuts to hire more employees. That is hardly centralized control.

    A third common type of method that a politician tries to create jobs is to bring pork barrel projects, especially things like military bases, to a local area. If, for example, a military base were to be built in a particular place, the hope is that there would be various jobs available there from the base itself, but also from nearby businesses that might start up nearby as a result of the base opening.

    Now, unless you are talking about the politician literally hiring public employees and creating departments, Washington makes no direct decision as to who gets hired for what job. Most of what they do is indirect.

  14. briankoontz Says:

    That’s incorrect as far as America being decentralized. You’re right that it’s not like the Soviet Union – it’s a different type of hierarchical economy.

    For example, fewer and fewer companies are owning more and more in America. That’s due to the laws – different laws produce different effects. The FCC recently changed the law so that even more centralization of ownership and control will occur.

    In the Soviet Union the control was direct – the Kremlin told industry what to do and they did it. In the United States the control is indirect – the government forms laws which shape and control the economic outcomes.

    You know this very well, since you support Ron Paul and therefore support changes to the laws that will impact the economy, and impact the very things you claim the government doesn’t impact.

    In the Soviet Union different commands from the Kremlin produced different outcomes. In the United States different laws from Congress produces different outcomes.

    Democracy produces the kind of decentralized economy you seem to believe exists right now in the U.S. Corporatism is always hierarchical.

  15. Business » How the service economy fuels white supremacy You’re in Your World Now Says:

    […] To find more information from the source here […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: