Deconstructing Austerity II. Jobs

Aside from fallacious claims about reducing the national debt, the Conservatives' second claim to economic success--the creation of millions of private sector jobs--is also requires exploration. The well-rehearsed argument goes that massive cuts to public spending are not problematic since the private sector will take up the slack and create jobs to replace those lost in the public sector. There are several sleights of hand say that require unpicking in this part of the austerity narrative.

First it is important to note that the statistics tell us something about the quantity of jobs but nothing about the quality of those jobs, an argument made cogently by the TUC. A job as a nurse or an administrator in a public-sector setting is likely to be a unionised job with a nationally negotiated rate of pay and decent terms and conditions. The sort of job being generated in the private sector is much more likely to be an unskilled, poor-quality job with low pay. These jobs will do nothing to help with the standard-of-living crisis and will also not contribute to rebuilding a flourishing economy even in conventional terms.

The political narrative behind these arguments about the substitution of private for public jobs is the inability of the public sector to create wealth: an important part of the Conservative attack on the public sector (and devastatingly critiqued in an earlier blog!). So it is important to realise that many of the 'new' private sector jobs are actually simply redefined public-sector jobs. My job is a good example. Two years ago I worked in the public sector but now I work in the private sector. Because universities were privatised and are no longer funded from taxation, my job is now one that creates value whereas previously I was a parasite on the taxpayer. The same also applies to those who work in privatised sections of the health service or in services that are increasingly being outsourced from public sector employers such as schools and hospitals. (The Guardian has carried out some preliminary work unpicking this tissue of statistical manipulation.)

Finally, we need to ask what is a job? The data are most often used by Tories in claiming credit for this economic miracle are aggregated data based on everything that counts as a job. Incredibly even people working on zero-hours contracts are included in these figures as are those who are on any type of work scheme. So you don't actually have to be working to be counted in the government's jobs figures. Any government spokesman who presents data on increases in jobs without relating these two full-time equivalent jobs is, if not a liar, at least being very economical with the truth.

.

Tweet

Resist Divide-and-Conquer Tactics

The Tory rhetoric over today's strike is a clear attempt to divide and conquer. We are told that the poor downtrodden taxpayer is subsidising the fat cats of the public sector, and that private-sector pension schemes are poor and the public-sector schemes should be as poor. No attempt is made to argue that private companies should provide properly for their employees' retirement. We are to be set against each other, workers in private or public sector, taxpayers and public sectors workers, when it is quite apparent that most of us fall into more than one of these categories at once.

I am proud to be striking today. I am proud to be defending the right of myself and my colleagues to contribute a reasonable amount to dignity in old age, should we be lucky enough to get there. I was pleased to receive the instruction to strike from my rep., together with the helpful information that 'UCU believes the proposals are not only unfair, but totally unnecessary. The TPS was renegotiated in 2007 to make it affordable and sustainable over time. There is no crisis or deficit in the scheme. This is nothing more than an ideologically motivated attack by a government that wants us to pay for an economic crisis we did not create.'

The changes to pension contributions, which represents an increase of some 50% or about £150 per month, are actually a tax specifically on the public sector, the government's target of choice, to extract money to pay for the deficit caused by the banking crisis. Since our future pensions will be politically controlled there is no limit on the number of times the government can come back to us for more money, or how many times they can reduce our consitions, our pay, or our future pensions. No limit, that is, except our unified political resistance.

In The Great Transformation Karl Polanyi gives an interesting new perspective on the strike. If labour is to be distributed in a market, he argues, then the seller, i.e. the worker, has a perfect right not to sell until his price is reached. It is the absurdity of considering labour a commodity like any other that causes the strike to appear anomalous. Here is his lucid prose from p. 239:

'Actually, strikes in vital services and public utilities held the citizens to ransom while involving them in the libyrinthine problem of the true functions of a labor market. Labor is supposed to find its price on the market, and other price than that so established being uneconomical. As long as labor lives up to this responsibility, it will behave as an element in the supply of that which it is, the commodity "labor", and will refuse to sell below the price which the buyer can still afford to pay.

Consistently followed up, this means that the chief obligation of labor is to be almost continually on strike. . . The source of the incongruity of the theory and practice is, of course, that labor is not really a commodity, and that if labor was withheld merely in order to ascertain its exact price society would very soon dissolve for lack of sustenance. It is remarkable that this consideration is very rarely, if ever, mentioned in the discussion of the strike issue on the part of liberal economists.'
. Tweet

Debt is a Feminist Issue

The gendered nature of the globalised capitalist economy is evident at many different levels. Empirical studies of women at the top of financial corporations appear to be absent from the peer-review literature, but even The Economist has suggested that the causes of the 2008 crash were partly hormonal.

The figures for women’s share of the world"s resources, as collected by UNIFEM are a shocking catalogue of inequality. Perhaps the most striking statistic is that ’Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property’. In many countries women face discrimination in terms of property ownership, as we did in this country until the passage of the Married Women’s Property Act in 1882.

The study of economics is also dominated by men.To quote from an academic study from York University, ’Women make up approximately 30% of the research/PhD students, 15% of the lecturers, 10% of the readers/senior lecturers and 5% of the professors. Males in standard full-time academic jobs are twice as likely to be at a senior level (above lecturer) than women (46% compared to 23%).’ In the 41 years that the Swedish Bank has been given a prize for economics, a woman has only won it once, and then she had to share it.

So the world economy is dominated by men, the corporations who control it are dominated by men, and those who study it and inform policy are also largely men. When these policies are implemented, at least in the UK, they are done so by a cabinet which includes only one woman, plus a token other without portfolio.

Since women have so little economic power, they can have had correspondingly little responsibility for the economic and financial crisis we are in. So how can it be just that they will bear the majority of the pain? We are not all in this together: women who care for children and other relatives are more likely to receive benefits that will now be cut. They will be left picking up the pieces for the broken society that results from the devastation of public services. They are disproportionately likely to work in the public sector and so more likely to lose their jobs.

In the 40 years since the implementation of the Equal Pay Act women have seen their influence and their control over property increase in the UK, but until we have equal access to economic power we will always be an easy target. Tweet

Who do we owe the national debt to?

On this day when we finally hear the details about the cuts that we have been bullied and battered with for the past six months, it might be helpful to have a bit of a recap about what the alternatives are for dealing with the huge debt that we are left with after the banking bailout.

Many commentators have pointed out that there are two sides to the public balance-sheet and that the focus on cutting the spending side, rather than raising more revenue through increased taxes, especially on the corporate sector which has done so well from our largesse, is an entirely political decision. Another approach which is available even within the existing capitalist structure could involve managing the economy into a smaller and more equal form, thus achieving the sorts of social side-benefits that are identified in The Spirit Level.

But on this morning, of all mornings, let us look beyong the political rhetoric and think about the hard finance of the situation. That takes us to the question many outside the media bubble are asking: who do we owe this money to? And in a world where nearly every government is facing a similar problem of massive debt, could we not all come to some agreement to forgive each other and start again? In following up on the accuracy of a statement by George Osborne that the interest we are paying on the debt is going to foreign governments, my friend and colleague Barbara Panvel has done the bit of research necessary to answer the question about who the money is actually owed to, and the answer raises a whole series of new questions.

The figures, from the website of the government Debt Management Office, indicate that much of the money we are paying on our national debt borrowings is not going to foreign governments, as George Osborne gave as a justification for the need to urgently cut the size of the debt, but rather to our own good selves in various guises. So the cuts programme is really an example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The data shown in the graphic indicate that only 29 per cent of the gilts currently in circulation are held by overseas investors, with slightly more (30%) being held by UK insurance companies and pension funds. The figures also indicate that nearly a quarter of our own national debt currently belongs to the Bank of England, which I assume is the result of the quantitative easing policy.

So who would lose out if we acknowledged that repayment of a debt on this scale is inconsistent with living in a civilised society, and began a policy of negotiating with creditors that they would not see the whole of their lending repaid? For those who have investments in pension funds, they will see their pensions reduced while their services are protected, so it will be a trade-off, but one that is fairer because those with larger savings will lose more, in contrast to the spending cuts that hit the poorest hardest. The overseas and other financial institutions would also lose out but this could be seen as compensation for the massive investment bubble they benefited from, and gained from, and which caused the banking and credit crisis that landed us all in this mess.

So there are a range of alternatives, with different degrees of challenge to the existing economic system, that are available to the UK government. To suggest that destroying the remaining vestiges of solidarity in our society is the only option is the big lie for our times. Tweet