5 comments about Off-ramps and On-ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success.

1. Despite all the print about the "Mommy Wars" and whether women should or shouldn't be in the workplace, the fact is that half the U.S. workforce is currently made up of women - and the workplace will have to change to accommodate them. Sylvia Hewlett's "Off-Ramps and On-Ramps" adds new, crucial information to this discussion. She provides data about women in the work force and provides models of flexible workplace structures now being used in corporations. The book gives a convincing business case for work force diversity and for the restructuring of our career model.
   Hewlett's book is a must read for anyone concerned about the work force of the twenty first century.



2. I actually hesitated to read Off-Ramps and On-Ramps, as it looked like a boring textbook at first glance. But, as I got into it, it was quite a provocative read and even brought up some interesting points that applied to both men and women. Here are a few highlights that struck my fancy:
   
   Chapter 1 - Why Mess with the Male Competitive Model. Good way to start a book. I think we'll be hearing more about this as generation y gets further into the workplace. While a hardcore minority will stick to the traditional Gordon Gecko "greed is good" model, we'll see countless others rebel against the values of the generations before them (as all generations before rebelled against their parent's values).
   
   Chapter 2 - Looks at how large a factor elder-care already plays in women's lives. In fact, it's larger than child-care as this affects all women. This is only going to increase as Boomers start being the ones needing care.
   
   Chapter 3 - Extreme Jobs, Extreme Demands. Thought this chapter could make a whole book. It's a great overview of how corporate America has changed. I have a friend whose parents were both big executives at major companies, yet all the time growing up, she swears that both made it home for dinner almost every single night. This is practically unheard of even for middle management these days.
   
   The latter half of the book gives examples of companies who are launching innovative programs to resolve the situation. This makes it a must-read for any management team who is struggling to keep women, OR, better yet, recognizes what a great asset they have and wants to boost them up even more! However, it still begs the question of what to do for the majority of women who do not work for the handful of Fortune 500 companies who get it, and have the funds to produce such innovative programs.



3. This book honestly and openly explores what I believe thousands of professional women are facing today - the deep challenge of creating a successful professional life of meaning, fulfillment, and balance, in today's current dominant work model. As one who works with hundreds of professional women each year, I see over and over the ill-effects of professional women striving to fit into a model that no longer reflects our needs, priorities, and values. Hewlett's book goes a long way toward presenting beneficial new thinking and programs that, when adopted, will certainly bring about beneficial and urgently-needed change.



4. Economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett does an excellent job of outlining both subtle and bold barriers that relegate many talented women (and minorities) to the lower end of promotions and pay scales. Using ample documentation, she outlines the financial costs that corporations suffer when they operate with outdated career models designed for white male professionals. Hewlett also lines up practical solutions with real-life examples from top corporations. Though the book is marred by repetition and various examples are recycled in different chapters, overall, we consider this essential reading for senior corporate officials and staff members.



5. If you're interested in looking at the data behind women and careers, this is the book for you. Hewlett has summarized a number of really interesting data. For example, 37% of women take time off at some point in their careers. 30% of women take advantage of part-time or other flexible programs. Hewlett's data illustrates a number of important reasons companies should care about gender diversity. After building the business case for women, she talks about how companies have created programs to make it work. One of the nice elements of this book is that she illustrates the data with personal stories. One of my favorite quotes underscores the importance of finding meaning in your job. A working mom comments, "when I walk out the door in the morning leaving my 2-yaer-old with the nanny, there's usually a bit of a scene. Tommy clings, pouts, and whips up the guilt. Now, I know it's not serious--most of the time he likes his nanny. But it sure makes me think about why I go to work--and why I put in a ten hour day. It's as though every day I make the following calculation: do the satisfactions I derive from my job (efficacy, recognition--a sense of stretching my mind) justify leaving Tommy? Some days it's a close run. One thing I do know. It couldn't just be the money. I need a whole lot of things to be happening for me to work."

3 comments about Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education.

1. Recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science, Becker has pioneered the aplication of economic analysis to human behavior in such areas as dicrimination, married, family, etc. This book is a classic study of the consequences of investing in a person's knowledge and skills. According to his theory, investing in an individual's education and training is similar to business investments in equipment.

   One of the principal book about Human Capital Theory.




2. This book is very technical in nature and not "a light read." However, it is an essential resource for anyone interested in labor economics and human capital. Dr. Becker is brilliant. Highly recommend!



3. I received the book in only few days, in excellent conditions.
   
   Thanks,
   
   Janny

4 comments about Thunder In the Mountans: The West Virginia Mine War, 1920-21.

1. I really enjoyed this fascinating account of the coal wars of west virginia. Not enough has been reported about the events that occured there, and this book sheds light on the subject.



2. This book is probably the most complete and balanced view of the Mine Wars in West Virginia, an almost unknown yet significant part of American history. It details how and why things happened and gives very vivid accounts of the struggles of the day in the coalfields. This was the largest insurrection against our Federal Government outside of the War Between the States, and was the only time bombs have been dropped from planes on American soil. A must read for anyone interested in Appalachia or coal mining.



3. How could historians have overlooked such an important and colorful piece of American history? The book is a fast read and filled with vivid descriptions. Once you read it, you won't be able to believe that something like this happened in America.



4. This is one of those historical events that is kind of overlooked for various reasons perhaps because most of it occurred in a "backwater" of sorts. Yet, this is what makes it most interesting -- it is not in most people's lists of "top tens." There are also political and cultural factors which have made the story and the topic kind of something that has been ignored. Mr. Savage's account of the Massacre and the related events is engaging, compelling, and concise. I loaned my copy of the book to a friend and, when it was returned, I found myself thumbing through the pages again even though I know the story. The only disappointment I have with the book is the fact that the account of the actual gunfight or battle at Matewan (btw: I have it on good authority that this is pronounced "may-twan") occupies only a short chunk of the book. However, the event was not something in which anyone would have loudly admitted participation for fear of retaliation, etc. The bad blood created during this period lasted for a long time -- another aspect which makes this a compelling read.

5 comments about The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the U.S. Racial Wealth Divide.

1. Eye-opening doesn't even begin to describe this enlightening volume about the socioeconomic divide among whites and non-whites in this country and the role the government plays in reinforcing the separation. Organized by five key members of the nonpartisan United for a Fair Economy organization based in Atlanta, the book handily dismantles the Horatio Alger myth, especially for minority members, by detailing how economic predation has persisted even as significant strides have been made in the far more discernible civil rights arena. The co-authors - Executive Director Meizhu Lui, Communications Director Betsy Leondar-Wright, current board member Bárbara Robles, past board member (until 2005) Rose Brewer, and Rebecca Adamson of the First Peoples Worldwide - have assembled not only a comprehensive history but also a fulsome, current picture of the economic discrimination that has festered pointedly against four different groups - African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and Native Americans.
   
   Not coincidentally, the five women come from five different ethnic groups (including white), which allow them to compare their individual experiences and provide personal validation (and sometimes challenges) of their findings. Perhaps the most compelling fact unearthed is the substantial divide in net worth between blacks and whites. Previously, focus has been mostly on income disparity, which while significant, has been almost passively accepted. Specifically, median household income for whites in 2003 was about $48K, while for black households it was about $30K. However, looking on the balance sheet, the co-authors uncovered the revelatory fact that whites had a median net worth of $121K in 2001 versus just $19K for blacks.
   
   This and the book's other equally invaluable findings clearly illustrate how public policy has hindered asset accumulation among non-whites, and there is also an itemized list of special advantages afforded exclusively to whites. On a more personal level, the co-authors show how such exclusionary tactics have affected the self-esteem of their families, especially among their fathers who feel they have failed them somehow. In a hopeful effort to clarify the decisive influence of government on Americans' net worth, the book is not a socialist tract but rather a realistic how-to guide on how to affect policy changes that will help future generations in their wealth-building strategies. I think this is must-read information well worth studying by those looking for a constructive means of addressing the economic inequity in wealth, not just income. This is essential reading.



2. Heavily researched, but written in a very accessible way. You will learn volumes about wealth disparities and how they got that way, and you will learn something about yourself too. Highly recommended for anyone with interests in social and economic justice, racism, and just getting ahead in America.



3. This book is a solid piece of scholarship for the most part. The last quarter, however, dissipates into more reformism. It is interesting to see statistics on the wealth differential between Whites and other Ethnic Groups and the causal factors concomitantly, e.g. racism, Ethnocentricism, greed etc. The historical analysis as to what created the divide is thorough. That said, the prescription in the end makes one wonder if the scholars' really grasped the Historical antecedents that they presented to begin with. What occured in the past to create the disparity was not accidental. On the contrary. Whites today have the same mindset as their ancestors did in regards to wealth and securing it. How can they not? It's the same continuum. The society reinforces it. Just ask Tim Wise. Whites need only be on auto pilot to maintain this unjust system. The only solution is a complete social revolution, this - in the long run - will move people of color into equality while simultaneously changing the psyches' of Whites. Anything short of that can be consigned to phantasmic thinking.



4. This book is very biased against the US economy and is basically advocating a socialist or semi-socalist state. The book becomes very repetitive at times and the long chapters are filled with facts that do not seem related to thier arguments. Furthermore they state that the goal of the Color of Wealth is meant to provide solutions for the current state of the economy. They spend an enormous amount of time pointing out "issues" with the US economy but only spend a short paragraph at the end of each chapter explaining thier "solutions" and "conclusions" which seem very basic and at times do not flow with thier evidence. The book is filled with logic gaps in thier arguments. The main problem I have with this book is that it seems to me that they are implying that the United States is an economic aparthide system similar to that of old South Africa on page 29. Although I do give the authors some credit because the book is well researched. The authors of this book clearly seem more interested in bashing the United States from a ultra-left liberal point of view rather than providing solutions to the so called "racial problems" in the US economy. I would not recomend this book to anyone looking to understand any sort of racial economic problems in the US.



5. I read this with an open mind, but then I had to question some of their facts because they would contradict each other. The book opens by comparing Whites to other races in America. The main argument is that America tilts the playing field in favor of White Americans, and people of color are oppressed to the point that we cannot accumulate wealth. However there are a few bar graphs that point to the contrary. For example, Indians and Filipinos earn more than Whites. The authors contend that most White Americans have their college paid for by their parents. But I don't see how that means that the U.S. government is giving them an unfair head start. My parents paid for my college education, and unlike the book states, they did not use the equity of their house to pay for my or my 3 siblings' college education. They are also homeowners even though they are people of color. I don't think that our situation is exactly shocking or out of the ordinary. My family is just responsible for ourselves and our own destiny in America.
   The book gives a long and detailed and dreary history of America's racist past. However, we must remember that it is in the past. As bad as racism is, I don't think the answer is affirmative action, as the book suggests. Didn't Martin Luther King, Jr. dream of a nation where his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character? In addition, the racist policy that America used to have is no longer the policy today. But affirmative action would replace the old racist policies with a new racist policy.
   Another point that I found strange was the idea that Reagan's policies were racist. The book goes on to say that his racist policies accidentally hurt poor Whites as well. Couldn't that just mean that the policies were not racist in the first place?
   Overall I found this book very offensive as a racial minority because it claims that we cannot get to where we want to be without help from the government. Affirmative action is not legal in California, so I am glad to know that I got into UCLA on my own merit and not because of my race. If it were still legal, I would question whether I was truly good enough to get into the school. If we use affirmative action, I suspect that our abilities will be questioned.
   The book's solution for the race problem is an unrealistic plan which includes a socialist state. I hope someone tells the authors that socialism failed in the USSR. Yes, the "S" stands for "Socialist." If the authors tried living in the European countries they deem so superior to the USA, they might see that some other countries are racist even today. But they will probably excuse them since those European countries have the universal healthcare and high taxes they praise in the book.

5 comments about Why Unions Matter.

1. Yates does present a good basic review of the trials and tribulations and the benefits of unions over the last century or so. But there is much disingenuity in this book. He points out that much of the basis of early unions was an urban-based solidarity of workers who lived, worshipped, and worked in close proximity in the early decades of the 20th century. He calls for a renewed, if not similar, solidarity among mainstream workers today; but the demographics of US workers and the structure of industries are far different. The closest example today of old time solidarity may be the relationship of black churches and neighborhoods and municipal workers. Other than workers from union families and left-liberal college professors, most US workers in many segments of the economy don't have a clue about unions and what they know is negative. His calls for worker activism in the political process and within workplaces have to be reconciled with the reality of political apathy and workplace authority. That is the ground that must be tilled for solidarity. For the one in ten workers that are in unions, the NLRA and NLRB and well as union officialdom probably contain and constrain as much as empower workers. For example, changing national union affiliation is not viewed with equanimity. Yates is too accepting of US-style unionism; for example German-style works councils could have been contrasted with US unions in terms of giving workers agency. Also, it seems that Yates derives far too much satisfaction from the fact that the AFL-CIO will now talk to left-liberal academics. He needs to appreciate better that the activists of bygone eras were generated from within the working class which reflected an inherent understanding of their class condition. How many Americans today even have a notion of class? As stated, Yates' book does a good job of showing the state of AFL-CIO unionism. But the book would not be satisfying for those who have critically examined that terrain.



2. Over the past decade, economist Michael Yates has written a number of books for working people -- "Power on the Job," "The Labor Law Handbook," "Longer Hours, Fewer Jobs: Employment and Unemployment in the United States" and now "Why Unions Matter." Yates manages to write in a clear readable style and, at the same time, talk about complex matters. He is also one of the very few nonlawyers who has an understanding and grasp of the role of law. "Why Unions Matter" manages to provide a lot of information about union history, labor economics, and even how to organize a union and bargain a contract in a very concise book. While I might differ with Yates on some details, I think this book makes a valuable contribution. It and his other books should be on every unionist's bookshelf, and unionists should lobby their public libraries to carry Yates' books.

   As a final note, it is a very rare thing for academics, such as Yates, to write for a popular audience. All the pressures in academia are to write for other academics. It takes imagination, caring and courage to do what Yates does, and he deserves our gratitude for it.




3. The author makes it abundantly clear that without the backing of a labor union, most workers stand little chance of countering unilateral and capricious employer actions. A collective bargaining agreement is a quasi-constitution that provides for due process for workers in many workplace situations. Otherwise, employees simply work "at the will" of employers with no recourse to challenge decisions.

   The author explores the steps that generally need to be taken to form a union under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Beyond those procedures, he repeatedly stresses the class and workplace solidarity needed to form an effective union. But the main American labor movement in its evolution has never developed a coherent stance on the class nature of capitalism. Bureaucratic, bread-and-butter, business unionism describes the American labor movement after WWII. It is an orientation that does not seek to transform the essential dominance of American capital over the American working class.

   It is clear that the American labor movement has since the Civil War faced incredible opposition from both employers and the state, including the police, the armed forces, and the judiciary. In addition, the various media empires portray unions as un-American or criminal in nature. Nonetheless, the author is unhappy with the conservatism of the labor movement regardless of any practical reasons for that stance. He views the purge of left-wing elements from unions and the lack of union internal democracy as developments that greatly weaken the ability of unions to fully represent the working class.

   The key structure of unions is the local union that is centered on one or more workplaces in a geographical area. Naturally their concerns are with local issues and generally not on broader working class concerns. The author wishes to see a far more aggressive labor presence in the political realm. Issues such as employment as a right, national health care, shorter work hours, greater equality in pay, and democratization of workplaces need to appear on the political agenda of organized labor. The author does not really address the issue of what would be the role for labor unions if the American working class actually became powerful enough to implement pro-worker legislation. For example, what would the role for unions be in worker-dominated firms?

   Yes, unions do matter. No other organizations even remotely afford workers the voice and protection that unions do within workplaces. But there is wide variability in their effectiveness. Furthermore, it is rather obvious that the labor movement as presently conceived has been quite limited in its ability to counter the global forces of capitalism that have been playing havoc with the world's working classes. Basically, the author is not quite as pro-union as it might seem at first glance.




4. This is an excellent introduction to unions. The author covers the basic legal, economic and political aspects with a critical eye. This should be mandatory reading for union members and everyone else that wants to stand up to Corporate America.
   
   Michael Yates' anecdotal stories of rank-and-file resistance to corporate greed and business unionism deserve to widely read in and of themselves.



5. This book has a great history of unions and the American Labor Movement as
   well. I didn't know how much unions have affected our current labor laws. I
   think it would be a great supplement for any American History class.

5 comments about Workforce Crisis: How to Beat the Coming Shortage of Skills And Talent.

1. The "research" that the authors quote is their own but their "findings" are nothing more than information that has been reported ad nauseum in journal articles and news stories over the past several years. The book could have been condensed drastically without losing any of the points. The last 25% of the book is a "discussion guide" that may be more valuable than the guts of the book.
   
   Borrow this one from the library.



2. 
   In essence, the "workforce crisis" to which the title refers results from an insufficiency of talented, skilled, and principled people at a time when competition for them has never been more intense than it is now...and "the coming shortage" of them is certain to increase in months and years ahead. In the first two Parts of this volume, the authors explain how this "brain drain" threatens organizational performance, why a new workforce stategy is needed, why older workers (ages 55+) comprise "the biggest untapped resource" and how to optimize their services, why and how the "boomer bottleneck" disrupts productibity, how to rekindle employees' passion for work, why the best of the younger workers (ages 18-34) keep leaving, and how to connect with them. Then in Parts III and IV, they explain why flexible work arrangements are needed and how to make them work, why continuous education matters and how to make it pay off, why "variety will rule" and how to leverage it, how to evaluate the talent and skills of the current workforce and anticipate their needs, and finally, how to formulate and then implement strategies by which to avert a workforce crisis.
   
   Readers will greatly appreciate the authors' no-nonsense approach to real-world issues. Their observations are based on extensive research and their recommendations are both practical and do-able. The provision of various case studies is a substantial value-added benefit. It is instructive to see how various organizations have either avoided or satisrfactorily resolved the "workforce crisis" each faced. There are two other books which should be read in combinbation with this one: Leigh Branham`s The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave: How to Recognize the Subtle Signs and Act Before It's Too Late and Bradford Smart's Topgrading: How Leading Companies Win by Hiring, Coaching, and Keeping the Best People (Revised and Updated Edition).



3. Ken Dychtwald covers greatly the changes in today's workforce. From diversity to age, it all effects the shortage of skills and talent. This is a great book for anyone who owns, manages or plans on opening a small business.
   
   Mieko Banjoko



4. This book talks about engagement by age group, which is a good topic but when reading into futher...its saying all age groups want the same things; flexible work arrangements, good pay and benefits. Nothing new in this book.



5. This is a page-turner for anyone interested in workforce development, human capital, or economic development interests. It's a succinct, digestible argument concerning the dramatic changes that will be taking place over the next 20 years. Their points are articulate, digestible and actionable. I highly recommend this book.

5 comments about The End of Work.

1. Probably one of the worst distortions in statistics is that of extratroplation of complex issues. The UN and its followers are very prone to these kinds of mistakes as is this book. To extropolate out and arrive at the kind of conclusions found in this book is a bit beyond ridiculous and borderline irresponsible. I notice too that there is essentially no consideration/balance regarding Schumpeter's "creative destruction" theories.
   
   The title itself "The End of Work" is not something we should take seriously or utilize as a basis for further discussion.



2. Some reviewers see this book as a "gloom'n'doom" "Malthusian" feeding of technophobia, but I disagree. Look at the news - reports of job losses despite increased productivity and corporate profits are not going to go away. Technological advances make this an inevitability. What Rifkin ultimately questions is how we deal with that - we could either head towards great social upheavals because of mass unemployment leading to people being unable to provide for their own basic needs, or we could enjoy a cultural and social rebirth where people are free from wage slavery and are free to pursue meaningful and fulfilling endeavors.
   
   Rifkin's surveys of the development of the third sector (NGOs, arts, sports, social services, religious organizations, etc.), proposals for the guaranteed annual income for everyone, usage of time dollars, and increase in volunteerism does not indicate that he's some kind of paranoid nut who's screaming that the sky is falling - in fact, he comes across as being more cautiously optimistic. These are the similar ideas about a work-free (meaningless work, that is) future that R. Buckminster Fuller Robert Anton Wilson and Bertram Russell have written about.
   
   If some might think that this book is "leftist anti-corporate propaganda", it is not - it's quite non-partisan; he may espouse the idea of a guaranteed annual income which most might distastefully find "socialistic", but from the capitalist point-of-view, how can consumers buy products to support a corporation's profits if they don't have any money in the first place?



3. I often enjoy reading books written trying to read the future that are several years old. If only to see why the writer was right or wrong and where he went wrong.
   
   Well this book was published in 1996 and is basically written around the US although other countries are mentioned in passing. The basic premises is that the new industries will employ a few people but not enough to make up the fall in the established industries. So the unemployment will go up. Furthermore we better get used to it. His partial solution is reduction in hours of employment and a greater stress on the third sector.
   
   Looking at the US economy which most of the book is written about in the past 50 years the workforce in the US has almost tripled. Yet in the same period there is no long term trend to greater unemployment. Just look at a graph. Currently now its where it was in 1950. So obviously unemployment is not going up. So the writer got it wrong.
   
   Looking at a graph of US unemployments percenatges, its clear that the situation was a bit high at the time of writing. The writer made a typical mistake of many futurologist of extrapolating into the far future based on the past few years.
   
   Furthermore the writer paid too much attention to the publicity departments of R&D companies. He keeps bring us all these new technologies that are going to change the world dramatically eg getting rid of farmers with chemical vats and vanilla production from genetic research. Well, its been 10 years and most of these technologies are still coming. He obviously has forgotten Daniel Bell warning in what is an absolute gem of a book "Coming of Post-Industrial Society" that many futurologist look too hard at industries worth millions of dollars and generalize into industrials worth billions.
   
   He seems to also forget that labour hours are dropping all the time. I am not sure what the situation is in the US but as the pay master in an Australian company, I can see that the labour hours are steadily dropping every year. For example old timers tell me that the standard office hours 40 years ago was 44 hours a week, by the time I started working it was 40 and now at 38 hours plus now two 10 minutes breaks are included in the working hours so its more like 36 hours week. Furthermore in the past few years the number of sick days a year has gone from 5 days to 8 days a year. Two extra days a year has been introduced for compassionate leave. Long service leave (a holiday of 15 weeks) is now given at 10 years not 15 years. Furthermore the average worker now starts his employment later as he tends to study much more, so early 20s is now quite standard to start working and he retires at 55. All this works out to a rather dramatic drop in hours worked in a generation.
   
   Finally we come to the third sector. The sector the writer hopes is going to take some of the unemployment. This is a sector that I have had considerable contact with over the years eg I went to a private school, been active in political and religious organizations, been computer programmer in a private cancer research organization and have been too many private hospitals. I don't see the employment opportunities. The volunteers or people on the committees that he is referring too tend to be at most a few hours a week. Hardly an equivalent of a job. Nor is it generally like they are working. Often its more socialible. The people that work for these organizations tend to be regular workers eg the janitor in the church, the nurse in a charity run hospital or teacher in a religious school does a similar job to the same people in a similar government or private institution. They tend to get paid roughly the same. Often they go from government to private to the third sector depending on who gives them a better deal. I just don't know where the writer is coming from with his arguments here. I suspect that he has little contact with these organizations.
   
   Overall I would say that this book is best forgotten.



4. Middle management is vulnerable to job loss in the event of restructuring. Typically a reconfigured company sheds forty percent of its jobs. The computer revolution is most pronounced in the manufacturing sector. A world with fewer and fewer workers is a disturbing trend.
   
   In the early years of the Great Depression the link between labor-saving and overproduction was discerned. By 1932 shorter hours of work was supported by the rationale of economic justice. In 1963 a triple revolution was identified by J. Robert Oppenheimer and others, cybernetics, weapons manufactures, and human rights concerns. The issue presented was the possibility that previously disfavored groups could become outcasts in the new cyber economy. Norbert Weiner warned of technological unemployment. Labor leaders decided not to fight automation, the use of labor-saving devices, but rather to push for retraining. Unfortunately too few jobs were created and the union began losing membership and clout.
   
   Modern management began with the railroads in 1850. Now organizational hierarchies are being deconstructed. There is a connection between biotechnology and automation resulting in rapid changes in farming practices.
   
   Service work has been absorbing losses of manufacturing work in the past, but service work is being automated and can no longer be depended upon to create jobs. Productivity gains and increased profits are being made with fewer workers. Electronic inroads highlight the advent of the paperless office in the insurance and banking industries. Paper in a service business has been compared to cholesterol in the bloodstream.
   
   A lot of retailing has gone electronic and wholesale functions are being eliminated. In the meantime cashier productivity has increased greatly through the use of bar code technology.
   
   The author terms the current state of affairs the third industrial revolution. The work force, though, is in retreat in nearly every sector. Trickle-down is a chimera.
   
   The newest victims of re-engineering are apt to live in affluent suburbs. A fading middle class is described. There is gross disparity between high wage earners and low wage earners. The pace of work due to automation has increased resulting in worker stress. There are more temporary jobs and fewer full-time jobs available in the re-engineered business environment. Technology displacement produces an increase in crime statistics. Hardship and stress lead to spontaneous upheavals. One cure for unemployment is a shorter work week.
   
   In the future the market sector and the public sector will be less important than the third sector embodying volunteerism. Notes, bibliography, and index follow this enlightening text.



5. A must read. Written back in the 90s but arguably more relevant today than it was back then. Very thoroughly chronicles the progression of the 3 Industrial Revolutions---the 3rd of which we are entering now---and their impact on global economics and politics.
   
   The message is clear: Millions of people are becoming economically obsolete; because of technology we no longer need them to help produce things like automobiles, steel, and many consumer goods. At the same time, they can no longer afford to purchase these things due to job displacement. They have been shoved out of the world economy, and if we don't do something about it, we will have a global French Revolution situation on our hands as their ranks continue to grow exponentially due to outsourcing and tech upgrades and the chasm between haves and have-nots continues to widen daily.
   
   There are two futures that the author sees as possible. The first---and more probable according to him---is a bleak one with rising crime and massive backlash of the poor on each other and the wealthy. The other is a refocusing on the volunteer/social sector and employing the displaced masses in worthy contribution to communities. Rifkin does not realize it, but he is basically suggesting a casting away of European values originating from Platonic dichotomies of good/bad, us/other, valuable/expendable, etc...then evolving into the "us" VS. "other" mentality of medieval Europe...before finally maturing into full-scale imperialism, colonialism, manifest destiny, etc.....the ULTIMATE "Entitlement" mentality...resulting in the unapologetic exploitation of land, people, and resources until imploding on itself out of its own greed and ravenousness. When he talks of the 3rd/social sector--the "'post-market" area, he is actually suggesting the adoption of more cooperative and community-conscious African principles once the European worldview has collapsed on itself.

2 comments about Chutes and Ladders: Navigating the Low-Wage Labor Market (Russell Sage Foundation Books at Harvard University Press).

1. Maybe you've read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel-and-Dimed or David K. Shipler's The Working Poor. Or perhaps you've seen the episode of Morgan Spurlock's TV series 30 Days in which he and his girlfriend try to make it on minimum wage jobs for one month. Then you know that it is just not possible to live on minimum wage. Is welfare the only alternative? Is there any reason at all to work at mind-numbing, soul-sucking, back-breaking minimum wage McJobs? Katherine Newman takes a look at that question from the viewpoint, not of a journalist, but of an anthropologist. She and her grad student team interviewed about three hundred applicants at Harlem fast food restaurants in 1996 and then followed their progress for two years. The applicants were from Harlem, all from poor families and mostly Latino or African-American. They ranged in age from teenagers to mid-thirties. Newman documented the two-year project in her previous book No Shame in My Game.
   
   She and her team went back eight years later to see what had happened to the "subjects." They were only able to find about forty of the original applicants, so while it doesn't constitute a large enough sample to draw statistical conclusions from, they thought it still might be useful to see what paths the most successful workers had followed. Chutes & Ladders is the story of what they found after eight years. As anthropologists, they had no preconceived ideas or expectations. The reader however, might have a few ideas of what to expect, and might end up being surprised. I was.
   
   Some of the workers didn't do too well over the years, and ended up on welfare, disillusioned and angry. But some of the workers were more successful than anyone would have predicted, working in white-collar jobs that paid well above poverty level, over $100,000 in one case. In fact, about 20% of the original fast food applicants were no longer poor after eight years. How did they do it? Did they have certain advantages over the others? Did they get a lucky break along the way? Does working at a McJob really prepare you for bigger and better jobs? There are no simple answers.
   
   Newman presents all the data, in charts and statistics, and in a narrative that is just as readable and compelling as Ehrenreich's and Shipler's. You will have to draw your own conclusions. It seemed to me that the most successful workers did not gain any advantage from working at fast food restaurants or other minimum wage jobs. They just got the best job they could at the time and moved to better work when they found it. But they didn't wait around for better jobs to magically appear. They kept their ears open and paid attention to who was hiring and what sort of applicants were required. They adjusted themselves to the best of their ability to look and sound like what the employers wanted. They worked hard and learned fast, but they weren't necessarily the smartest or the most advantaged (or even the least disadvantaged). They seemed to be the ones with an idea of where they wanted to go. They wanted to succeed and they figured out, in different ways, how to get there.
   
   There are bound to be some people who look at a study like this and conclude that since some people can pull themselves out of poverty, then everyone should be able to. Even some of the workers in the study came to this conclusion. "If I can do it, then anyone should be able to." But remember, it was only about 20% of these young and healthy workers who were able to succeed. That leaves 80% who were still working minimum wage jobs, not working at all, or who were working off the grid. It really is hard to make it on minimum wage, and adding complications such as child care and/or unexpected bills (usually health-related) can derail the best of plans.
   
   Still, it's hard not to find the results of this study more positive than negative. If 20% were able to succeed with no help at all, then imagine how many could succeed with some help. Health insurance for everyone would be a great start.



2. "Chutes and Ladders" is a fascinating longitudinal study of low-wage workers in the U.S. labor market. I would like to see it become better known, especially among poor people and those who work with them. The main message of Newman's book is that it's not easy to climb out of poverty, but a surprising number of people do manage it.
   
   I felt that Newman shied away from some of the easiest conclusions to draw from her own work. She notes frequently that problems with kids are a major reason why many people fail to escape poverty. Child care is at best expensive and at worst unavailable. Kids get sick and have to be taken care of, often leading to job loss among the poor. Yet Newman says almost nothing about the use of birth control and/or abortion to prevent poverty or increase the chance of a family escaping it. As far as I'm concerned, kids are a luxury item. My husband and I have a son, age ten. Although we both have good jobs, we have found even one child to be incredibly expensive in both money and time. I can't imagine how we could manage with two. Yet many subjects of Newman's study, already poor, go on to have two or five or even seven kids! No wonder so many of them stayed poor!
   
   Newman mentions recent economic growth as one of the factors benefitting the poor in the U.S. This is misleading. Economic growth is generally measured by GDP, which is a measure so inaccurate so as to be almost laughable. GDP is not corrected for increasing population, pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, or declining quality of life. More accurate measures of economic growth, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or Genuine Progress Indicator, tend to show that there has been almost no genuine economic growth in the U.S. since the 1970s. For more on this, see McKibben's book "Deep Economy," Daly's "Beyond Growth," or Brian Czech's "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train."
   
   I also thought that Newman overlooked important questions on why it is that the quality of life for poor people in the U.S. is so low. After all, the average wage of a burger-flipping worker in the U.S. would put a family well into the middle class in most countries. Why is the cost of living so high here when the prices of most basic commodities do not differ all that much between countries? This is a complex question, but some surprising answers have already been found, which Newman would do well to consider. For example, one of the main reasons it costs so much to live in the U.S. is that our transportation system is organized around the automobile. Cars not only cost money for those who own them, they require high taxes to pay for all those highways. Everybody pays these taxes, including those who don't own a car. Cars also increase housing costs, because parking has to be provided for all those cars, which spreads out cities. For more on this, see Donald Shoup's book "The High Cost of Free Parking."
   
   Overall, though, Newman's book is interesting and well worth reading.

No comments about Trucking Country: The Road to America's Wal-Mart Economy (Politics and Society in Twentieth Century America).

No comments about Payroll Accounting 2009 (with Klooster/Allen's Computerized Payroll Accounting Software) (Payroll Accounting).