Not just America, America is just leading the pack. And from an English perspective I certainly wouldn't eulogise the Unions in the way this article does either. My father (now retired) was a member of the EETPU (Electrician's Union). It was seen as a "right-wing" Union because its constitution banned communists from holding any positions within the Union - but that was because communist activists and their aggressive confrontational policies had almost wrecked the Union. The EETPU dealt with the problem, other Unions, the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) did not. It was their aggressive confrontational policies that wrecked worker solidarity in private industry.
The article touches on the breakdown of other social support as well. Marriage for example. And yet doesn't touch on why this might be. I have a son and two daughters. I have told my daughters that they must get married, and my son that he should definitely not. Why? Because divorce laws are so anti-male that nowadays it makes no sense for a man to marry. (And yes, I cynically want my daughters to gain this protection).
In the UK there used to be a massive culture of socialising in "pubs" (public houses, or "bars"). Legislative changes ranging from allowing the 24 hour sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets coupled with anti-smoking legislation that makes it illegal to smoke inside pubs have driven away a large chunk of that trade. I am a non-smoker but would prefer an open pub that allows smoking than no pub at all. This is important because pubs are also traditionally where different social classes meet and mingle as equals as well as where young people used to learn to drink responsibly under the watchful eye of the landlord and older drinkers - now they are likely to get totally smashed on alco-pops out of sight.
Then there's the impact of mass immigration on social housing and the resultant disruption of traditional communities.
The traditional working classes (my background) are already under assault even before we add in the coming tide of job losses through automation. These are all good reasons for supporting a move to a Basic Citizen's Income as soon as possible.
I really like your point about pubs. Your point about mass immigration is good too, though I think it omits the impact that automation and outsourcing have already had on employment.
Not so sure about your view on marriage, though. Are you saying your son shouldn't marry because, if he finds a girlfriend and has children, marriage would disadvantage him should they ever divorce?
I've been happily married for 22 years but I guess I've been lucky. It's certainly the ideal, which is why I want it for my daughters. However I could also tell horror stories about male friends who married, divorced, and subsequently lost most of their property whilst simultaneously having to fight just to get access to their children. Difficult when you've lost your house and most (or all) of your savings.
If you are married you seem to lose all your rights in the event of a break-up. Stay single and although you have to pay financial support, you will at least keep your house and belongings.
One of my friends had had to put up with a concerted campaign of abuse by his ex-wife. She got him arrested and held over night on false allegations, and whilst he was being held emptied his bank accounts, stripped his home of all movable possessions and even telephoned where we work making all kinds of untrue allegations in an attempt to get him sacked. It gets worse, but I think you get the picture.
I think visitation rights are genuinely an area where men have it worse. That said, I know plenty of women who didn't do well out of divorce. My mother was divorced for much of my childhood, and so were many of her friends. Several of the ex-husbands fiddled their income such that they paid minimal support while having enough money to go gallivanting around the world.
Thanks for sharing, in any case. It's all food for thought -- and clearly, something needs to be done about visitation rights.
Yes, it's a complex and mixed picture on both sides.
I think one of the reasons I have a successful marriage is that when we first got together we had absolutely nothing and were just struggling to survive. Everything we achieved has been an improvement that we have done together.
Too many people nowadays seem to expect perfection from Day One and when that doesn't happen they take the easy way out by walking away.
I find it interesting that there is a negative correlation between having a honeymoon and having a successful marriage. People get married with an enormous party and then go on the holiday of a lifetime. They come back and it's all downhill from that point.
By contrast we had a 2-day coach mini-break to Scotland.
I was Best Man (and my wife Matron of Honour) for our closest friends. Their honeymoon was three nights in a tent on the East Coast (of England).
Another friend went into debt having a massive holiday in the Maldives, (against my advice - I was his Best Man also). He is now divorced. Compare and contrast.
> The EETPU dealt with the problem, other Unions, the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) did not. It was their aggressive confrontational policies that wrecked worker solidarity in private industry.
I'm not English, but from my (lefty, somewhat uninformed) point of view - wasn't it Maggie Thatcher who "wrecked worker solidarity in private industry"? Or at least wasn't the downfall of unions around her time?
Aside: I have a colleague from Liverpool, let's just say he wasn't distraught upon learning the news of her passing.
Folk mythology isn't always based on underlying facts. Thatcher wasn't perfect but the decline in British manufacturing and mining had been happening long before - the graph of employment in British manufacturing is essentially a 45 degree downward slope from 1961 going back to the same (absolute) number of people in 1991 as were in employed in 1891. In the same way Thatcher didn't shut the largest number of pits.
Britain was the "sick man of Europe" during the 70s, we got bailed out by the IMF in 1976 - unions gave us the Winter of Discontent. Far too many confrontational unions protected Spanish Practices and demanded unjustifiable pay increases which bankrupted companies - not to mention earned a dire reputation for quality. I see a lot more "worker solidarity" in things like German work councils than 70s British trade unions, they didn't seem to have any concept of creating a sustainable business and ultimately wanted everything nationalised in order to separate pay from profits.
Notable (Labour Party) left-winger Barbara Castle tried to address the problem of excessive Union militancy with a proposal "In Place of Strife" as early as 1969. It failed and the problems only got worse.
Dominic Sandbrook in his history of the 1970s, Seasons in the Sun, makes the point that the "every man for himself" attitude of some of the unions in the 1970s actually had more in common with Thatcherism than the old-school Labour types who gave us the NHS.
> In the UK there used to be a massive culture of socialising in "pubs" (public houses, or "bars").
I'm actually a member of a fraternal organization (like the masons) where exactly this kind of social mingling happens. It is fantastic.
Anyone looking for more social support, consider joining one of these clubs (if you have time, which I know is a scarce commodity). They are desperate for new members, and often own assets/property.
You have some points right, others are very rose-tinted.
I've been living in England for 16 years (after several long trips over the previous 15); I've seen plenty of people getting smashed in pubs as well as in clubs, never "out of sight" from anyone.
Beer consumption has gone down because of shifting consumer taste (alcopops didn't even exist in your '70s workers' paradise). The smoking ban absolutely did hit traditional pubs, basically turning them into waiter-less restaurants, but to be fair they were already being hit hard by chain consolidation and shifting consumer habits.
Supermarket sales of alcohol have gone up not because of opening times, but because of 1) price and 2) supermarkets getting bigger and less 'local', which means the woman at the till doesn't know you and will likely not stare at you like you're a child molester when you buy three six-packs (as it used to happen with local coops even in the early '90s).
Regarding the impact of immigration on "social housing" -- that's nothing compared to the impact of "right to buy" schemes. Traditional communities were disrupted because families bought out their council houses and flipped them on the market to cash in and move out. They didn't like living in working-class council-build areas, so they moved out and left those areas to the next wave of indigents. In fact, "social housing" is disappearing as a concept, and soon it won't matter who is or is not in a council house, because there won't be any council house left.
The hard truth is that the working class is made of individuals, who make individualistic choices. People like cheap Tescos, nice houses, and not getting lung cancer because they work in a pub. There is no need to romanticize the past.
My "70s workers' paradise"? Please don't put words in my mouth, I made no such claim.
I was referring to traditional local pubs, not the town-centre "vertical drinking establishments" which replaced them.
"Right-to-buy" schemes weren't the problem - my in-laws live in an ex-Council House which they bought. This was actually a good thing in that one of the problems with large out-of-town Council Estates was that they ended up containing a monoculture lacking in good visible role models for the children growing up on them. Private purchases on those estates improved that situation.
The problem wasn't "Right to Buy", it was "Right to Build" - Councils should have been allowed (and encouraged) to use the money raised from Sales to build replacement housing.
I find it interesting that you describe my pointing out mistakes that have been made as "romanticising the past". On the contrary, if you want to improve things then the very first thing you have to acknowledge is when and where things have gone wrong.
The article touches on the breakdown of other social support as well. Marriage for example. And yet doesn't touch on why this might be. I have a son and two daughters. I have told my daughters that they must get married, and my son that he should definitely not. Why? Because divorce laws are so anti-male that nowadays it makes no sense for a man to marry. (And yes, I cynically want my daughters to gain this protection).
In the UK there used to be a massive culture of socialising in "pubs" (public houses, or "bars"). Legislative changes ranging from allowing the 24 hour sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets coupled with anti-smoking legislation that makes it illegal to smoke inside pubs have driven away a large chunk of that trade. I am a non-smoker but would prefer an open pub that allows smoking than no pub at all. This is important because pubs are also traditionally where different social classes meet and mingle as equals as well as where young people used to learn to drink responsibly under the watchful eye of the landlord and older drinkers - now they are likely to get totally smashed on alco-pops out of sight.
Then there's the impact of mass immigration on social housing and the resultant disruption of traditional communities.
The traditional working classes (my background) are already under assault even before we add in the coming tide of job losses through automation. These are all good reasons for supporting a move to a Basic Citizen's Income as soon as possible.