Chapter 1:

Being a reading assigned from Economics classed, I opened the first page of the book expecting to see a definition of the precariat, or perhaps even of unemployment, but the book completely surprised me by giving a rather anecdote-based introduction of the “rise” of the precariat. 

 

The definition of the precariat seemed surprisingly vague to me – but at the same time, I could definitely see groups of people or archetypes that fit into this category.

 

I found the idea of social income very interesting – it is really different from what we learn (kind of) in economics, at least the formal theory, and really incorporates even partly mild sources of income such as gifts from family and friends (which to be honest, I feel, actually might play a huge role). I also thought that perhaps the abundance of these sources of income, or the lack thereof, might be a reason why stratification is so prominent within our society. As in - the rich support their family and their friends, whereas the poor are unable to find modes of assistance outside their relatively “precarious” jobs, which leads to the two circles becoming ever more segregated.

 

When I read about the precariat, and interesting thought popped up to me – besides perhaps being classified as the underground economy, or the underemployed, perhaps could they also be partly classified as frictional unemployment? When they are unemployed and in between jobs, of course. Does this indicate not only structural unemployment, but even frictional or seasonal unemployment in the NRU can also be a policy target / priority of governments?

 

The pun made in “kintractship” made me laugh – it was an interesting idea. We talk about 衣食父母 in Chinese, literally translated as food and clothing parents, and I think the author touches on an important idea. The problem of the precariat is perhaps their inability to detach themselves from their reliance upon their unstable relations – because otherwise they are unable to survive. The notion that working in such relation provides increased possibility of lower future benefits and security is also interesting.

 

The downsides of the internet and computer systems – how it provides instant gratification and satisfaction was really interesting too. Although I must say I cannot completely agree with this idea – I think of the computerized technology more as a tool that we use, and that its benefits and limitations really reside in the choice of the user and their ability to wield it.

 

After finishing Chapter 1, I had the stark sense that this book was so different from the other ones I’ve read, and definitely my favourite! I feel that it takes on a much more sociological approach to the topic, rather than a theoretical argument, and I think it really demonstrates the interrelation between different disciplines.

 

Chapter 2:

Capital per person in China, India, Indonesia and Thailand is 3% of USA, really? Interesting figure…

 

“China Plus One” is a new and really interesting term for me, never realized there was such a policy.

 

The dangerousness of the situation of precariats I think is clearly presented – especially the psychological impact. “The low wages and labour intensity … brought to the world’s attention by a spate of suicides and attempted suicides in 2009 and 2010…” The half-hearted efforts of companies and businesses that demonstrate a reaction, but don’t cut out the root problem – low-pay, instable working environment, low opportunities – show, really, how the oppression takes place. The reactions to such a large issue it solved rather comically – buildings nets to catch people, hiring counsellors (this may seem like the only plausible one) and bringing in monks to calm them and signing suicide notes…

 

The problem of confliction objectives once again arises in economics – it is more competitive for firms to use temporary labour, but, on the other hand, it of course deprives these labourers of perhaps the basic securities that they need. It also seems that flexibility seems to be one of the most “successful” systems, but does it necessarily require temporary labour to be truly flexible? Does stability of working condition and environment necessarily contradict flexibility?

 

The phrase “be a regular worker – and be exploited for the rest of your life” is largely incomprehensible, to characterize and promote such an idea (this was not said by the author but quoted) seems very against the morals and ideology of equality promoted by modern day society. Personally, I simply feel that it’s a product of the darker sides of social stratification and the continuous and pressing need of the privileged to preserve or even to expand what they already have. To satisfy their insatiable lust and greed.

 

I found the idea being able to fire workers easily boosts the economy largely familiar with the case study we had on Denmark – although personally, I feel like such sort of action reduces the incentive for workers to work? Unless they are not “fired” but decided to leave the post voluntarily.

I see that the book was written not long after the 2008 recession, and throughout, I saw a lot of references to the recession, so I wonder how much of its content were influenced by what happened?

Commodification, globalisation era 

Integrated world economy means developments in one part of the world can have effects elsewhere, e.g. labor costs

Emerging economies will remain main factor for growth of precariat 

Before globalisation, labor markets of economies open to trade and investment roughly 1 billion workers & job seekers. Labor force of countries grown, plus China, India and ex-Soviet bloc tripled it. Newcomers offered low wages; 

Now others (Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, Bangladesh) added to cheap work supply.

Speed of change has massively increased in China (state investment, foreign direct investment) and India close behind. China contributed to GLOBAL income inequality: low wages putting downward pressure; connivance of multinationals (Foxconn—a contract manufacturer) hire rural-urban migrants, expecting 30-40% labor turnover a year; labor intensity (36hours of overtime a month; followed by many suicides in 2009/10)

Suicides got publicity, Foxconn raised workers’ wages, but made them sign ‘no suicide’ pledge notes, surrounded buildings in nets to catch workers if they jumped and hired counsellors. 

Companies themselves have commodified (bought and sold, traded, split up), thus the extent to which owners commit are not as great anymore. Hierarchies and long-term trust relationships can no longer exist within firms as buyers who are able to amass a large sum of money can take over any business.

Everything becomes a contingency, and employees lives were made more insecure. 

Issueing shares became more common, and companies were more vulnerable to takeovers, thus wanting a more flexible labor force, leading them to many to attrit their workforce—more became ‘shareholder focused’ (40%), only 13% ‘worker focused’. 

Outsourcing and offshoring became more common, uncertainty over job security. 

Firms becoming more flexible geographically than employees. 

Flexible labor relations are a direct cause. Main forms: numerical, functional, wages. 

Numerical: employment insecurity

Having firing workers be easier makes employers more likely to hire,  governments want to outcompete each other with low employment protection. Temporary labor allows for quick change in employment, and altering of division of labor, more accepting of changes, paid less, 

Less youths being hired, more temporary contracts, who are paid less, lower training opportunities and benefits. Other firms are using them, so others seek to emulate it to take advantage of the lower costs. 

Short term employment not classified in employment. 2008 recession made more firms hire temps in place of ‘permanent’ workers. 

Maybe one reason for part-time job growth may also be due to parents being on precarious incomes, thus children are urged to earn income as soon as possible. And even if education is free, those extra years spent in school could be years in which other bills may become difficult to pay—one form of income insecurity accentuates others. 

Reducing cost: outsourcing, offshoring. 

Functional: job insecurity

Change labor divisions with low costs and quickly. Control of division of labor makes it easier to switch between offshoring, insuring (shutting between plants within country) and outsourcing, insourcing. Blurring of work places, home places, and public places are a result of functional flexibility and tertiarisation. Workers are more isolated, less informal exchanges—just like Covid; harmful psychological effects. 

Changes in occupational structure: 

Short-term jobs have become more frequent. Re-regulation of occupations, deskilling jobs are splintering occupations leading to more bound to become part of the precariat. 

Wage system:

Income insecurity has increased, while incomes have gone down. Precariats rely mainly on money wages, not state benefits, thus as benefits have come to make up a larger portion of labor costs, offshoring and using temps has become more common. 

Precarity trap: cost involved in being unemployed, precarity conditions (compounding debt, etc.), stress of insecurity, exhausting ability to rely on relatives/friends.

How unemployment has affected the precariat:

Losing those jobs were deemed to be a result of laziness and thus low skill. As wages are pressured to be kept low, unemployment benefits seem more attractive. Thus governments got rid of them, resulting in more workers taking up low-paying (temporary) jobs—transforming more labor into the zone of the precariat. Being unemployed can be like a full-time job, searching, filling in forms, calls, job training etc. 

Recessions grow the precariat, employers laying off workers, workers have lower re-entering level after.

The public sector has better employment and job security, but with the shock of 2008 privatising and contracting out resulted in more temporary jobs being created, with low wages and benefits. Financial markets and governments wanted public spendings to be cut, and with fiscal stimulus, quantitative easing and subsidies resulting in budget deficits, the public sector was being turned into a zone of the precariat. The discrepancy between public and private worker earnings were said to be unfair for the private sector workers, who earned less, increasing the pressure to worsen their incomes. 

Subsidies have become more widespread with the onset of globalisation, with much of it going towards capital and high income earners. In 2008, subsidies shifted jobs and production to where the largest subsidies were offered. Labor subsidies meant to protect low income earners instead encourage firms to continue paying low wages—keeping low-income jobs in the market.

Chapter 3:

grinners: welcome precariat jobs
groaners: obliged to take them due to absence of alternatives

Many women took on precarious jobs with their increasing roles in labor market, which is fine for middle class women with salariat partners (grinners), but isn’t the case for most people, with precariats growing and career jobs decreasing (male unemployment rising faster than female unemployment).

The youth finds it more difficult to find stable jobs and escape the precariat, having difficulty in achieving careers that are equal to that of their parents.

Due to the winner-takes-all market system, wage differentials continue to increase and school systems are transformed to prepare students for jobs, and more extensive levels of education are required than before to land a stable job. And the addition of commercialisation of education causes education fees to increase faster than income. 

With streaming schooling, general training is encouraged to push youth into flexible labor system.

The strict German system with difficult occupation left. Germany’s youth illiterate and uneducated, instead preparing the youth for precariat. 

Similarly, because labor demand is shifting against degree-level students, more training has been encouraged in America.

The mismatch between education level and demand for labor, along with the societal pressure to pay debt leads to youth precariation. 

With pensions staying but fertility rate decreasing, pension scheme began to face deficits

because of the rapidly rising life expectancy, pensions cannot be supported for everyone

Therefore, old agers (after retirement age) put in precariat jobs can help the labor market

The increasing pressure on the youth to support children and elders at the same time puts the elderly in a position to support themselves.

The ethnic minorities and “disabled” find it more difficult to be employed at all

The youth should be prioritised here if such a decision is necessary, as they are the future of the economy, and having them move into the precariat could continue this pattern on for their children.

Chapter 4:

Large part of the precariat composed of migrants. 

Seven features of today’s migration: 

Denizen: foreigners granted (certain) rights in entered country; person who frequents a place

There are different levels of denizenship, ranging from having only basic rights (protection against assault) to full political and economic rights. It can be good for regulating what people can and cannot do in that country—giving them a ‘status’. This can deny some the right to practice their profession, or pursue further studies as their qualifications are not recognised. Therefore some cannot afford to adopt a legal job that pay legal wages with benefits—growing the precariat. 

Demonisation of these groups will only further escalate the problem, but such attitudes of a large group of people is difficult to change, however if the government/businesses encourags such discrimination and treatment of migrants (even if not illegal), attitudes of citizens are sure not to change for the better. It doesn’t help that some citizens might have experienced a migrant replacing them at a job, only fuelling their hate for migrants. 

Angela Merkel tried to select the migrants (refugees) with more useful/higher skills, France on the other hand did not pay attention to migrants’ skills or qualifications and accepted anyone; Germany still accepted migrants, but while doing so ‘killed two bird with one stone’ in a sense.

During the deeper parts of the 2008 recession, a larger share of employment was taken by migrants, using this opportunity to shift to lower-cost temporaries. 

Although governments may want to send migrants back (even willing to pay for their journey), they are faced with resistance from businesses who long for low-cost labor. Globalisation making labor markets more flexible, driving down wages, results in the previous workers made redundant/laid off. 

As migrants are under-recorded, they are unaccounted for, resulting in underfunding of schools, housing, etc. from the government. 

Precarity:

A precariat is one whose employment and income is insecure especially when considered as a class. This 

Precariat’s are generally seen lacking seven types of security that makes income and financial safety unpredictable: Labor, market security, employment security, job security, work security, skill reproduction security, income security, representation security

 

Why precarity occurs:

The neo-liberals suggested the idea that there needs to be increases in market flexibility (these include wage flexibility, employment flexibility, job and skill flexibility). Otherwise, labor costs would rise up and the business would move to another country where labor is cheaper. In order to keep financial capital at home the increases in market flexibility also led to employees losing and switching jobs quickly as well. This led to the increase in precariat’s

 

Another reason for precarity is ‘Chindia’ as the book calls it supplying an infinite amount of low-cost labor, putting downward pressure on wages. China has kept its own wages low, and the share of wages in national income fell for 22 consecutive years.

 

There has been a rising trend of commodification; in the drive for market efficiency, barriers to commodification were removed. The commodification’s of companies meant that despite the workers relationship with the previous owner, or the informal promises about payments and work conditions they don’t mean as much as the owner/management team could be change the very next day. Ronald Coase talked about how the incentives to build trust between employees and boss/management is important- due to the ever-changing nature of firms that has now collapsed.

 

 

An interesting effect that the booked talked about is suicide. Firstly, there was a difference between job security and employment security that was introduced. France telecom (2008-2010) was used as an example- employees were promised employment security, not job security. As a result they had to change offices and jobs abruptly every few years- the result of the stress lead to suicide

 

Another interesting effect is that if an employee knows that the management is going to change their jobs won’t last etc. they won’t be as invested into a project.

 

The old classes (there are 7 but the book didn’t include all of them): the elite, the salarist, profician, working class/,precariat.

 

Experiences of precarity include anger, anomie, anxiety and alienation

 

One question I have is for the France telecom example, or any example where workers had employment security but not job security, were the workers debriefed fully on what this contract would contain. Would they know they would be changing jobs constantly.

CSR: Increased competition worldwide pushed firms to cut labour costs and transfer the risks and costs to workers. Essentially commodifying workers and treating them as goods and services. How can we nudge the firms so they have more incentives to display CSR? As consumers, what can we do to influence the firm's behavior? Boycotting the firms that erode labor security from their employees like what we did with Nike's child labor scandal? There should be more transparency in the labor market or else the precariat class will be forever out of the public eye.

Another issue is that labor statistics are extremely misleading. For example, part-time job workers received the same pay as part-timers but expect to work more hours than are remunerated (do they count as part time/full-time?), the "shadow, grey or black" economy is not recorded, and temporary employment is not specified in the data. It concealed an enormous amount of work that is not treated as of economic value. Can we trust the statistics published by the governments knowing that they might the ones who are coming up with "wheezes" to reduce the employee's welfare for their own ends? If the government is concealing the actual figures and the precariat class from the public, if their voices remain unheard because no evidence can back them up, then no solutions will be forged and the firms could continue to exploit them in the future.

Promoting a new income distribution system may offer a better solution, as “tax credits” and "subsidies" may not seem to work. Labour subsidies are said to help companies to gain more profits and pay lower wages, while tax credits "take pressure off employers, giving them an incentive to continue to pay low wage". 

Thoughts: 

In essence I do agree with the idea that neo-liberal markets can lead to an unstable class of people and increased income inequality. 

I think the ideas are raised are interesting yet very theoretical and themselves lack evidence to back them up and Standing himself states “economic statistics are not presented in a way that could allow us to estime the total number of people in the precariat”.

Is the rise of the precariat class more of the fault of globalisation or is it due to neo liberalist policies and their effects on the labour market? or are the two too closely related to make a distinction?

Standing referances that women are more likely to work in part-time jobs as they are less likely to find long-term employment and are more likely to be laid off, why is this? does Standing have reasons to back up this view? 

I found the part about the shift from money wages to welfare states especially interesting as in econ class we dont often talk about the way in which people are paid in all our labour market diagram one of the axis in price (in a currency) - I thought it was interesting to consider the implications of this.

I also really enjoyed reading the section about employment during the 2008 recession, I feel that now I am able to understand unemployment in a recession in a new light. Standing higlights that the precarity trap is a reality and exaplains how workers are not just laid off during a recession and the re-employed when demand increases. I think this is particularly interesting when considering the effects of demand-side policies during a recession, especially fiscal.

Labour, Work Play and Leisure
A distinction between work and labour is made and Guy wants to revive this old idea. Labour is regarded as incidental and work is cast aside for labour, the need to bring back work is somewhere out there.

This reminds me of 2 things, first is the "we don't dream of labour" movement which is basically just disgruntled people who don't want to become like their parents, clock in and out daily and live a monotonous life. The second is the distinction made by Marx between labour and labour power, with the latter being about the potential within humans and labour being the commodified form of that potential, the human capital that we talk about in economics. It does seem like more and more people are becoming uninterested in the traditional lives that their parents used to live, perhaps this a reflection of a changing society and culture or maybe just copious amounts of hope.

Varieties of Precariat
The common underlying factor that unites the precariat is the economic pressure put on them, "a sense that their labour is instrumental to live". I don't know what else to say other than the fact that that's self-evident in the economic and social context we live in, even middle class people rely on their labour. To Marx labour was life, without labour no one could live, the only distinctions he made were differences between the types of labour, destructive labour (physical and mental) were menial jobs that many people during his time had to work in factories or sweatshops. Labour that was good for people was basically just leisure, reading a book, going fishing, taking a walk etc. I feel like the point about labour and economic pressures isn't exactly a strong one.

The idea of corporate life and corporate rights also seem like they would be very self evident, workplaces don't tend to be the most democratic places yet the acknowledgement of the basic fact that hierarchies exist within the workplace and that their rigidities lead to people feeling alienated or excluded from aspects of work is made like some brave statement of descriptive reality when its just the daily experience that most people go through.

I think the point about the expansion of criminalisation is badly made seeing as how crime rates are decreasing throughout the world. I feel like the point that more people are being arrested and incarcerated has more to do with the fact that there are more people on this planet currently than in the past. Obviously if the population increases the number of incarcerated people in crease accordingly.

For the rest of this part Guy then explains how temporary jobs are problematic but can work in a variety of contexts and that the government should correct for the failings of these jobs to counteract the precariousness.

Precaritisation
Before I even begin, I early mentioned that the precariat reminded me of a paper that talked about the disintegration of the Proletariat as a class, leading to the rise of the lumpenproletariat. Guy talks about the salaryman and kintractship in Japan and how the anxieties caused by these jobs cause suicide and mental illness. I think guy could have elaborated more on his points here because he doesnt really mention how precaritisation happens, just that "fictitious occupational mobility" is part of it.

The precaritised mind
Generally, all good points about the internet and our current culture are made. The social ostracisation that some face when deviating from the norm, the negative effects of social media etc.

The Four As
The pressures of temporary work and the need for social status are put on full display. My own personal opinion: what's wrong with crab fishing???? Quite interestingly I disagree with the idea that Guy has in the precaritised mind about people losing individuality, I feel like increasing individuality which overrules previous communal and collective ideas of identity are the cause of the social alienation that many face. This atmosiation could be seen as an explanation as to why people are unable to make meaningful relationships at work but I feel like that may also be explained by the changing nature of work, the fact that work reflects people and that the social shift from the collective to the individual was reflected in fraternal work being splintered into individual quests.

Basically the Precariat suffers from many issues relating to status problems, mental illness, career blocks and general insecurity in all aspects of life. They have no class solidarity or even consciousness for that matter. Guy then talks about the importance of empathy within a country but that hardly seems like it would do anything to meaningfully affect what the Precariat is going through.

Conclusion
Personal beliefs come first, the constant need for populism in modern politics is rotting the brain. Guy summarises the first chapter by saying that the current economy expects us all to be infinitely adaptable and slaves to the market and this lead to the 4 As. This is harmful as it leads to political radicalization but also internal conflict and that the only way to solve this is by attending to their needs which is quite correct.

Thought

Although labor market flexibility benefits firms due to lowering their costs of production, wouldn’t employees/workers lose out in this case? Employees would have less job security as firms can easily fire them, possibly even leading to high unemployment. As more firms try to lower their production cost by firing workers, more will be unemployed and therefore more people will not receive income. Therefore, more will be in poverty while the managers from corporations can continue to receive massive amounts of profits, which contributes to a greater wealth inequality. So in my opinion, labor market flexibility may not be the most sound policy. However, it still depends on the economic context since Denmark did surprisingly well with this policy 

My thoughts in Chapter 3/4/6:
Commercialization of education has led to the endless increase of students who only want to be doctors, lawyers, engineers... and go to the top universities and to not pursue subjects in the arts or social sciences. The purpose of higher education (and even secondary education) has become studying in order to get jobs that are the most stable and high-paying. Is this trend wrong, and does it have to be corrected? Regarding the commercialization of education: Will education change (de-commercialized) in the future? What is the best possible education system? 

In Coursera, we see a lot of certificates from famous universities like MIT or organizations like IBM offering 'university-level certificates'. When I first saw this, I thought it was a good thing that internet sites offer cheap education services to the wider public. But it was interesting how this book says this is a bad product of the commercialization of education. 

Many students in international schools aim to go to Western countries like the US or the UK for university, as they are popular destinations for higher education. It is very likely that after graduation and receiving qualifications many of these international students will stay in these countries to work, and because the cost of paying for university as a international student was very high, it is very likely that they will only feel 'satisfied' with a high-paying, stable job. This would lead to increased competition in the labor market and make residents who have less skills and qualifications will be disadvantaged in the labor market and be pushed to precarity. Does it mean it is wrong to study abroad or continue to work abroad? Is there a solution to this?

It was very interesting reading in Chapter 3 about the interaction between elderly workers and young workers, and how elderly workers are mostly welcoming to the precarious jobs whereas young workers don't want to be in the precariat. But elderly workers in the precariat still receive low wages, and this can be bad for their wellbeing if they live alone or their children don't financially support them. Does this mean elderly workers should also be given long term employment with stable income? But how about the young workers?

Chapter 3 discusses how along with the feminization of labor many women entering the labor force hold temporary or part-time jobs and thus belong to the precariat. Many female workers unwillingly enter the precariat due to limitations in long term employment due to pregnancy and raising children, and this precarity is becoming a barrier to women who want to hold stable jobs or women aiming to rise up to higher-ranking jobs in firms. However, like elderly people (grinners) willing to be in the precariat and take up part-time or low-paying jobs, it is the same for some women, especially mothers who want to temporarily work part-time while raising children even though they don't receive high wages. In South Korea, many mothers work part-time as 'yoghurt ladies (or "yakult ajummas”) who operate during daytime only during periods when their children are at school, delivering yakult drinks to apartments and workplace buildings while riding around on 'refrigerated carts'. 

Also, it was interesting how labor market flexibility leads to greater inequality as it further marginalizes already marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities. It becomes much easier to fire and rehire workers, that people with disabilities are made more vulnerable in the labor market because in the firm's point of view they are not labor suited to temporary employment.

Overall, I feel like by reading this book I have gained a lot of insight about our current globalized world, because this book talked about many topics that are always on the news that I wanted to understand, such as: why pensions will soon be gone, grade inflation in top universities, why people just want to have stable jobs like doctors or engineers, why birth rates are steeply decreasing in some developed countries because married couples think their jobs aren't stable enough for raising children, etc. 
Growing precarity explains now why in South Korea a lot of students are re-taking the high school graduation examination even four or five times (which would take up 4 or 5 years of their youth) just to go to the top universities or re-taking qualification exams for the stable jobs such as civil servants because they believe this is only way to escape from the precariat and get a stable job. I think this phenomenon also leads to inefficiency regarding the full/efficient use of labor force in the economy because young people are wasting so many years in their 20s just to pass a test to get a stable job.

with globalization, labor market flexibility increased to keep production costs low and investments domestically, causing number of precariats to rise

precariat is defined as the people lacking seven forms of labor-related security, including income and employment security - the way I perceive it is that precariats are workers with no rights except for basic rights as a human being (the book referred to them as ’denizens’ - citizens with less rights than others)

they lack vocational identity too which makes them sound less human

temporary jobs are detrimental to one’s career (potential path to becoming a precariat), and part-time jobs are confusing economic figures

but i disagree that interns are causes of precariats because they’re meant to be temporary and instead prepare people for future jobs

The Japan example of high employment security leading to precariat formation in the long run is interesting because they are two extreme opposites (they went on to a practical contract between employee and employer for very close relationship in return for loyal labor for long time)

the technological development is causing us to absorb information without giving them much thought, and because of the electronic bombardment of information and whatnot, there is no time for contemplation of precariats.

precariats live with anger from not being able to live a better life, anomie from constant feeling of hopelessness and futility of vocation prospect, anxiety from insecurities, and alienation of working for others, not for oneself.

the social and psychological pressure alongside constant government reforms to increase labor market flexibility only makes it worse for precariats to find an escape path, and the number will continue to increase

Chapter 2:

Integrated world economy means developments in one part of the world can have effects elsewhere, e.g. labor costs

Emerging economies will remain main factor for growth of precariat 

With globalization, the rate at which the number of workers and job seekers accelerated and tripled from 1 to 3 billion by 2000. The speed of economic growth for China was such that GDP more than doubled in 5 years (2005-2010).

Suicides were attempted to increase wage, so Foxconn raised workers’ wages, but made them sign ‘no suicide’ pledge notes, surrounded buildings in nets to catch workers if they jumped and hired counsellors. 

Flexible labor relations are a direct cause. Main forms: numerical, functional, wages. 

Numerical flexibility
increasing use of part time jobs for cost advantages, but this leads to employment insecurity

Functional flexibility

Change labor divisions with low costs and quickly, but job insecurity increases

Changes in occupational structure: 

Short-term jobs have become more frequent. Re-regulation of occupations, deskilling jobs are splintering occupations leading to more bound to become part of the precariat. 

Precarity trap: cost involved in being unemployed, precarity conditions (compounding debt, etc.), stress of insecurity, exhausting ability to rely on relatives/friends.

How unemployment has affected the precariat:

Losing those jobs were deemed to be a result of laziness and thus low skill. As wages are pressured to be kept low, unemployment benefits seem more attractive. Thus governments got rid of them, resulting in more workers taking up low-paying (temporary) jobs—transforming more labor into the zone of the precariat. Being unemployed can be like a full-time job, searching, filling in forms, calls, job training etc. 

Recessions grow the precariat, employers laying off workers, workers have lower re-entering level after.

·      The demonstration on 1 May 2001 with 5000 people market the first stirrings of the global precariat.

·      Precariat is a distinctive socio-economic group, so that by definition a person is in it or not in it

·      The term was first used by French socialists in the 1980s, to describe temporary or seasonal workers

·      The composition of social income can be broken into six elements:

·      Self-production, the food, goods and services produced directly

·      Money wage or the money received from labor

·      Value of support provided by the family or local community

·      Enterprise benefits that are provided to many groups of employees

·      State of benefits, including social insurance benefits

·      Private benefits derived from savings and investments

·      Growing army in call centers are also precariat

·      It is becoming harder to deny that mental, emotional and behavioral changes are taking place and that this is consistent with the spread of precariatisation. 

·      The precariat has grown because of the policies and institutional changes in that period.

·      Flexibility

·      Neoliberalism: ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition.

 

 

We are now in a global transformation, and over the past 30 years, neoliberalism has fashioned this system. The market is open, but only a tiny amount of people are receiving most of the income. 

The world labor supply has quadrupled, extra two billion people. They are causing huge downward power. Thus, the precariat class is growing. They are defined in three dimensions. First, they have to habituate themselves to a life of unstable labor and living. They don’t have an occupation in their life. They also have to do a lot of work for labor or else they will suffer. The precariat has to rely on money wages; it doesn’t get access to other benefits, and they have to bear the risk themselves. They are facing economic uncertainty. This is the first class in history that is losing its rights. 

The precariat is split into three; people who are looking backward; their communities used to have status; the second are the minorities, the refugees, who don’t really have a home; they keep their head down because they have to survive; the third is the progressives, they go to university, they received educations, but they come out with no future, they have anger.  

We have to build a new income system. If you have a basic income, they will work more effectively.

Thoughts

“As more people are marrying within their education bracket, high-earning men are more likely to be married to high-earning women” (Standing) -> Is this true? Where is this data from?

This surprised me: Standing mentioned that male unemployment was generally higher than female unemployment during recessions because females felt more financially insecure. They may have a higher risk of being homeless and, at worst, may even be obliged to be a concubine.

Even with education trying to improve human capital, job prospects haven't changed much. e.g. Spanish university students can only find low-skilled jobs after graduating. Looking at US university education, many locals need to take college loans to earn a higher qualifications. If education doesn’t help/assist employability, then how are the locals still willing to take on loans? 

The touch upon gender and the roles it plays within structuring the precariat is really enlightening. How the sudden influx of females into the workforce forces many into uncomfortable positions. How specific genders influence the way they are treated in the workforce. A problem I find worthy of exploring (although it might not be directly related with economics), is what caused this shift in perspective? Why did the sudden influx of women into the labour force happen and why did it directly stimulate the precariat growth?

 

The outperforming of girls (compared to boys) seems to be an interesting and sardonic paradox against the common narrative held by a patriarchal society. The stats seem ironic and indicative at the same time – 64% of girls achieve GCSE, 54% of boys. Teachers are predominantly female. After university, among UK graduates, men are 50% more likely to become unemployed.

 

The idea about how the youth form a large proportion of the precariat is also interesting. Maybe it yields light into the changing circumstances of the workforce? Perhaps the canonical need for theory and economics to change as social structure is changing too? The relative declining of the importance of “employment” as we currently define it. 

The idea that the changing social structure and changing status of the world and its impact on “role-modelling” for the young is a very interesting theme to interpret. The deprecation of the previous generation does serve as an obstacle for the future ones.

 

The commodification of education is a very interesting idea that the author proposes. He seems to suggest the idea that university and expenditure in such areas seem to have become part of a more market oriented drive rather than the pure intention we often think of it to be. Although the author has a point, I must say that I cannot completely agree with his view the proposes. I feel that the investment in human capital is necessary in a way, and I don’t particularly think that it is market driven – its true that university fees can be expensive, but really, for those deserving, they provide perhaps the best opportunity for increasing improvements of oneself. After all, many universities do provide financial support to those in need. I think a really good example comes from the top Chinese universities, that are clearly more driven to actually invest in human capital. I think the idea that “they pretend to educate us, we pretend to learn” is simply incorrect. 

 

The idea about internships is also interesting. Personally, I have also realized the unproductivity (sometimes) of internships, where high schoolers, in return for their time and efforts, gain “experience” in areas that really aren’t that beneficial to their future progress. (Many just do it for CV). However, I do think that there are some really good opportunities where first hand evaluation and observation of what the workplace is like, can be key. After all, experience is indeed drastically important.

 

Finally, the old agers also provides and interesting and alternative point of view. The idea about pensions (and the fear of politicians of these pensions as the “world grows older”) is very enlightening.

 

Chapter 4: 
This chapter takes on a completely new turn as it begins investigating not through age, but through a specific isolated group within society (that is perhaps the most significant). The lack of precedence of the current levels of migration really points out a significant contributor to this new phenomenon. 

 

The idea of denizenship is truly defined and articulated within this section – through the lens of the migrants. The idea of lacking rights despite being partly belonging to a country yields considerable insight to how problematic the situation is. The most troubling question I have is: facing the political and interest driven agendas of many governments, is it really plausible that such a phenomenon will change? Also, what would the implications be – would the lax restriction of immigration cause even greater problems?

 

The classification and detailed analysis of different groups of migrants looks at the problem from different aspects – refugees and asylum seekers / undocumented and illegal migrants / temporary and season migrants / long-term migrants. The question arises – should all of them be treated with equal rights – if so, what are the implications? Wouldn’t that cause considerable harm to the agendas of government policies (if so, will the governments really be willing?). Is it necessarily even good – what could large influxes of population (that will likely occur if immigration policies were easily overwhelmed) cause?

 

Migrants, with their lack of rights, are easily taken on as exploitative labour – this really demonstrates, I believe, the self-centered ideology of humans. The incentive to benefit ourselves without regard to the harm on others.

 

This situation, personally, demonstrates a very vivid aspect of the precariat. Those who are not protected by law and by rights are the most susceptible to the insecurity of their work. But to what extent is this really preventable? Or, how can we change this? – I see no clear path presented by the author (at least).

 

Chapter 5:

The course of history and its role in constructing the precariat and oppression of workers seems to form a close bond. Industrialization leads to the “disrespect” of the 24-hour body clock, which had been impossible in rural societies. The thriftiness in time that grew out of industrialization really played a huge role in constructing the precariat. 

 

The concept of “tertiary time” is really interesting. How the tertiary sector differs in time allocation compared to an industrial and agricultural one. It emphasizes a blend in time through which we work and allocate. Work and life blend into blurs as salariats wake early to work in the morning, or even work at places that should have been for relaxation – in the car, at a café (etc). However, I completely disagree with the author on this view – although “overwork” does play a huge role in burning out someone – it also provides opportunities and is not necessarily a bad thing. Being diligent does not equate with being oppressed.

 

However, labour intensification in the respect that there is excessive pressure beyond human capability, as well as leading to a lack of relaxation may be detrimental. In other words, overwork to the point of burning out. This is especially the case for the precariat, who may take on several jobs at the same time, partly due to falling wages, and partly due to insurance and risk management.

The idea of time plays a really central and interesting role in the author’s argument – although not everything I completely agree with. Firstly, does the extended use of time really compromise security? What if it were voluntarily (as in, in order for the worker/labourer to gain more)? Also, although time management is key, how is this necessarily a problem related to the precariat – don’t all classes face this issue? If so, doesn’t this represent a large societal phenomenon rather than on a distinct group? Then, the special applications or methods / analysis perspectives that apply on the precariats may not necessarily apply here – how they are insecure / oppressed / or have no other alternative choice / no way to improve their situation. Clearly working hard and working smart are both key, and I feel like the author is overly trying to denounce the former.

 

Chapter 6:

Social Darwinism is an interesting touch to this narrative – how the survival of the fittest idea plays a role in further stratifying and oppressing society, but also in constructing the Precariat class.

 

The panopticon idea – and how it intrudes upon our privacy and its intimacy with privacy once again reveals, the intricate relationships between multiple disciplines. The widespread application of the panopticon apparatus into even the workplace yields insight to how the invisible pressure can take hold. 

Panopticon – a type of institutional building and a system of control designed by the English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham. The concept of the design is to allow all prisoners of an institution to be observed by a single security guard, without the inmates being able to tell whether they are being watched. Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates’ cells at once, the fact that they cannot know when they are being watched means they are motivated to act as though they are being watched at all times.

 

The idea of demonizing certain precariat groups yields the idea that not all precariat is problematic – although the name seems to suggest it. It leads to the idea that perhaps only certain groups and problems need to be addressed. 

 

Obstruction caused by libertarian paternalist solution and the therapy state all serve to diminish the chances of the precariat in gaining an opportunity for a career.

- feminisation of labour: since most jobs of temporary, there're less fears around female employees (potential high non-wage costs due to pregnancy or childcare); in addition, manual strength was not required in the growing tertiary sector.

- the common assumption is that female labour force participation rate is a measure of liberation, but it might not be truly liberating if the works are repetitive/precarious, and women might also experience ‘triple burden’: child care, female ‘breadwinners’ and elderly care
- women who earn more than their partners are most likely to be precariat
- The Great Recession is also known as the ‘mancession’, because most unemployed people are male 
- sex services, the author states "Criminalising them and denying them rights merely accentuates their plight"???
- young men are lacking aspirational role models 

2. age
young people are unable to enter the labour market through apprenticeships or compete with ‘cheaper’ elderly (who doesn't need enterprise benefits)
elder without enough pension, who face competition from more energetic youth and less needy old ager 

Old ages

- pensions schemes are out-of-date. Though life expectancy increased significantly in the last hundred years, retirement age didn't rise by much, which means the pension will cover many more years of retirement. 

- when there's shortage of workers, governments wanted to keep elder workers in the labour force (in the precariat), because they are uninterested in career building or long-term employment security; thus old agers have become a source of cheap labour, paid low wages, given few benefits, slowly eroding the bargaining position of youths.  
- some might be satisfied because they just wanted to do something for the pleasure of activity (those are usually the ones with enough pension)

- Commodification of education: When the education system becomes a source of profits and a zone of competitiveness, and to an extent, a ‘business model’, it will erode the motivation for learning; real skills are replaced by earning more certificates

3. criminals
Criminalisation becomes an excuse to render people to a precariat existence of insecure jobs. Some are even been exploited, as seen in China and India.

CH4
Overall Trends

The process of migration intensifies insecurities as most migrants only have short-term contracts, with low wages and few benefits, turning the world into a place full of denizens. 
The migration process itself is also a de-citizenship process, making them even more exploitable. Recipient countries are trying to demonize migrants to ensure that they did not integrate socially, politically or economically, though they relied on the migrants to fill up the labor shortages. 

- More are ‘de-citizenised’ in their own country, such as what happened in China with the internal migration process. Rural migrants are unable to obtain Yukou and thus lack the residence rights and the right to receive benefits, which means they are froced to work precariously. Most importantly, they are hidden from the public eye because they do not appear in the unemployment statistics. 

Labour export regime: mass transfer of workers from emerging economies. For example, the government allows firms to use prisoners as labour on infrastructure projects. Here, migrants are being used to accentuate the growth of the global precariat. 

- neo-liberal state is neo-Darwinist: curbing collective action, restore competitiveness

- Employment control in Shenzhen: 6 million workers are watched by CCTV cameras so the firm can monitor their behaviour and character 

- The invasion of privacy makes precariat even more vulnerable because they are usually involved in activities that are open to monitoring. Some firms even look at credit records, which places precariat in a disadvanatged spot. 

- governments worldwide have implemented cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to deal with anxiety and depression, despite it's normal to be anxious if you are a precariat. Instead of recognising the real problems, they are encouraging precariat to think they needed therapy, which could accentuate anxiety into real depression 

- critique on nudges: "nudgers" might not know what is best for any individual and often create a wrong set of choices or penalises those who do not have access to e.g. opt-out

Grinners are those who take on precariat jobs willingly, while groaners are those who have to take precariat jobs because of lack of alternatives.

Examples of grinners and groaners in different age groups:

Youth age groups: Generally grinners are students who are happy with taking temporary jobs not thinking about the long-term future, these might be students who just want work experience. Groaners are those who are unable to enter the labor market through apprenticeships, or cannot compete with the older, more experienced workers who don’t need enterprise benefits. This kind of reminded me of the ‘you need experience to get work, you need work to get experience’ dilemma. 

Old age groups: Grinners are those with sufficient pension funds and health care coverage, who only occasionally work as a sort of pleasure activity, or perhaps just for small bits of extra money. Groaners are those who lack the pension they need, and who are trying to compete with younger and more energetic youth.

Women: Grinners are those with partners in work and can treat jobs mostly as a sideline. Groaners are single breadwinners, or those who are facing the additional burden of caring for children and elderly relatives.

 

One thought about this is the difference in definition of grinners and groaners between men and women. Perhaps as the difference between income across gender shrinks, will the way people perceive groaners and grinners be the same for men and women?

The introduction of ‘Grinners’ felt particularly interesting at first; most of the narrative before this shaped the precariat as something ‘dangerous’, so the exploration of the possibility of groups of people who accepted precarity at times for their own reasons felt refreshing, and kind of stood out to me. 

 

Women in 1980s were far more likely to take precarious jobs, this is partly because of worries of pregnancy, or withdraw to take care of children, which made businesses less reluctant to employ women for long periods of time.

 

An example in the inequality is Japan- Due to cultural reasons gender inequality has always been a prominent feature. Women were concentrated in temporary lower paid jobs than men-this resulted in one of the world’s largest male female wage differences.

2010- 44% women were receiving less than minimal wage.

Womens wage in permanent jobs were 68% of mens, in temporary jobs were less than half

 

Lots of the mainstream analysis unfairly ignores the portion of the precariat that is sex service, which is mostly women.

 

Commodifying higher education is irrational, courses with some level of demand are being sold to consumers, and getting credentials are no longer based on scientific knowledge but rather just paying. Also there are academic tests in subjects that are very non-academic, just to provide for demand. Costs of university have risen faster than average incomes. 

The US, China and Russia are the greatest ‘criminalizers’

Migration

-Undocumented workers can provide cheap labor, and be fired or deported if necessary or if they prove uncooperative. They do not appear in the pay roll of firms and households.

-A rising share of migration consist of circulation, moving around to take temporary jobs.

-Feminization of migration-Women moving on their own is increasing. Some of them are often abused in inhuman ways such as trafficking and prostitution.

-Students are now moving to different countries more often, probably due to wanting to learn in other countries.

-Movement within multinational corporations

-More refugees than ever before

-Environmental refugees, rising sea levels or other environmental degradation issues 

 

·      Precariats are the result of the neo-liberal model that pursues market competitiveness (they theorize that growth and development can only be maximized in this environment) – one common method was to increase labor market flexibility, which came to mean an agenda for transferring risks and insecurity onto workers and their families: Unless labor markets were made more flexible, labor costs would rise and corporations would transfer production and investment to places where costs were lower, meaning that financial capital would be invested in cheaper countries rather than domestically. “Wage flexibility meant speeding up adjustments to changes in demand, particularly downwards; employment flexibility meant easy and costless ability of firms to change employment levels, particularly downwards, implying a reduction in employment security and protection; job flexibility meant being able to move employees around inside the firm and to change job structures with minimal opposition or cost; skill flexibility meant being able to adjust workers’ skills easily.”

·      The precariats are a ‘dangerous’ class because they are more prone to listen to “ugly” voices and use their money and votes to give these voices a political platform 

·      May Day (May first) was originally a traditional trade union protest march, but soon became the Precariat march, first spreading across Europe then taking on a global character, with Japan being the first Asian country to adopt the precariat May Day march and subsequently increasing its influence in Asia. 

·      Globalization contributes to the rise in numbers of the precariat- Prato 

·      The influx of women into the labor force is another driving force behind the proliferating numbers of the precarious social group, and even taking a majority in the group- not only do women face a sexist attitude in the workplace, they are also far more likely to have short-term contracts or no contracts at all due to the chance/fear of women becoming pregnant or withdrawing from the position to look after children, which leads to employment insecurity 

·      Early retirements along with the decreasing number of public pensions also play into the rising number of the precarious group- with the newfound fear of the ‘ageing crisis’, governments have been increasing the number of years of contribution needed to gain entitlement to pensions as well as privatization of pensions albeit the need for pensions have been doubling, leading to a precarious elderly group 

·      “About 40 per cent of all inmates in UK prisons were once in the ‘care system’. They keep re-offending because they have no ‘job’ and cannot get a job because they have been in prison.” – Those imprisoned become trapped in a vicious cycle of precarity; criminals are unable to find a job because of their criminal record, which pushes them to commit crime again and again, and the number of criminals have been increasing over the years due to the “revival of utilitarianism and a zeal for penalizing offenders, coupled with the technical capacity of the surveillance state and the privatization of security services, prisons and related activities”, and I’ve also heard in a podcast recently that abortion rights have a very strong correlation with crime, because ‘unwanted’ children or those born in a family unready or unable to fully commit and take care of a child often reside to criminal activity 
·      It was surprising to see that the Senate had voted against a bill passed by the House of Representatives to make illegal migration a felony as well as another similar bill within the Senate whilst America speaks so widely about limiting migration and illegal migration in particular
·     'Shenzhenism' struck me in particular as a bizarre case of surveillance and monitorization that I was totally unaware of- I did not expect something so cruel and inhumane to actually occur in the real world. Bentham had philosophized a design for an ideal prison, in which an all-seeing guard would be in a central watchtower overlooking prisoners in their cells in a circular building; the guard could see them, but they could not see him. The guard's power lay in the fact that the prisoners could not know whether or not he was watching, and so acted as if he was watching, out of fear. Bentham used the term ‘an architecture of choice’, by which he meant that the authorities could induce the prisoners to behave in desired ways. This was applied to Shenzhen, where 6 million workers are watched by closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras everywhere they go and where a comprehensive databank monitors their behaviour and character, modelled on technology developed by the US military so that they were able to "sift out undesirables, identify suitably conformist workers and induce workers to think and behave in ways the authorities want."

Precariats- “Neo-liberal” model -> growth and development depending on market competitiveness, everything under the premise of maximum competition

Increased labor market flexibility

Prone to ugly voices, use their votes to voice a platform of increased influence for them.

Movement spread from Europe

A group of social/economic thinkers saw the world as an increasingy open place, and argued that European countries may have increased unemployment, slowed economic growth etc. 

Neo-liberal claim -> needed to pursue ‘labor market flexibility’; if not, then labor costs would increase

Flexibility; wage, employment, job, and skill -> systematically making employees more insecure

More globalization -> labor relations more flexible

Precariat

Main cause of the growth -> globalization (centralized and embodied by commodification)

Commodification has been occurring in firms (traded/sold/bought) 

Change in employment

Precarious unemployment

The attack

grinners - those that welcome precariat jobs, groaners - obliged to take them in absence of alternatives

many women took on precarious jobs with their increasing roles in labor market

this is fine for middle class women with salariat partners (grinners), but this isn’t the case for most people

with precariats growing and career jobs decreasing, male unemployment is rising faster than female unemployment

Due to changing trend, youth find it more difficult to find stable jobs and escape the precariat state.

With difficulty in achieving career equal to that of their parents, there is a general sense of downwardness 

Due to the winner-takes-all market system, wage differentials continue to increase

school systems are transformed to prepare students for jobs, and more and more education is required than before to get a stable job

commercialization of education causes education fees to increase faster than income

With streaming schooling, general training is encouraged to push youth into flexible labor system

The strict German system with difficult occupation left Germany’s youth illiterate and uneducated, so they’re preparing the youth for precariat

Similarly, because labor demand is shifting against degree-level students, more training has been encouraged in America. 

The mismatch between level of education and demand for labor, along with the societal pressure to pay down debt leads to youth precariation

Because of labor flexibility, youth nowadays are more difficult to form collective associations and form a voice

With so many challenges, there vocational prospect for youths is very futile

with pensions staying but fertility rate decreasing, pension scheme began to face deficits

because of the rapidly rising life expectancy, pensions cannot be supported for everyone

Therefore, old agers (after retirement age) put in precariat jobs can help the labor market

increasing pressure on youth to support children and elders at the same time puts the elderly in a position to support themselves

The ethnic minorities and “disabled” find it more difficult to be employed at all

Although the book says this poses a threat to the other precariats, I don’t think the elderly would be much of a threat for the youth and others because part time labor would require stamina and good health, which means youth especially would be prioritized over the elderly.

Governments are cutting the real value of future pensions, and increasing contributions that today’s employees must pay. In the early 1980s, old agers were early pushed into the economic shadows to free up jobs for youth, but due to aging population there is now a ‘pension time bomb’. Rising ‘old-age dependency’ ratio is making pensions fiscally unsustainable, and retirement age will be delayed as life expectancy increases. However, old agers have become a source of cheap labour, paid low wages and easily sacked – but there are grinners (uninterested in career building or long-term employment security) and grievers (old agers are losing prospect of support from their children). 

Ethnic minorities face high labor market barriers, but have a developed occupational niche over generations, such as by family businesses. However, the disabled are pushed into the precarity and people with ‘episodic disability’ are not recognized or protected in the world’s flexible labor markets. 

-Increase labor market flexibility

-transfer risk to workers

-potential strong political influence

-action needed

Labour security

-market, employment, job, work, skill, income, representation.

Precariat

-distinctive socio-economic group

-class within the market

-Antecedents are Banausoi of Ancient Greece

Neo-liberal idea: presume labor market flexibility preventing the increase of labour cost. Flexibility of wage, job and skill will make employee insecure.