In the article, the working class was transitioned by the decline of industrialized jobs and manufacturing jobs. These jobs were the backbone for the working class and once these jobs started declining many of the working class people were pushed to lower-paying jobs. Often time those jobs were retail and food service and there weren’t many benefits to these jobs. The economic consequence of deindustrialization was the loss of stable jobs for the working class. The political consequence was the weakening of labor unions. Specifically in the article the steel labor union. The social consequence was deindustrialization increased the poverty rate. I think that social welfare was so meager because many of the people didn’t qualify for the welfare. Many were having stable jobs to get them by and I think the government based the qualifications based on that.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Will Wright 
I enjoyed reading your post and I thought you brought up some good points. I liked how you emphasized that the manufacturing and industrial jobs were the backbone of the working class and when those jobs started going away, it caused a big issue for the working class. Also, I agree with your reasoning for why the social welfare was so meager. Since a lot of the people who lost their industrial jobs still had jobs, it didn’t seem as though so many people were struggling. However, these people were not receiving the same pay and benefits that they had previously gotten, so that was a part that was easy to miss.
LikeLike