The Devastating Impacts of Deindustrialization in Pennsylvania

During the 1970s and 80s, steel employment faced a devastating blow due to a combination of factors: global competition, technological advancements rendering the need for workers obsolete, government policies, and the broader decline of heavy industry in the U.S. Rather than a one-time, linear decline, the process of deindustrialization in Pennsylvania, and in the broader Rust Belt, left working-class communities in despair. 

The working class, far from simply disappearing, was “recycled” into often uncertain and low-wage jobs in the service industry—particularly health-care. Many former industrial workers found employment in hospitals, nursing homes, or other care-based institutions. Importantly, the demographics of these industrial to service-based workers were disproportionately women and people of color. Winant argues, however, that the transition was not based solely on choice; many unemployed industrial workers were driven into health-care settings due to structural forces. For example, Winant mentions aging populations in formerly steel-based communities (young people migrate elsewhere), the rising demand of chronically ill former steel-workers, and the expansion of privatized care work (Winant). As demand was high for employment, the “labor market surplus brought about by collapse of manufacturing worsened competition for work, drove down wages, and emboldened employers” (Winant). Rather than finding job security, many working class folks continued to experience economic insecurity and low-wages—now in a service-based economy.

The process of deindustrialization in Pennsylvania had brutal consequences for working-class folks who had relied on the steel industry for guaranteed employment. Economically, unemployment far exceeded that of the national rate. In 1983, unemployment was at a staggering 17.1% (double that of the national rate); black workers were disproportionately affected by job lay-offs at steel plants compared to white workers. By 1983, the unemployment rate for black workers was an astounding 25.6% (Winant). Due to high unemployment rates, new “welfare reforms” were implemented by conservative policymakers. In Pennsylvania alone, the time limit for unemployment insurance was lowered and the social services budget did not increase to meet the skyrocketing demand (Winant). As mentioned prior, younger workers migrate in masses out of steel-based communities in search of better paying jobs. This, in turn, leads to demographic shifts in Pennsylvania that lead to urban decline and high demand for health-care services (which pay far less than industrial jobs). Politically, the power of unions decrease as industrial jobs disappeared and tough concessions were made (for example: the right to strike was traded for guaranteed wage increases, which deprives members of their most potent tool for resisting worsening economic conditions). Socially, increased rates of chronic illnesses, mental health crises, mass incarceration (disproportionately impacting black men), infant mortality rates, suicide rates, and domestic violence result from high unemployment levels. 

There were a variety of factors that resulted in a weakened welfare state. I think the most blatant one was the popularity of neoliberal economic policies. The Reagan administration embraced free markets, deregulation, and reduced government intervention as a way to encourage working-class folks to “pull yourself up by your boot straps.” As the article discusses in length, this negatively impacts working-class communities, especially people of color, at a time when a social safety net was direly needed. Neoliberal policies lead to a snow-ball effect: budget cuts, at the federal level, negatively impact social programs and leave local governments in a bind. In Pennsylvania, the financial crisis resulting from high unemployment creates strains on any “positive” reform program as there is limited money, and the federal government was not too keen on investing in social welfare.