During the 1970s and the 1980s, the phenomenon of “recycling” was prevalent throughout the country; this “recycling” was a causation of the shift from predominantly industrial jobs to service-based jobs. In the chapter “ Enduring Disaster: The Recycling of the Working Class” from the book “ The Next Shift,” Gabriel Winant states that “….The decline of manufacturing employment was accompanied by a steady increase of employment in service industries”, observed a RAND Corporation study.” For many, the loss of manufacturing jobs meant unemployment or lower-paying jobs in new occupations.” Going into specifics of the economic, political, and social consequences of deindustrialization during the 70s and the 80s, first and foremost are the economic reasons for the disparity observed during this time period. Deindustrialization during this period affected the number of men in the labor market; there were significant layoffs, and it was estimated that during the decade from 1975 to 1985, there were 150,000 layoffs in the manufacturing industry. Moreover, the demographics of men and women in the workforce also changed during this time; there was a stern decrease in the number of men in the workforce and an increase in the number of women. Additionally, black women who had long been involved in the service industry entered the service industry in large numbers. However, in contrast to their industrial counterparts, these jobs offered lower wages and less financial stability (Winant).
There were a multitudinous number of political and social consequences of deindustrialization. Deindustrialization tested many social institutions of the welfare state, and many insufficiencies were found. For example, when workers tried to resist changes that affected their employment security, agreements like the Experimental Negotiating Agreement prevented them from striking and making any attempts to resist the changes. Moreover, neoliberal policies like the “Volcker Shock” created further uncertainty, prioritizing macroeconomic policies such as controlling inflation and money supply over something trivial to policymakers, like controlling unemployment, which incommensurately affected blue-collar workers or the working class. Refering to the social consequences, the unemployment rate escalated to a mighty 25.6% for black workers in 1983 in Pittsburg. Moreover, there were racial and gendered differences between the levels of employment, with the most significant difference being the level of employment between black women and black men. Due to this stark difference in the levels of employment, black men were pushed to the absolute margins of society (Winant). Some of these social disparities were partly addressed by the healthcare industry through jobs and public subsidies. However, in my opinion, these often lead to their employers exploiting them.
In conclusion, social welfare was meager or inadequate mostly due to the government’s policies of prioritizing other avenues of governmental policies over unemployment. A prime example, as aforementioned, was the “Volcker Shock”, which gave more weight to issues like inflation over unemployment which was prevalent in the working class. Lastly, implicit demonstration of gender and racial differences, which was traditionally centered on black and female workers, was also something that was reinforced during this time period. Therefore, all of these factors combined ensured that social was meager.
Will Wright 