LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  July 1999

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE July 1999

Subject:

Cyber-Racism: A Divisive Tool of Capitalist Technology

From:

"S. E. Anderson" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:38:50 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (235 lines)

NOTE:

Prof. Gary Chapman has presented us with some good insight into the
white supremacist "digital divide".  Among the SFtP Folk here, there
should be organized interdepartmental seminars and/or teach-ins on our
various campuses about this growing crisis in access to technology and
information and real jobs.

However, near the end of his very informative essay Prof Chapman says:

                "But the real solution to income inequality in the U.S.
cannot be the
                happy-face prescription that we should all become
computer nerds.  Even
                Silicon Valley tycoons need people to wash their
clothes, fix their cars,
                run cash registers and take care of and educate their
children. Those
                people need a living wage too. "

"Those people" need a socialist revolution to help equally distribute
the tremendous wealth that exist on this planet today! The implication
of Prof. Chapman's statement is that since there will always be
capitalism with a mainly colored servile sector of the workingclass,
give them a "living" wage as dictated by this capitalist political
economy which is defined by all kinds of built-in inequality.  One of
our goals as progressives/radicals/revolutionaries is to layout a vision
of a world where we are not defined and confined by bourgeois strucures
and worldviews that place profits and the individual before people.

In Struggle,

S. E. Anderson


http://www.latimes.com/

Los Angeles Times

Monday, July 19, 1999

DIGITAL NATION

Inequality Runs Deeper Than Skills Gap

By Gary Chapman <[log in to unmask]>

The "digital divide" has been back in the news recently -- but, as
usual,
only briefly.

On July 8, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration released its latest report in a series called

"Falling Through the Net." This is an ongoing study of telephone,
computer
and Internet use in the U.S. that can be viewed at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide.

In it, the government reported (using 1998 data) that 40% of U.S.  homes

have personal computers. However, the report noted, "between 1997 and
1998, the divide between those at the highest and the lowest education
levels increased 25% and the divide between the highest and the lowest
income levels grew 29%. Households with incomes of $75,000 or higher are

more than 20 times as likely to have access to the Internet than those
at
the lowest income levels and more than nine times as likely to have a
computer at home."

In other words, the disparities in access to computers and the Internet
are growing.

The next day, President Clinton visited Watts, where he referred to the
NTIA report and toured a federally funded technology laboratory at Locke

High School. He also discussed how a new coalition of technology
companies, including Lucent Technologies, America Online and AT&T, will
help fund technology academies in economically distressed communities.

On July 12, the United Nations Development Programme released its 1999
"Human Development Report" (http://www.undp.org/hdro/99.htm), which
noted,
among its many statistics, that the U.S. has more computers than the
rest
of the world combined. The U.N. also found that more than 80% of Web
sites
are in English, and less than 1% of the world's population reads this
language. It was also reported that "the income gap between the richest
fifth of the world's people and the poorest fifth, measured by average
national income per head, increased from 30 to one in 1960 to 74 to one
in
1997."

The U.N. authors said that the price of a personal computer amounts to
about a month's salary in the U.S., but eight years' salary for the
average person in Bangladesh.

The U.N. also reported that the combined fortunes of the world's 200
wealthiest people more than doubled between 1994 and 1998, to about $1
trillion. Other U.N. reports have claimed that 4% of this figure, spent
annually, would provide the entire world's population with adequate
housing, food, health care, clean water and sewage systems.

The most common response to these grim statistics -- the response of
both
our political parties and the majority of public opinion -- is that
education and the development of skills, particularly computer skills,
are
the only answers to rising income inequality. But that may be a
delusion.

That's the argument my colleague at the University of Texas, professor
James K. Galbraith, made in his 1998 book, "Created Unequal." In the
U.S.,
Galbraith wrote that we don't have a shortage of skills. What we do
have,
according to the subtitle of his book, is a "crisis in American pay."

Galbraith observes that among economists, the near-universal explanation

for increased inequality in the U.S. is the "skill premium," or the
price
of skill in an increasingly high-tech economy.  University of Michigan
economist George Johnson says, for example, that the economic literature

shows "virtual unanimous agreement that during the 1980s, relative
demand
increased for workers at the high end of the skill distribution and thus

caused their relative wages to rise."

Workers with low skills or short educations suffered as a result.  Ergo,

the argument goes, increasing education and skill development among the
disadvantaged will improve their wage-earning prospects and thereby
reduce
inequality.

Challenging this assumption is economic and political heresy in the U.S.

Galbraith writes, however, that "the skills-shortage hypothesis -- the
idea that computers or other forms of skill-enhancing technology are
mainly responsible for what has happened to the wage structure -- and
the
idea that education can cure the problem are, I believe, fantasies."

Galbraith calls these fantasies "comforting" because they lay the blame
on
workers themselves and "exonerate the state." No one is against
education
or acquiring new skills. But these do little, Galbraith says, to change
the growing stratification of society.

An exclusive focus on education and training, such as we have in U.S.
public policy, avoids the taboo of challenging the justice of the wage
structure itself. The simple fact is that most Americans are not paid
well
enough. In the U.S., education is a process that sorts people on the
inequality continuum, what Galbraith calls a "lottery ticket" that
avoids
questioning the odds of the lottery itself.

Galbraith offers a lengthy discussion about why the computer is not to
blame for income inequality. Inequality expanded a decade before the
widespread use of personal computers, he notes. Most workers in the U.S.

already have basic computer skills, but the majority have still seen
their
wages sink, relative to other groups and adjusted for inflation. If
wages
were tied to technology-based productivity gains, blue-collar workers
should have seen the greatest relative increases in wage income, because

manufacturing has enjoyed the most significant growth in productivity.
But
blue-collar wages have declined for 25 years.

The real blame, Galbraith argues, belongs to political policies that
have
favored the rich, especially those with interest income. These began in
the Nixon administration, were accelerated by Presidents Carter and
Reagan
and have been sustained in the Clinton administration.

Galbraith points the finger at the Federal Reserve, in particular, for
keeping real interest rates high to appease wealthy creditors and at the

business and financial class for pushing policies -- successfully --
that
have essentially annihilated the social contract of the New Deal. This
is
all obscured by our current fetish for education and training, a form of

the growing public sentiment that it's "every man for himself" in what
conservative writer Edward Luttwak calls, pejoratively, the era of
"turbo
capitalism."

All of this puts advocates of greater equality in a tough spot. Poor
communities like Watts and other inner-city poverty zones definitely
need
computers and Internet training. It takes enormous energy both to
persuade
the public that such investments are worthwhile and in the public
interest
and to sustain such efforts. This is the only "solution" on the
political
agenda these days, and it can change individual lives, offering an exit
from poverty and ghettos.

But the real solution to income inequality in the U.S. cannot be the
happy-face prescription that we should all become computer nerds.  Even
Silicon Valley tycoons need people to wash their clothes, fix their
cars,
run cash registers and take care of and educate their children. Those
people need a living wage too.

Inequality is the root of nearly all of our problems in the U.S.:
corrupt
money politics, social polarization and class segregation, family
breakdowns, crime, fin-de-siecle decadence and a stifling and depressing

feeling that we've lost our way as a nation. Computer skills, although
very important for everyone, are not the answer. It will take moral
courage to "speak truth to power" to really change things.


Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at the University
of
Texas at Austin. He can be reached at [log in to unmask]

Copyright (c) 1999 Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager