Recovery [ri-kuhv-uh-ree] noun: term used by the 1% to characterize the 99%’s enduring recession.

Sometime last November I listened to a lecture given by economist Richard Wolff. During the Q&A portion of his presentation Dr. Wolff responded to a question posed by a crestfallen college student concerning the duration of the great recession. Dr. Wolff graciously acknowledged the student’s unease and then responded by reframing her original inquiry. He gently offered the following provocation: “We must not ask whether we will surface from this crisis, for we surely will, but rather on whose terms will we emerge?”

The most recent Employment Situation Summary issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week underscores the worries expressed presciently by Dr. Wolff more than six months ago. The BLS noted that although the United States added 227,000 jobs last month, the average weekly wage only increased by 0.1%.  How could this be? Well, nearly 160,000 of the newly created jobs were categorized by the BLS as "low-wage," paying no more than 200% of the poverty income rate for an individual (up to $21,000 annually). Further, part-time work (without medical insurance or a pension) increased to a record 28 million jobs during February and now accounts for roughly 20% of total employment.

Planning an economic recovery on a principle that birthed the recession is simply inane. Historically, one of the most problematic features of a neoliberal economy has been the sharp rise in precarious employment, as employers have unwaveringly pursued strategies that “flexibilize” work and destabilize the very concept of job security. Precarious labor in this sense refers to forms of work typically marked by temporary contracts, limited or no social benefits and statutory guarantees, high degrees of job insecurity, low job tenure, sub-standard wages, and high risks of occupational injury and disease. From a workers’ perspective, precarious employment is unpredictable and ultimately subject to the caprice of 1%. Further, such forms of labor transfer social risks from employers (and the state) to individual workers and their families – to those who can least absorb them.

In 2006, the year for which the most recent data are available, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the number of “contingent” workers who labor as independent contractors, temporary workers, subcontracted or leased workers, and part-time workers stood at approximately 31% of the total workforce.  The GAO also reported that the absolute number of workers in these categories increased by three million (to 42.6 million workers) between 1995 and 2005 while their percentage of the total workforce remained stable. This means that contingent work continued to grow steadily along-side the rest of the economy even in times of so- called economic prosperity.

And finally, a publication entitled “Striking it Richer” released a few weeks ago by U.C. Berkeley Professor of Economics, Emmanuel Saez, confirms many of our most deeply held anxieties concerning the nature and scope of our alleged recovery. Saez finds that “from 2009 to 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery.” He concludes by noting that “the labor market has been creating much more inequality over the last thirty years, with the very top earners capturing a large fraction of macroeconomic productivity gains. A number of factors may help explain this increase in inequality, not only underlying technological changes but also the retreat of institutions developed during the New Deal and World War II – such as progressive tax policies, powerful unions, corporate provision of health and retirement benefits, and changing social norms regarding pay inequality.”

Taken together, these three publications offer an unassailable critique of our commonsense notions of recovery. Above all else, one thing is painfully clear: Economic recoveries are all but certain; economic justice is not.

Source: Nationofchange