November 17, 2019

"Precarity (also precariousness) is a precarious existence, lacking in predictability, job security, material or psychological welfare. The social class defined by this condition has been termed the precariat..."

"Léonce Crenier, a Catholic monk who had previously been active as an anarcho-communist, may have established the English usage. In 1952 the term was documented by Dorothy Day, writing for the Catholic Worker Movement... The condition of precarity is said to affect all of service sector labor in a narrow sense, and the whole of society in a wider sense, but particularly youth, women, and immigrants.... Around 2000, the word started being used in its English usage by some global justice movement (sometimes identified with antiglobalization) activists... and also in EU official reports on social welfare. But it was in the strikes of young part-timers at McDonald's and Pizza Hut in winter 2000, that the first political union network emerged in Europe explicitly devoted to fighting precarity: Stop Précarité, with links to AC!, CGT, SUD, CNT, Trotskyists and other elements of the French radical left... The precariat class has been emerging in advanced societies such as Japan, where it includes over 20 million so-called 'freeters.' The young precariat class in Europe became a serious issue in the early part of the 21st century."

I'm reading the Wikipedia article "Precarity," because I encountered the word — which I'd never noticed before — in a NYT article, "The End of Babies/Something is stopping us from creating the families we claim to desire. But what?"
There are as many answers to this question as there are people choosing whether to reproduce. At the national level, what demographers call “underachieving fertility” finds explanations ranging from the glaring absence of family-friendly policies in the United States to gender inequality in South Korea to high youth unemployment across Southern Europe. It has prompted concerns about public finances and work force stability and, in some cases, contributed to rising xenophobia.

But these all miss the bigger picture.

Our current version of global capitalism — one from which few countries and individuals are able to opt out — has generated shocking wealth for some, and precarity for many more. These economic conditions generate social conditions inimical to starting families: Our workweeks are longer and our wages lower, leaving us less time and money to meet, court and fall in love. Our increasingly winner-take-all economies require that children get intensive parenting and costly educations, creating rising anxiety around what sort of life a would-be parent might provide. A lifetime of messaging directs us toward other pursuits instead: education, work, travel....
The OED has the first published use of the word "precarity" in 1910, in "The Crowds and the Veiled Women," by Marian Cox: "In proportion as Monsieur was certain, Gaspard was rendered more miserable through the delay that augmented its precarity."

55 comments:

Ann Althouse said...

I blogged about "freeters" here.

tcrosse said...

My secure retirement makes me one of the postcariat.

Birkel said...

Never use the language of Marxists / Leftist Collectivists.
It is all based on lies for the purposes of acquiring power.
Power, that is, over other people.
And it is to be exercised ruthlessly.

Hagar said...

Our workweeks are longer and our wages lower, ..."

Really? In what universe is this true?

Wince said...

There are as many answers to this question as there are people choosing whether to reproduce. At the national level, what demographers call “underachieving fertility” finds explanations ranging from the glaring absence of family-friendly policies in the United States to gender inequality in South Korea to high youth unemployment across Southern Europe.

Here's a compelling graphic that shows the correlation, over time, between increasing wealth and decreases fertility in each nation.

Fertility vs. Log GDP Per Capita across the world over time, where each dot is a country.

Jupiter said...

Bilge. Feminism.

Narayanan said...

I've heard "Stomach Socialism"

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Our workweeks are longer and our wages lower, leaving us less time and money to meet, court and fall in love.

Bullshit. 100 years ago, when people worked six days a week, and up to 12 hours a day, most people had bigger families than we do today. Not only were real wages lower, the standard of living was significantly lower. 10 or more kids was not uncommon.

The changes that have led to fewer, smaller, and more fragile families are birth control, feminism and welfare.

Ice Nine said...

>>Our workweeks are longer and our wages lower, leaving us less time and money to meet, court and fall in love.<<

Yeah, because, you know, there were never low wages and long workweeks in this country back when we were procreating robustly.

That explanation for the declining birth rate was preposterous - as were his others. That's because they were merely political statements.

Michael K said...

Lots of communists in the Church these days, including the Pope.

The changes that have led to fewer, smaller, and more fragile families are birth control, feminism and welfare.

Discussion of automation at Chicagoboyz. One thing that is driving automation is the unreliability of workers who do not show up or quit jobs well before they are experienced.

Employee retention is what is going to drive automation in certain sectors more than anything. There are certain warehouse positions that are difficult to staff due to the processes involved being highly repetitive and mundane. At another warehouse of an online retailer, people would essentially refuse placement by early outing. Eventually, they would be terminated for point accumulation or just quit. This place had a 90% turnover rate.

These are not minimum wage jobs.

Kirk Parker said...

These are nonsense explanations. Go read The Road To Wigan Pier.

David Begley said...

Some younger people have been duped by the CAGW scam.

madAsHell said...

Post-carity is a post-carious existence, completely predictable, absolute job security, material or psychological welfare.

I'm post-carity. In the vernacular, we would say doesn't-give-a-fuck.

The definition fails to note that I'm also involved in a same sex marriage. We've had the same sex for the last 40 years!!

Fernandinande said...

Here's a compelling graphic that shows the correlation, over time, between increasing wealth and decreases fertility in each nation.

Yup; the NYeT got it bassackwards as usual.

The Link between Fertility and Income

More "precarity" = more children.

Yancey Ward said...

Dependency ratios are what is driving fertility below replacement levels. If you are a worker in the middle class, how many people are dependent on you for food, medical care, shelter, and miscellaneous expenditures? If you are ignorant, your answer is going to be limited to just your children, spouses, exes, and elderly parents, and this would be far too narrow a view.

The raw dependency ratio is usually defined as the fraction of under-15 (children) plus over- 65 (the elderly and retired) to the working age population (age 16-64-the people who produce everything everyone consumes). This ratio was a higher in the past than it is today, but in the past the dependents were vastly overweighted towards children, but today are more evenly divided between children and the elderly, and the ratio today is about 0.51. It bottomed in 2009 during the Great Recession at just above 0.49. Basically, what we have done is traded in the raising of children for the care of the elderly. In addition, we have pretty steeply increased the resources/child. All together, we simply don't have the room to have and raise more children unless we stop spending so much per child or so much per retired person.

madAsHell said...

My secure retirement makes me one of the postcariat.

yeah....but can you claim to be a victim of same sex marriage??

Fernandinande said...

"precarity" in 1910,

ngram finds that one, then there's no occurances for about 40 years, then it shoots up around 2007; funny how the word got more popular as global precarity got less popular.

Yancey Ward said...

And, I will just point out the the definition of dependency ratio isn't as meaningful today as it was in even 1950 since it assumes that 16-22 year olds are largely workers producing items for consumption. This is quite clearly not nearly as true as it was 70 years ago. How many people even age 22 are engaged in useful employment today?

Lucien said...

"Our current version of global capitalism — one from which few countries and individuals are able to opt out — has generated shocking wealth for some, and precarity for many more."

Capitalism is what you get when transactions only occur between willing buyers and willing sellers. It's hard to opt-out, because to do so, you need to force people or countries into transactions that they would not willingly undertake. In the old days of the Soviet Empire, communist countries could opt out because there were vassal states in the Warsaw Pact that had to play by Moscow's rules or be invaded (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968). So until China conquers or bullies a few more countries into line, it has to play by largely capitalist rules -- which has ballooned the standard of living for hundreds of millions of Chinese.

buwaya said...

" How many people even age 22 are engaged in useful employment today? "

All our kids were "usefully" employed at 22. Well paid anyway, for 22 year olds, and independent. And before then. This is no great trick either.

Paco Wové said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paco Wové said...

Somehow I don't think citing purely economic reasons for social phenomena is going to be adequate.

"Our increasingly winner-take-all economies"

Warning! Reflexive regurgitation of cliches in progress!

hstad said...

"...Post-carity is a post-carious existence, completely predictable, absolute job security, material or psychological welfare...?"

Classic Progressive View! You must be kidding me - we live in a World where Nature plays no favorites and kills more people then all historical dictators since the beginning of time. Truly amazing how we humans are duped into 'Shill' beliefs.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

These parlous times make it tough for the precariat to garner a living.

effinayright said...

Funny, innit....how countries like India, with hundreds of millions of poor people, still crank out the babies.

Precarity, my ass.

cubanbob said...

Employee retention is what is going to drive automation in certain sectors more than anything. There are certain warehouse positions that are difficult to staff due to the processes involved being highly repetitive and mundane. At another warehouse of an online retailer, people would essentially refuse placement by early outing. Eventually, they would be terminated for point accumulation or just quit. This place had a 90% turnover rate."

Micheal K while what you say is true, the problem with automation is that these people once replaced rarely have the ability to do other work that pays what they were earning before they left those jobs. Hence the welfare state. On the other hand if precarity was as intense as these Communist claim those people would never quit their jobs to begin with and the economy wouldn't be large enough to maintain the welfare state.

Zach said...

I'm not sure this definition covers the way in which the word is used.

When I see the word used, it tends to mean that a person's status is precarious, not so much their job or income.

So for example, a lawyer who doesn't get a biglaw job and ends up working for a smaller firm as an at-will employee is a member of the precariat, even though he has a stable and predictable income and a low risk of being fired.

The precariousness comes from the divide between what he thought his prospects were and what they ended up being, not because the end state is unpredictable.

That's not to minimize the phenomenon -- I think there are a lot of people who think they're on a narrow and slippery path to success, which is easy to fall off of. But I do think that the life experiences that make up that path, like an elite education or trophy jobs, have been oversold.

If you think of Harvard as a nice college with a good student body, then as a graduate you expect you'll have to hustle to take advantages of what opportunities are out there. If you think of it as a secret handshake to the global elite, then your expectations are much higher than your prospects. Echo this for every elite college, law school, and prestige job, and you've got the precariat.

bagoh20 said...

Any Democrat will confirm that we always live in the worst of times.

Michael K said...

these people once replaced rarely have the ability to do other work that pays what they were earning before they left those jobs. Hence the welfare state.

Oh, I agree but it is a statement about how people have it better then they have ever had it before. And are not seeing it. I worked in a warehouse summers in high school. I knew guys who were illiterate and could hold jobs because they recognized labels on boxes even if they could not read them. Some of them drove forklifts. Probably could not read well enough to get a driver's license. I can't remember if you had to read to get one, as a matter of fact. Probably to take the test on traffic laws but this was Chicago, after all.

Earnest Prole said...

I’ve noted before that the Left in California has produced — and is perfectly happy with — a version of capitalism that is the platonic embodiment of the economics they supposedly loathe. Wild Gold Rush prosperity exists side-by-side with the most abject third-world poverty, and no one gives a flying fuck because, contra Obama, they all believe they have rightfully earned what is rightfully theirs.

narciso said...

indeed, one wonders about the prophecy of malachi,


https://spectator.org/francischurch-strains-at-the-gnat-and-swallows-the-camel/

buwaya said...

Indian fertility rate has fallen rapidly. Its now barely above replacement, @2.2

This is down from @5 or 6 in the 60's-70's, the big exploding population scare that drove Raspail to write "Camp of the Saints". Raspail's villains in the novel, or at least the amoral miserable inhuman human phenomenon, were mainly Indian. Though he did describe its general global nature, those specific invaders of France were Indians.

madAsHell said...

Classic Progressive View!

To be sure, it was a lame attempt at humor. Made even lamer by the fact that I was the second.

narciso said...

so affluence is certainly a variable, in this equation, doesn't the times wish for lower population growth to satisfy gaia, aka the skydragon,?

chuck said...

>> These economic conditions generate social conditions inimical to starting families

And that, my love, is why the birthrate collapsed first in all the communist countries, followed shortly thereafter by the social welfare countries.

Tom T. said...

Basically, the economy is doing so well right now, they're having to find bad news by focusing on people who might suffer under different circumstances.

holdfast said...

The baby bust is more related to women ingesting too much Lefty claptrap via the media and college, and men ingesting too much soy.

daskol said...

Never use the language of Marxists / Leftist Collectivists.
It is all based on lies for the purposes of acquiring power.


Interesting comment Birkel, made more interesting by the fact of where I learned this word. I've seen it quite a few times in the writings of pro-populist, pro-Trump critics of gloabalization. You see it in the "Codevilla" and "Kotkin" school commentariat, who invoke the growth of the precariat as why we got Trump, and why we're going to get more Trump. Here the precariat is used to refer broadly to the class of people who have seen no gains from globalization, but rather a fiercer competition just to achieve a lifestyle in which marriage, children, home ownership and some degree of financial stability are realistically achievable aims. When it comes to socialists, I think old-school, universalist types, like, say Bernie used to be before he tried to win the Dem nomination, tend to make a worthwhile critique of the modern age. Their prescription for what to do about it is nuts, but their analytical framework is useful.

traditionalguy said...

First comes love and marriage. Then comes the baby carriage.

Destroying the social norms about called sexual immorality made love and marriage worthless.

traditionalguy said...

The oldest granddaughter just won the 2019 North Georgia Junior Golf Tour Championship. I held her the day she was born. Can't beat that.

Lars Porsena said...

I couldn't get past the 'anarcho-communist' monk....WTF??

narciso said...

codevilla describes the condition, but he's not pretentious enough to use that word, can they make up their mind, do they want replacement levels or not, or does it make the skydragon angry,

catter said...

I first saw "carious" meaning rotten or crumbling, like a far-gone tooth, in one of Anthony Burgess' early novels. (Burgess is great for using words that most of us need to look up.)
Once you've got "carious" in your head, "precarious" and its relatives evoke thoughts of slightly less decayed teeth.

tim in vermont said...

My eight brothers and sisters were all born just like me, when ma and pa had no extra nickels to rub together. It’s something else.

DavidUW said...

As Liz Warren correctly pointed out (but then skipped right over a logical conclusion), the single biggest expense in a "typical" middle class household (especially a 2 earner one) is taxes.

Add the costs of taxes to the time shuttling Kayden and Emma to all their activities, plus child care and perhaps private school, and having more than 2 becomes challenging too many.

Never mind that perhaps mom and dad got married at 30-32, spent a couple years getting settled/a house, and now is staring at 35 and her fertility dropping off a cliff and maybe there's only 1 kid in that common scenario.

tim in vermont said...

A big problem is that you need two incomes to live in a safe neighborhood.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"Prevaricarity": giving specious reasons for a drop in fetility

*****

@traditionalguy ---- congrats!!

wildswan said...

What I call the socialist ratchet comes into the rise of precarity. When I started working there were workers who worked forty hours, got insurance, vacations, cost of living increases in most jobs. But these were only those who had been there five years or some number like that. Over time the goverment brought in laws that said everyone who worked 40 hours a week had to get insurance. So then businesses hired for 35 hours. Then a law that everyone who worked thirty, so businesses hired for 25, then round again and then 20. By then everyone had to have two jobs and there wasn't as much benefit to loyalty or learning the job. That was the socialist ratchet where they bring in a reform and people get around it and then more reform, more weaseling, and meanwhile long term more people fall into the precariat. The root cause is the left messing with the economy and refusing to pay attention to consequences. Just ignoring the impact. It used to make me so angry to see them so self-righteous about making millions work two jobs. And now they are demanding that restaurants post a two-week schedule. That seems like helping the precariat but it will simply put restaurants out of business, especially start-ups. And the left won't care. California is burning and blacked out - talk about precariat. The left doesn't care. To me it seems, the left meddles but it doesn't care - the growing precariat is directly related to that.

MayBee said...

I'm certain what my idea of "family friendly" policies is almost the polar opposite of what this author views as family friendly.

For example, Kamala Harris has talked about helping families by increasing the length of the school day. I find that family-harmful. I don't think making everything easier for people to work and be away from raising their children is beneficial to families. And I don't think creating a spiral where everything gets so expensive that everyone has to work more is family friendly, either. So paid leave may seem family friendly, but someone pays for that time off. I'd prefer finding ways to make it affordable for one parent to stay home and be with their kids, and for kids to spend more time with their parents.

Kirk Parker said...

MayBee,

"I'd prefer finding ways ... for kids to spend more time with their parents."

What? And risk the state's indoctrination not taking hold???

effinayright said...

This all boils down to.....you're too rich to afford children. Capitalism must therefore be destroyed , so you can have the luxury of "spending more time with your family."

Big Mike said...

Our current version of global capitalism — one from which few countries and individuals are able to opt out — has generated shocking wealth for some, and precarity for many more.

I've been gnawing on this sentence all day because, really, the question comes down to "compared to what"? Is there an alternate form of government where there is less precarity? There are some where the level of wealth for the wealthiest is very low next to Silicon Valley and Wall Street, but those same forms of government have historically produced precarity for the people on the lowest rungs, and even precarity for people who are higher up on the economic ladder.

ccscientist said...

It is false that people have lower wages now than in 1970 or some wonderful imaginary time. Wages in inflation-adjusted dollars are higher than ever. More people have household incomes over $100,000. There IS a problem of rising expectations. It is simply expected that a 25 yr old can stop at Starbucks, eat out, have a laptop and iPhone, and drive a nice car. Many young people have no idea how to save or live frugally. I (and my wife) had to shop carefully and rarely ate out for many many years until we finally were financially secure.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ A big problem is that you need two incomes to live in a safe neighborhood”

Maybe more important maybe is getting a good education for the kids. That typically means moving to a good school district, or even paying for private schools. The public school system has been destroyed through much of the country, and the more urban the school district, the worse it is. Almost day and night between the two school districts we live in. In NW MT, they rarely have discipline problems, the students respect the teachers, etc. here in the PHX suburbs, I wouldn’t send my kids to the nearby HS, or even the one that two grandsons attend, which was good when their mother and her siblings attended there a quarter century ago.