Amy,
re: I disagree. The Carolina worker could move up the food chain because the USA was probably investing in more research back then, as a %.
Please don't construe my reply as a flame, it isn't intended that way. Clearly, you haven't (didn't) live in the areas of the south where textile jobs were the core of the economy. These workers couldn't move "up" (or anywhere else). The majority of the textile workers were female with minimal (usually high school or less) education. They went to work in the mills or fabricating factories at a young age, usually before or just after graduating high school. They were taught a skill: sewing, spindling, etc. Often this was the only marketable skill they had.
Wages were low and continued to dwindle with the advent of foreign competition. But they could still make a living in rural areas where the cost of living was lower. Often, the textile industry wasn't the "employer of choice". It was the "only employer" of any size in the area.
When the industry moved offshore, many of these people were left marooned. They had no education to use to "move up", as you like to say. They had no money to move elsewhere. Besides, the tie to the land is strong in these areas and these people aren't like the mobility-driven yuppies you are used to seeing in high-tech California.
I still personally know many, many of those folks who were "outsized" in the textile trades. Many are still on welfare. Many of the towns are mere shells of what they once were ... downtown areas are series of boarded up buildings.
The plight of a knowledge worker with education cannot possibly be compared to the plight of the textile worker.
Your comments show that you are not versed in the latter.
I encourage you to study this in some detail before you make such sweeping (and incorrect) claims.
Regards,
greg. |
