Working Poor Research Paper

To increase productivity, the Industrial Revolution used new organizational strategies to change the economy very quickly. It started with the “Outwork System” which small parts from a larger production was carried into many single homes. “Factory System” was where they performed on a large scale in individual centralized locations.

Together, they made around $83,000 and had around $90,000 in assets which placed them solidly in the middle class. Twelve years later, Allison and David experienced setbacks but increased their income to about $125,000. Their financial assets quadrupled to a whopping $368,000 and saved up thousands of dollars for retirement. However, with the economy downsizing on the heels of the Great Recession and uneven job recovery heavily tilted toward low-wage jobs, David joined millions of other Americans in unemployment. Having spent half a year unemployed, David returned to work working at a significantly lower wage. Over the course of 12 years, David witnessed how work became less stable and more contingent for many Americans. The working experience illustrates a larger transformation in America’s employment landscape, away from middle-class jobs and jobs with significant benefits toward low-paying jobs with few benefits, accelerated by the Great Recession.

This onslaught of capitalism directly revolutionized modern industrialism as well as the industrial city. Machines morphed the predominately agricultural nation to a herd of factory and corporate workers. Swarms of people, both native and immigrant, flocked to major cities. “The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes and labor saving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of labor.”(George, p.20) The major problem with this newfound industrialism was the way in which the workforce was treated. Capitalism was supposed to provide a way out, a way ascend the financial and social staircase, if you worked hard enough. This however was not the case, if you were a loyal, hardworking employee you simply got to keep your job, and if you were in any way injured or incompetent you were fired.

The implementation of the factory system of output required a state of high employment, in order to maximize output, thus, offering work to millions of Americans. For instance, in a journal published by the National Institute of Health, Charles Hirschman writes that the Market Revolution contributed directly to an increased standard of living in the United State. Specifically, he writes, “Theses changes [increased quality of life] were the direct result of the American [Market] revolution that was founded on rising investment, employment, and productivity in the manufacturing sector”(Hirschman 2). In his analysis, Hirschman writes that the Market revolution, which was paired with increasing economic and job growth, led directly to an increase in the number of jobs available for American citizens. Furthermore, this also led to increased labor market competition, raising wages and increasing the standard of living for those employed. Furthermore, in an Editorial written regarding working conditions, an author states: “It has been the object of the editor to encourage the cultivation of talent, and thus open and enlarge the sources of enjoyment…”(Document E). Concerning the cultivation of talent, the writer conveys that the introduction of the factory based system of work has led to new opportunities for the American worker, who now could rise upwards in the social ranks of the United States. Moreover, a report by the Federal Reserve claims that during that: “Over time, providence and human ingenuity make it possible for given amounts of labor and resources to produce more goods than they could before”(18). The report focuses on the evolution of the American economy during the time of the Market Revolution, and the analysis concludes that the development of new systems of labor led to an increased state of employment

Poverty and downward mobility are unfortunately not the only problems striking the American working class. It is fact that some jobs are simply not needed anymore. That of the laborer is just depleting. Some might even call it a “dying breed” (LaFevre 1) Mike LaFevre is part of the working class that labors day in and

Why does it seem that the working class is set up for failure? Do these workers lack the experience in their chosen fields? Do these employees lack in their work ethic? Does the government need to give more support? Questions like these arise in both the story Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America by Barbara Ehrenreich and the article “The Minimum-Wage War” by Rolling Stone. At first glance, these writings may seem unrelated; However, the themes of minimum wage and work ethic go hand-in-hand with respect to these texts. These writings express the correlation that working a minimum wage job and having a strong work ethic does not always result in enough money to pay for the cost of living. Consequently, unskilled workers become forced to work two or more positions (or become a part of America’s underclass).

Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and new president as the republican candidate, stated at the Milwaukee debate that “wages are too high” in this country. Lucky enough to be born into a millionaire family, how could he know what it feels like to keep one’s head above water as the 1.3 million people working at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour do? Even if one can work full-time, after state and federal taxes and Social Security and Medicare deductions, one is lucky to retain $225 a week or $12,000 a year, which is precisely the threshold of poverty for a single person. Welcome to the world of the working poor. No chance of paying rent and taking care of dependent children on that kind of salary. As a matter of fact, you’d be barely

Before the revolution there was a system of masters, apprentices, and regular workers doing all the manufacturing of goods. This system promoted a ‘hands on’ approach to the relationship between management/master and those under his employment. This system produced less than the eventual system that would be implemented during the market revolution. The new system which employed more people, in several

In A Shopkeeper’s Millennium, Johnson reveals that the emergence of industrial capitalism caused a numerous of effects. In an attempt to bring order, employees stopped living with their employers, ceased drinking during work hours and the social relation between employees and employers started to

     In mid-eighteenth-century England the industrial revolution was in full swing. However, workers lived near the level of physical subsistence, and their condition worsened in latter half of the eighteenth century. Monotony and repetition characterized factory work; the tyranny of the factory clock and the pace of the assembly line were beyond the control of all workers. The division of labor, praised by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations as the means to productivity growth and rising living standards, made work so routine that women and children could perform jobs just as easily as men. Business owners logically preferred such workers because they could be hired for less.

A problem that often is talked about concerning developing countries is the issue of western countries using poorer countries for production and cheap labour. It is often argued that this is something unfavourable, in two ways. First of all, it is argued, often by the progressive crowd, that it has a negative effect for the people in developing countries working in the factories, and their economy. It is said that the pay is too low and conditions bad, and that people are forced to take the jobs. Second of all, it is argued, often by the more conservative crowd, that this has a negative effect on the countries using the labour as well. People lose their jobs because they can’t compete with the low wages and living standards in developing countries,

Frederick W. Taylor was ahead of his time for his concept of Scientific management. It was a revolutionary way of running a business, that swept all over the globe, and his ideas were applicable to many different industries. Substituting disorder and conflict for a new untested method of control, cooperation, and science. Taylor understood there were no incentives for working harder. Knowing this, he payed workers based on output, allowing workers to make more money on any given day. It seemed like everyone would enjoy and prosper under this system, but that was not the case. Workers liked the opportunity to make more money in this system but many of them resisted this new idea. Being under constant supervision made work much harder for them.

The Industrial Revolution hit Europe and along with it came a great deal of change. Not only did this industrial revolution affect standards of living in cities, it also affected greatly the nature and quality of labor. The Industrial Revolution had an impact of the greatest magnitude on Europe and has shaped the work style and nature of labor that Europeans know today. Although it may seem like a revolution of this sort would have great benefits for those who lived through it, evidence seems to show otherwise. For many it was difficult to adapt to this new world of industrial labor and for others it was a bit easier to adjust.

Today, many families in America work several jobs just to make ends meet; yet, sometimes the ends don't meet. As the financial vice tightens, more minorities are resorting to menial sources of employment such as janitorial, or parking attendants, or car wash employees. Notably "affirmative action" it is

Management approaches and practices are core to the concept of business management due to the insight it offers on various aspects of improving the efficiency of organizations. There have been a lot of researchers that have devoted a great deal of time to the study of these practices and approaches. Two very famous amongst these contributors are Fred W. Taylor and Henry Ford. Taylor had advocated that the task and priority of factory management was to determine the most efficient way for a worker to do his job, to provide all the necessary equipment and training to complete the job and to make sure that the task at hand is done achieving optimal efficiency by providing workers with incentives. He broke down each job into its individual motions, analyzed the importance of each and then timed the workers with a stopwatch. He then eliminated unnecessary motion and asked the workers to perform machine-like routine, which increased the efficiency. On the other hand Fordism was a specific stage of economic development in the 20th century. The term gained popularity as it was recognized by firstly, the system of mass production that was pioneered in the early 20th century by the Ford Motor Company and secondly, the typical postwar mode of economic growth and its associated political and social order that advanced capitalism. In this essay we will critically discuss and analyze the impact of Taylorism and Fordism on contemporary management approaches and practices.