The problem of immense numbers of jobs which pay less than a “living wage," that is to say, less than the wage necessary to support a working-class family, to provide for the subsistence and reproduction of labor power, is, it is often assumed, resolved by the fact that multiple job holding within the same family is widely practiced. Indeed, in one way this must temper the problem, since the average number of jobs per family is between one-and-a-half and two, and this provides more income to many family units, although it increases the level of spending necessary for subsistence. But when one reflects upon the modes of life brought into being by this rapid change, and the tensions which result from the fact that millions of families are driven to multiple job holding in the absence of suitable conditions for child care, household care, etc., such a conclusion is far from certain. Surveys point out that discontent among workers goes up sharply in families that have more than one wage earner, despite the fact that income also goes up.8 Further, there is another factor that influences any conclusion here, and that is the existence of a large number of families that have difficulty keeping even one family member occupied full time. An article on the crisis of the underemployed in the New York Times Magazine points out:
It is true that, nationwide, the average family has 1.7 full-time equivalent workers. But the majority of low-income families in America are unable to find enough work to occupy more than one “full-time-equivalent"member. In 1970, the average number of “full-time-equivalent” workers per low-income family was less than one! In other words, one person (usually the male head) worked nearly (but not totally) full time, or several family members worked, but very sporadically. It is therefore useless——and cynical—to tell those for whom jobs do not exist that they could relieve their poverty if only they would be more willing to work. 19
That portion of the relative surplus population which Marx called “stagnant," irregularly employed and living in conditions of life that have fallen below the average normal level of the working class, and furnishing a “broad basis" for “special branches of capitalist exploitation," has grown to encompass huge proportions of the inner-city populations, considerable numbers in the depressed rural areas, and is on the increase in suburban regions. Its extent, at least in the core areas of the large cities of the United States, was carefully measured during the 1970 census by means of a questionnaire designed to study the relation between poverty and the job market. This Census Employment Survey (C.E.S.) produced some sixty-eight volumes of raw statistics, the analysis of which has been undertaken by the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of the United States Senate. The above-quoted article on underemployment, one of whose three authors is a staff member of that subcommittee, offers a summary of some of the findings of the C.E.S., and in particular of the effort to develop what is called a “subemployment index":
The failure of the social and economic system to provide people with adequate wages is hidden from view under the surface of traditional unemployment statistics. These statistics are excellent for measuring fluctuations in the economy but they do not go far enough as measures of the labor market. To gauge the degree of labor-market failure, it is necessary to know not only the magnitude of overt unemployment, but also the extent of worker discouragement (“discouraged workers" are those who have given up looking for jobs); the number of people who can find only part-time work; and the number who hold jobs but at inadequate pay. The subemployment index attempts to encompass all these factors.
In 1970, nationwide unemployment amounted to 4.9 per cent of the labor force (since then, it has hovered close to the 6 per cent mark month after month). In the C.E.S. central-city survey areas, the unemployment rate in 1970 was 9.6 per cent. This is very high. In France, the labor unions took to the streets last February when unemployment reached 2.6 per cent. But as high as it is here, the employment rate alone falls far short of revealing the full extent of urban crisis. When we look at the official definition of unemployment, we note that one cannot be “unemployed" unless one is currently looking for a job. It does not count those people who have given up looking for jobs after failing repeatedly to find work.
274
Labor and Monopoly Capital
The Structure of the Working Class
275