Average Customer Review:
 ( 23 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
41 of 43 found the following review helpful:
 political editor's review is completely unfoundedJul 16, 1998
I wish to write this review primarily as a repudiation of the completely inaccurate review written by this site's political editor. The unnamed reviewer's main hypothesis was that When Work Disappears fails to answer two main questions: 1) the reason for the exodus of jobs from the inner city, and 2) the question of whether inner-city black males are willing to work, regardless of the availability of jobs. I find it difficult to believe that any reasoning person could have made such a statement after reading When Work Disappears. Indeed, a brief scan of the table of contents would reveal that a substantial portion of the book was devoted to answering these very questions. The reviewer's first assertion was that there was a "chicken or the egg" dilemma concerning the exodus of inner-city jobs and the social dysfunction of inner-city residents. Did the exodus of jobs cause aberrant behavior, or did aberrant behavior cause the exodus of jobs? I wish to state fir! ! stly, that a comparison of the conditions of inner-city neighborhoods in the 1940's and 1950's when people were working, to the conditions of these communities today should be sufficient to answer this question without the aid of a work as extensive as When Work Disappears. Nonetheless, this rather obvious question is not overlooked by Wilson, as the reviewer suggests, but is extensively and repeatedly explored. On page xx of the introductory material, Wilson clearly states his belief that "If inner-city black workers are experiencing the greatest problems of joblessness, it is a more extreme form of economic marginality that has affected most Americans since 1980" He goes on to clearly explain throughout the book that most of the jobs that left the inner-city left because of the global trends of downsizing, the exodus of more mobile industries like automobiles and textiles to cheaper labor markets, and the resultant shift of the economy from an inner-city factory ba! ! se to a largely suburban service base. He states that these! trends are not restricted to the inner- city, though inner-city communities tend to bear the brunt of the social dislocation these trends produce. A summary of Wilson's findings on these phenomena can be found on pages 139-143. The reviewer went on to state that Wilson's proposed solution of job creation failed to take into account the unwillingness of blacks to work within the existing job opportunities of the fast food industry. This statement is not supported by the fact that nearly the entirety of the first 105 pages of When Work Disappears is devoted in part or in whole to answering this very question. Wilson repeatedly states that the reason blacks do not take these jobs is that they do not pay a living wage, and that taking into account health benefits, child care, and transportation, fast food occupations pay much less than welfare (which is already substantially below the poverty rate). He also states that the availability of much more income in the informal (drug) ! ! economy also contributes to blacks seeking other alternatives to low-wage employment. Wilson repeatedly asserts that only living wage employment could be viewed as a long term solution to disproportionately high unemployment in the inner-city. For the reviewer to state that these questions were answered insufficiently would be his prerogative. To suggest that they were not addressed is simply incompetent. These oversights were so glaring, that it leads me to doubt whether the interviewer actually read the book at all. I found his or her review to be biased, and to border on outright racism. It is one thing to dislike a book, it is by far another for a representative of Amazon.com to assert in a literary review one's personal belief that black males are too lazy to find work His or her largely uninformed and unsupported insinuations may lead interested readers from reading one of the most thoroughly researched and insightful books on race and poverty in recent decades. Don'! ! t think of this as losing a customer, think of it as gainin! g a vocal and determined critic.
11 of 12 found the following review helpful:
a sociology tour de forceOct 29, 2001
By Matt Davis
I think there are two major problems with theories that attempt to explain black poverty as something completely or primarily due to welfare, "culture", or genetics: first, they seem to lack a comprehensive understanding of African-American history. Second, from everything I've seen, such theories totally ignore the very similar conditions experienced by other ethnic/national minority groups in many advanced as well as developing countries (ex: Gypsies, Maori, Aboriginies, etc.). On the other hand, an author such as Wilson offers a very refreshing insight into the conditions of the urban poor. While his policy prescriptions call for a much stronger, activist government, the focus of this book is the analysis of the current conditions of the black urban poor and how it reached it's current state. In that sense, it should be accesible to all political stripes. Also, this book is not in any way a "marxist" critique; it never criticizes American or global "capitalism" as the cause of the poor's suffering. The citing of socio-economic factors, such as technological and industrial changes, as a major factor in the deteriorating conditions of the urban poor is quite a different thing than stating that one can only solve such problems by overthrowing capitalism (this is a marxist perspective, not Wilsons). Also, the author's analysis does not lack addressing issues of "personal responsibility" or cultural, behavioral norms. On the contrary, he takes these very sensitive issues head-on and concludes that in some important ways there is a distinctive sub-culture (a "culture of poverty"), but not for the reasons some intellectuals assert (welfare, genetics, etc.). Differing social norms concerning work ethic, education, attitudes at work, etc. primarily exist because of the high rate of concentration and separation of the black urban poor from white, middle-class society. Those who grow up in a community where joblessness is actually the norm (and all of its associated ills) will not have adequate preparation for decent-paying jobs that require good education, work references, and interpersonal skills. I could say so much more, but I should probably limit this review to concluding that Wilson's work is destined to become a classic sociological reference and an important guide for other writers as well as policy-makers.
6 of 7 found the following review helpful:
What do jobs have to do with it? Everything.Feb 26, 2003
By Kenneth Young
The essence of my reading of the book is that concentrated joblessness, not just concentrated poverty, is afflicting many people in old urban areas, and that prolonged joblessness, even more than prolonged poverty, is a profoundly disabling condition not only for individuals, but for communities, and has intergenerational effects. Support for his theories is drawn from survey and ethnographic reseach with ghetto and non-ghetto residents and Us census data, as well as evidence from projects which involved relocation from ghetto to non-ghetto areas. Focused on the American urban ghettos, with most of its data drawn from Chicago area studies, Wilson discusses the overlap of ghetto poverty areas, jobless ghettos, and the effects of living in each. He gives significant attention to the role of race- segregation, racially coded policy, ghetto culture, and attitudes of employers towards race and their employees. Of special interest is his aside on the opinions of black employers to black employees (reflective of the general pool of employers opinions towards black employees). Wilson also examines ghetto related culture, the informal economies of the ghetto, and the place of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in the decision making calculus of ghetto residents. What is, IMHO, key to reading this book is keeping in mind that areas of ghetto poverty and ghetto joblessness are growing, deepening, and are not in a position to self-correct. Put simply, if joblessness is a key factor in the creation of ghettos, it needs to be addressed by supply-side solutions (job creation & employment of last resort, fostering adequate social supports (childcare, etc.)), and not simply reconfiguring the stick of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (the successor program to AFDC ). If you're looking for a detailed set of proposals, Wilson retreads several good ideas (universal healthcare among them), but you'll be able to find far more developed versions of the same proposals elsewhere. If you're looking for a more in-depth look at poverty and joblessness in urban areas, however, this is an excellent place to start.
3 of 3 found the following review helpful:
deserves a very wide readingAug 28, 1998
I am grateful for Wilson's book-long rebuttal to the many simplistic and wrong-headed arguments made for cutting welfare and, generally, for punishing underprivileged people for being poor. Though at times dry as dust and clogged with statistics, this is ultimately a great book which provides progressives and liberals with ammunition. The last chapter is an indispensable meditation on possible solutions both long- and short-term to the tragic persistence of degrading inner-city joblessness which keeps our country from true greatness.
3 of 3 found the following review helpful:
 I voted for Obama and got William Julius WilsonJul 02, 2011
By not a natural
"Bob Bickel"
The first two hundred six pages of the paperback edition of When Work Disappears merit reading by a broad audience of intelligent lay people. Though sometimes tedious because of inclusion of an inordinate number of comparisons of percentages and dollar values in the text, the first seven chapters are really quite interesting.
Unfortunately, however, this book, like so many of its kind, eventually devolves into predictable platitudes. A detailed and insightful analysis that comprises the bulk of the book is followed by an off-the-shelf prescription for long-term improvement that is fraught with cliche's and is hopelessly off the mark. Until the final chapter, the reader imagines that he or she is studying important aspects of the way our social system actually works. Then, without warning, the author betrays the fact that, in spite of decades of social research and public policy analysis, he is just as short-sighted as most well-meaning, life-long liberals who think that innocuous tinkering with ancillary institutions will provide a long-term economic remedy for all of us.
Perhaps the most insightful contribution of When Work Disappears is the sharp distinction Wilson draws and develops between poverty and joblessness. I have long been inclined to think that working for compensation that is inadequate to maintaining, at a minimum, the bare material rudiments of a middle class life style is a rip-off. Wilson has not changed my views in this regard, but he has forced me to reconsider the value of work -- just about any work that is not physically brutalizing or psychologically destructive -- as a means of social integration and wholesome personal regulation.
Most work, after all, is an inherently social activity. We work alongside others, in collaboration with others, in joint ventures that develop our organizational skills, and we work in ways that manifest, develop, and direct the unspoken interactive wherewithal that enables us to be amicably cooperative while avoiding needless conflict. Even if we are competitive strivers whose primary aim is to improve our position by out-stripping the attainments of our co-sorkers, we need to know and display socially acceptable on-the-job behavior in our efforts to achieve more.
In addition, work provides us with opportunities for more rewarding spare time activities. Relaxing alone is all well and good, but eventually it gets old, even depressing. Making social connections on the job can provide one with a group of peers who enjoy being together in activities as mundane as bowling or going to the movies, as
intellectually demanding as playing chess, or as skill-intensive as remodeling an old car while keeping expenditures low enough to make the activity practical.
Furthermore, being socially engaged, both on the job and off, perhaps while car-pooling to and from work, provides access to information not available in the best library or on the Internet. Word-of-mouth can be an invaluable source of knowledge concerning other kinds of employment -- a second job, a job for one's spouse, an opportunity for advancement that has not been advertised. Word-of-mouth can also apprise one of still other ways of improving one's life, such as the availability of sliding-scale health care at a clinic you otherwise wouldn't know existed.
Collectively, moreover, a neighborhood or community in which most people have jobs has a rhythmic stability that makes it a pleasant and nurturing place to live. Most jobs have a schedule, and most people who work have to abide by the schedules intrinsic to their jobs. This may sound unduly regimented, but Wilson presents it as predictable, dependable, and orderly, qualitites that make life less hectic and less emotionally taxing. At the same time, other institutions -- churches, small businesses, bars, restaurants, playgrounds, social clubs -- acknowledge this day-to-day routine by organizing themselves accordingly. The social world in which one resides may be a location where poverty is commonplace, but it is also a locus of informal social controls that operate to the benefit of all. It's a community.
In the 1950's and 1960's company towns often had this near-comunitarian character. Just about everyone worked in the same place doing basically the same thing without dramatic differences in compensation. Were company towns insular and intolerant of individual differences? Sure. But at least they were communities where most felt a strong sense of belonging.
The trouble with company towns, however, was and is that the company may shut down, sell out to a labor-hostile national chain, or simply move away. As Wilson acknowledges, this brings us to the crux of the problem of joblessness today: many employers have moved from the center city to the suburbs or to another country. The jobs may still exist, but center city residents no longer have access to them. Many jobs have been relocated or simply eliminated by the ubiquitous processes of internationalization, out-sourcing, down-sizing, and introduction of technology intensive labor-saving techniques. All this is done to reduce labor costs.
Writing in 1996, Wilson views the principal losers in this profit-seeking mode of job destruction to be center city residents who may once have been poor but are now also jobless and surrounded by joblessness, as well. This is the primary concern of When Work Disappears. Over the past fifteen years, however, it has become ever clearer that the processes that have restructured center-city labor markets are becoming just as destructive with regard to labor markets in which everyone else participates, including those with one or more college degrees.
Recessions come and recessions go, but recoveries are now manifest in increased corporate profits but not in increased earnings or improved employment prospects for people who work for a living. Cutting labor costs is a time-honored way of increasing profits, and multinational corporations are poceeding apace to make the most of it. For them, it's the rational thing to do. If politically correct right-wing talk show hosts object to this judgment, discerning intimations of class warfare, they are right. Unfortunately, capital is doing all the fighting, while the rest of us are disorganized casualties.
Wilson, I think, would agree with everything I've written above, except the last paragraph. As Wilson views the world, large economic actors, whether multinational corporations or some other entities, range between socially neutral and socially benign. If they aren't creating good jobs and hiring, it's because the skilled human capital they need is not being created, Thus Wilson's stunningly pedestrian long-term prescription for joblessness: better schooling carefully tailored to meet the needs of prospective employers, with schools' output then selected, sorted, and allocated through a cooperatively constructed school-to-work partnership. What could be more banal? What could be more ineffective?
To make matters worse, Wilson holds that we can improve schooling and upgrade the workforce mainly by placing a heavy emphasis on accountability. A national system of gauging school effectiveness, using tuition vouchers and tax credits to promote competion thereby making schools more effective, and identifying and getting rid of that omnipresent scapegoat, the ineffective teacher. Astonishing, really, that Wilson's thorough analysis of joblessness and its consequences should take us right where we are: No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, charter schools, and increasing emphasis on privatization.
What Wilson proposes is little more than blind adherence to mainstream human captial theory, a deeply flawed, thoroughly debunked perspective, coupled with perniciously intrusive accountability schemes that mandate testing, testing, and more testing. But does anyone really believe that increased availability of human capital will persuade employers to invest in job creation in the U.S. or elsewhere? Well, actually, as it turns out Obama does. George W. Bush did. And so did Bill Clinton. Blaming ecnomic problems on poor schooling and proposing better schooling as the eventual fix has been with us for four decades. There is no evidence that there is merit to this perspective, but schools, as with teachers, are such convenient scapegoats.
I think it's reasonable to surmise that our schools functioned pretty well until we started relenelessly tinkering with them in the 1970's. Now our schools may very well be dysfunctional simply because we have been monomaniacally determined to find eduational solutions to economic problems such as joblessness.
Historically, it's not dificult to see where these misguided ideas came from. Looking at the social science and public policy literature from the end of World War II until the early 1970's, it's clear that just about everyone expected post-war prosperity to continue indefinitely. When it didn't, we all looked around for an institutional reason, something we could diagnose and fix. If human capital theory is correct, then Education --> Productivity --> Income, for individuals and for entire nations. If this scheme doesn't hold true, the problem must be with our schools: for some reason they've stopped making workers productive. Though he doesn't use just these words, this is the way Wilson thinks, and his way of thinking has carried the day. As a result, schools are constrained to do little more than teach students to take standardized tests, and economic circumstances, for most of us, have continued to deteriorate.
Here we are, immersed in an era of Reaganesque Rugged Individualism, surrounded by a world economy that has been restructured to the painful disadvantage of most of us, and one our most influential liberal social scientists tells us we need better schools. What a mess. Does Paul Goodman have any contemporary intellectual heirs? We certainly need them.
See all 23 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
based on 23 reviews
