Street Poets Artistry Collective: Street Poets NYC

'Powerful Is A Lifestyle. We Live it.'


Leave a comment

Power Moves X Sherifa X BU-Clothing

Sherifa.

Sherifa is Powerful because she is a living example for her peers, and those who are coming up next. Thank God She got right now.

Connect with this Power House Now! 

Twitter

Connect with Black N Ugly and Get Your Outfit tight.

Official BU Clothing website - Official STORE - Facebook - Twitter

What is BU-Clothing?

BU-CLOTHING.com

BU-CLOTHING.com

Bu short for #blacknugly is a line that stands to define a new generation while respecting those who came before us. Raw, bold and uncut. – BU-Clothing (@BUClothing)

BLACKNUGLYEDIT

FBMT


1 Comment

YAKITOKO X STREET POETS NYC X LINGALA #FASHION

YAKITOKO

FACEBOOKTWITTER - YAKITOKO ONLINE

YAKITOKOINTELLEKT

So I would say we are some pretty fashionable people. Although I love my thift shop weekends, and rip sh*t up Summers, I love to support independent designers such as BlackListedThreads.com and Yakitoko.com! Why? I don’t know the people that make the clothes in the mall that run regular shoppers like myself choose to make better decisions with our money like, SURVIVE; because the prices are higher than two months worth of rent. However, I do know the people around me who are doing big things so cheers to that! were ready to partner with this line because their designs are so smooth, and the quality is consistent. Yakitoko has a quality unlike many, and to be underground I salute their progress, and wish them LOVE in the future! Intellekt def. cop’d him a YAKITOKO TEE for THEE OPEN MIC show that he hosts in Brooklyn. Read more! I bet you’ll find out something you didn’t know ;-) - The Street Blogger

YAKITOKO

yak

Yakitoko is a clothing brand started in 2011 by Frange Abaraka while attending the University of Maryland, College Park.

The meaning of Yakitoko came from Lingala, a dialect from Central Africa. The word helms on the idea of the literal translation of “Something Beautiful”. I know you thought it was Japanese, got ya!!

The idea first came to me in January, 2010, when I discovered a ‘Threadless’ clothing community, where artists come to submit their designs for a chance to get printed on a t-shirt and earn $2500. At ‘Threadless’ I learned a lot in terms of designing; it’s not only a competitive website, the artists are kind enough to give suggestions and offer help on ideas circulated. That helped me hone in my skills. After spending some time circulating my ideas and receiving positive feedback, I decided it was time to share my talent with the world.

At Yakitoko, the motto is “dress for fun”. We strive to offer fun, artistic, and quality design.

The meaning of Yakitoko came from Lingala, a dialect from Central Africa

TAKITOKOINT

Intellekt performing at THE STREET POETS DEN in a Yakitoko tee!

FBMT


Leave a comment

Ignorance Driven Knits X Street Poets Artistry Collective: Street Poets NYC X I.D.K.

IGNORANCE DRIVEN KNITS

Twitter - Facebook - Online Store
IDK

Ageless Poet wearing a Ignorance Driven Knits Tee  (Follow @AgelessPoet & @StreetPoetsNYC on twitter now!)

‘I don’t know why i’m still The target… because they fear my true power.’ – Ignorance Driven Knowledge

AGELESSVONKING

Uniting Knowledge and Style

Ignorance Driven Knits, a Clothing Line with the goal to Counteract Ignorance with creative designs with inspiring and motivating statements. The founder of the clothing line was driven by all of the ignorance in the world and searched for a creative way to raise awareness and knowledge to the public, and on March 14, 2012 Ignorance Driven Knits was founded.

Inspiration Behind the Founder

Jordan A. Coburn – CEO & Founder
“My personal inspiration behind the brand is the black male in America. In 2011 I attained the title of Mr. Claflin University 2011-2012, and with that I presented a platform of rebuilding the African American Male. So that summer and on I did a lot of reading on the black male in America. After a couple of books I realized that there was lot of information that I was ignorant to and I’m pretty sure my peers were ignorant to as well, and then I thought of a creative way of bringing that information to the light.
There is also a sense of responsibility to my family, peers, and community that I felt I had to fulfill and inspire others to do it.”

IDK1

Much Love to Ignorance Driven Knits. A Powerful brand that we came across tailored for powerful people. There are so many people making changes and invoking the thoughts of change who are coming out and making it known that they are here to stay and here with a purpose and Jordan Coburn. We were estatic at the opportunity to connect with a brand such as IDK because first and foremost it is important to encourage one another!

IDK2

Besides the message that the clothing line supports, the gear is pretty damn fly. We raffled a few shirts away to the crowd members and the winners were really excited to go online and check out more about what IDK is about. A name goes along way, and so many wear labels, products and brands and have no clue as to what they are wearing or representing and IDK gives us the ability to notice that issue as well as correct it. Big Love to the CEO & Founder of Ignorance Driven Knits for being such a powerful force in the community through his chosen vehicle of expression. Men like Jordan are the people that the youth need to see at the wheel. 

- Street Bloggers

FBMTLOGO


Leave a comment

He Is… UNTAMED (Behold The Gentleman)

FLIRTUS2

FLIRTUS, A UNTAMED SOUL….

His stage presence is magic, his voice is immaculate, his passion for poetry burns into the audience as if they were consumed in a flame of lyrics…

This is what it feels like to witness Flirtus at his best. His world is UNTAMED and his life is what he speaks, hence why it is so easy for you to fall in love with this new breathe of fresh air when he steps to a mic. Flirtus is the name to a new breed of poets coming from the land of the Untamed Republic.

   

FLIRTUS1

Get Social w. FLIRTUS on FACEBOOK and on TWITTER now!

Born in Brooklyn his biggest influences come from those things that can only be taught through experience. He found early in his life his gift for words, but writing stories would take a side role to his first love of Basketball. Luckily for him he chose the side chick of poetry and never looked back.
     Today Flirtus has done motivational speaking for the Build on project  in the Bronx and various other  high schools. He has performed and featured at various venues and colleges such as bus boys and poets, Nuyo Rican Poets Café, Santos Party House,  NYU, Brooklyn College, John Jay, BMCC, and Blue door Art Gallery where he also runs an open mic called  ’The Night i Became Untamed,’ and just came off his first tour with The Deans List tour.


 With his poetry he one day hopes to inspire, and change the minds of those that never believed to aspire for better. He believes you can’t change the world, but you can change you, and by changing you, you bring difference to the world around you. He just hopes to be the trigger to doing that for those surrounding him. Luckily for his audience His journey has yet to be finished, so stay tuned for the ride that he has in store because a Phoenix is about to take flight, one stanza at a time.

FLIRTUS3

FBMT


Leave a comment

#StreetPoetElite Pam Africa

pam2

PAM AFRICA

Although small in physical statue at 4’ 11’’ tall, her presence looms large worldwide where her organizational savvy plus sheer persistence helped pull off what many leaders, luminaries and laymen alike consider one of the most monumental equal rights victories in recent decades.

The advocacy of Pam Africa on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal — constructing support networks while confronting incessant opposition — contributed to the climate where U.S. federal courts killed the death sentence Abu-Jamal received following his controversial 1982 conviction for killing a police officer.

That elimination of Abu-Jamal’s government-endorsed death chagrined powerful figures across Pennsylvania and around America who had shamefully bent and broken laws (deliberately sabotaging court proceedings) in their various efforts to execute Abu-Jamal, known as the “voice of the voiceless.”

Pam Africa is the head of International Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Philadelphia-based organization at the center of the international movement seeking Abu-Jamal’s release.

pam3Africa is the dynamo whom most Philadelphia police, prosecutors, politicians and many pastors love to hate because of her strident advocacy on behalf of imprisoned journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal and MOVE members sentenced for a fatal 1978 shootout.

While winning freedom for Abu-Jamal and the MOVE Nine is a definitive focus of Pam Africa’s advocacy, she is frequently found on “front lines” nationwide fighting for ending mistreatment of people regardless of their color and creed.

“Pam Africa is in each and every struggle for social justice in Philadelphia, the U.S. and abroad. It’s not just Mumia,” said activist/writer Berta Joubert-Ceci while chairing a program in West Philadelphia a few weeks ago.

During that West Philly program Africa received praise from another warrior for right, former U.S. representative Cynthia McKinney, whose praise also highlighted Africa’s often overlooked soft side.

McKinney proudly displayed a stylish African-themed jacket Africa had given her as a present that evening, a garment McKinney had complimented Africa for wearing at an event in Atlanta that McKinney attended.

pam4Interestingly, vicious beatings by Philadelphia police played pivotal roles in transforming Africa from a person committed to helping others work within the system to a vigorous opponent of the system that Africa sees as structurally unjust and irreparably corrupted.

Africa recalls her first beating by Philadelphia police as occurring when she politely questioned unprovoked police mistreatment of young male members of a Philadelphia youth organization where she worked in the early 1970s. At the time, Africa still used her birth name, Jeanette Knighton.

“We were coming from a citywide youth meeting when an officer stopped us and began roughing up the youth. I told the officer those young men did nothing wrong and when I attempted to take his badge number I got beat,” Africa said during a recent interview.

“During that time, I believed if you just talked to police they’d do the right thing. At the time I used to wear red, white and blue clothes all the time and a blonde wig. I was so far to the right politically,” she said.

“The police tore my wig off during that beating. I was beat up and locked up for doing nothing.”

Temple University African-American history professor Dr. Tony Monterio first met Pam Africa during an ugly June 1979 incident where police beat Africa. Police pummeled Africa with nightsticks with one stick-strike knocking out some of her teeth.

pam5Monterio said police attacked Africa after she courageously shielded a man enduring a savage police assault during a protest near a South Philadelphia public housing development where police sided with racist whites who were attacking blacks.

The scholar in Dr. Monterio sees Pam Africa as a unique figure whose contributions locally, nationally and internationally merit both examination and recognition.

“She’s made history but she didn’t set out to make history. She started initially just to do the right thing,” Monterio said during a recent interview.

“I see her as one of the most significant rights leaders in the past forty-years. Where other black leaders have sought acceptance from ‘the system’ she never left the battlefield. She never retreated. She was never broken.”

Monterio is a force behind two events this weekend honoring both Pam Africa’s accomplishments and starting a process for what Monterio envisions as a study of Africa’s life works.

The first event is a reception this Friday (3-6PM) at Temple University’s Blockson Collection. The second event is a day-long colloquium on Saturday (11-5PM) at the Church of the Advocate.

SONY DSC

“With this being the end of Women’s History Month I thought we needed to do a conference on Pam’s life. There is an importance in archiving her life. This is a step in establishing a way to study her life.”

Africa has a history of providing service to others. There is a 1960 photo in The Philadelphia Tribune of a young Jeanette Knighton receiving an ‘Outstanding Service’ award from the principal of a North Philadelphia public school she attended.

Dr. Suzanne Ross, a NYC psychologist whose worked with Africa on the Mumia and MOVE cases, calls her both a “spiritual leaders and general” able to connect with people through “her love” while providing direction by knowing when “to engage” and when to regroup.

Ross stresses that hers is not “some idealized version of Pam [because] I disagree with her A LOT.”

Pam Africa, provoking chuckles during that West Philly program, said, “People used to call me a foul-mouthed radical. But there is a method to that.”

 

Source: PhillyTrib.com

FBMT

bama2


Leave a comment

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil by: Adam Serwer

bama2Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in “an extraordinary circumstance,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

“The US Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening,” Paul said Tuesday. “It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama’s pick to head the CIA, “until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil.” Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that “the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so.” Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul’s question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Holder’s answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such “extraordinary” circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president ordering the use of lethal military force inside the United States is “entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront,” Holder wrote. Here’s the bulk of the letter:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

The letter concludes, “were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority.”

In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that’s exactly what was happening. “Any use of drone strikes or other premeditated lethal force inside the United States would raise grave legal and ethical concerns,” says Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First. “There should be equal concern about using force overseas.”

This post has been edited to include Paul’s statement and the final line of Holder’s letter.

Source: MotherJones.com


Leave a comment

Leaked email adds fuel to claims White House playing politics over impact of cuts by: FoxNews.com

whouseA leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

The response noted that the administration had already told Congress that the APHIS would “eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry” without additional funds.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tim Griffin said the administration’s response to Brown’s email shows a bid to undermine efforts to replace the cuts, known as sequester, with less onerous ones.

“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the sequester cuts for political gain,” Griffin said in a statement.

Griffin told Fox News on Wednesday that the bosses effectively said, “You can’t do anything that is inconsistent with the negative impact that we’ve told everybody these cuts are going to have.”

An Agriculture Department spokesperson told Fox on Wednesday that the email “has been completely taken out of context. The spokesperson said it references “cuts and impacts communicated to Congress as part of the FY2013 budget, not as part of a sequester plan.”

Under the 2011 deal reached by Obama and Congress, the cuts are supposed to be across the board, meaning government officials have limited flexibility in moving around money.

The administration in recent weeks has made doomsday predictions about the impact of the cuts. And the White House so far has appeared unwilling to accept a Republican offer to give the president more autonomy in making the cuts, covering $85 billion this fiscal year, to help reduce the impact on some of the most essential or hardest-hit programs or agencies.

Some political strategists say the president hopes the cuts hurt enough to compel Republican lawmakers seeking re-election next year to end them by agreeing to more tax increases.

On Sunday, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, suggested Republicans would indeed make this decision.   

“Our hope is, as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown email.

Vilsack said he was unaware of the email, but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.

“I wouldn’t say that we’ve said no to flexibility,” Vilsack said. “But there are certain circumstances where we don’t have flexibility.”  

“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that has been put forward,” Noem said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/?cmpid=cmty_plus_fn#ixzz2Mn6SkZQ0

FBMT

 


Leave a comment

The Sequester, Explained by: Kevin Drum

bamaWhere did the whole idea of sequestration originate? It goes back to 1985. The tax cuts of Ronald’s Reagan early years, combined with his aggressive defense buildup, produced a growing budget deficit that eventually prompted passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.GRH set out a series of ambitious deficit reduction targets, and to put teeth into them it specified that if the targets weren’t met, money would automatically be “sequestered,” or held back, by the Treasury Department from the agencies to which it was originally appropriated. The act was declared unconstitutional in 1986, and a new version was passed in 1987.

Sequestration never really worked, though, and it was repealed in 1990 and replaced by a new budget deal. After that, it disappeared down the Washington, DC, memory hole for the next 20 years.

What about the 2013 version? Where did that come from? In the summer of 2011, Republicans decided to hold the country hostage, insisting that they’d refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama agreed to substantial deficit reduction. After months of negotiations over a “grand bargain” finally broke down in July, Republicans proposed a planthat would (a) make some cuts immediately and (b) create a bipartisan committee to propose further cuts down the road. But they wanted some kind of automatic trigger in case the committee couldn’t agree on those further cuts, so the White House hauled out sequestration from the dustbin of history as an enforcement mechanism. It would go into effect automatically if no deal was reached.

In the end, no immediate cuts were made, but a “supercommittee” was set up to propose $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction later in the year. To make sure everyone was motivated to make a deal, the sequester was designed to be brutal: a set of immediate, across-the-board cuts to both defense spending and domestic spending, starting on January 1, 2013. The idea was that everyone would hate this so much they’d be sure to agree on a substitute.

Needless to say, no such agreement was reached. So now we’re stuck with the automatic sequestration cuts.

How big is the sequester? You’d think this would be an easy question to answer. In fact, it’s surprisingly complicated! Are you ready?

The basic amount of the sequester is $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. But when you reduce spending, you also reduce interest on the national debt. This means that we only need $984 billion in actual program cuts. And since it’s for 10 years, naturally that means we divide by nine to get annual spending cuts of $109 billion. For FY2013, this comes to $12 billion per month, because there are only nine months from January (when the sequester begins) through the end of the fiscal year in September.

But wait! The fiscal cliff deal in January delayed the sequester until March 1, so it also lopped off two months of cuts. This means that the total amount of spending cuts for this year clocks in at $85 billion.

So what gets cut? The sequester is split evenly between defense spending and domestic spending. The domestic half has two parts: Medicare and everything else.

For Medicare, the sequester specifies a flat 2 percent cut in reimbursements. Doctors will continue to bill at their usual rates.

usual rate, but they’ll only receive 98 cents on the dollar. According to the Congressional Budget Office, here’s how the whole thing nets out (see Table 1-2):

  • Defense: $42.7 billion
  • Medicare: $9.9 billion
  • Other domestic: $32.7 billion

Aside from Medicare, how are the other cuts divvied up? The sequester legislation requires the cuts to come evenly from every budget account. This means everything (with a few exceptions) gets cut the same amount. This is an especially stupid way to cut spending, since everyone agrees that some programs are more important than others, but that’s the way it is. If you really want to torture yourself, you can read this Office of Management and Budget report, which contains 224 pages listing the sequester amounts from every single agency in the United States government. It’s followed by another 158 mind-numbing pages of agency accounts that are exempt from the sequester.

But as stupid as this is, don’t get too excited about it. It’s only for FY2013, which lasts seven more months. After that, although the total amount stays in place ($109 billion, split evenly between defense and domestic spending), congressional appropriations committees have much more flexibility about how to juggle the cuts.

Aren’t we still in a recession? What are these cuts going to do to the economy?Technically, we’re no longer in a recession, but there’s no question the economy remains weak. A big bunch of dumb spending cuts is about the last thing we need.

That said, the actual impact of the cuts is hazy. Among private forecasting firms,Macroeconomic Advisers figures the sequester will cut GDP by 0.7 percentage points, while IHS Global Insight puts it at 0.3 percent. Back before the sequester was delayed, CBO estimated 0.8 percentage points. Given a consensus growth forecast of about 2 percent for this year, this is a fairly substantial headwind. In terms of jobs, it will probably increase the unemployment rate by about half a percentage point. This is why Fed chairman Ben Bernankebasically told Congress on Tuesday that they were nuts to let the sequester proceed.

That’s all sort of bloodless. How about some horror stories? You know, three-hour waits at airports because of TSA cutbacks, food poisoning epidemics thanks to USDA cutbacks, that sort of thing? The White House has been making a lot of hay over its 50-state breakdown of cutbacks. California, for example, will lose 1,200 teachers, 8,200 Head Start slots, 49,000 HIV tests, $5 million in meals for seniors, etc. You can see the forecasts for your state here. Aside from that, Wonkblog seems to be the go-to site for alarmist coverage of the sequester. Brad Plumer has the impact on R&D spending here. In an interview with Ezra Klein, former NIH director Elias Zerhouni says it will be a “disaster for research.” Suzy Khimm interviews a former Homeland Security official here who says smuggling will increase. And MoJo‘s own Zaineb Mohammed lists six ways the sequester will hurt the environment here,including higher risk of damage from wildfires.

That’s terrible! Does anyone have a plan to avoid the sequester? Sure. Sort of. President Obama has proposed a substitute that includes about $1.1 trillion in spending cuts and $700 billion in new revenue. It was dead on arrival because Republicans are flatly unwilling to consider any plan that includes higher taxes. Back in December, Republicans in the House passed a bill that would have kept all the domestic cuts and replaced the defense cuts with yet more domestic cuts, mostly to anti-poverty programs. It was DOA too, for obvious reasons. House and Senate Democrats have plans as well.

But the truth is that there’s probably no deal to be made. Republicans won’t accept tax hikes, Democrats won’t accept any bill that’s exclusively spending cuts, and neither party is willing to just kill the sequester outright, which is the most sensible option. For now, all that’s really happening is that both sides are barnstorming the country blaming the other guys. Obama seems to be winning that battle at the moment.

Source: MotherJones.com

FBMT


Leave a comment

All Work and No Pay: The Great Speedup

You: doing more with less. Corporate profits: going strong. The dirty secret of the jobless recovery.
By  and 

speed

Enjoy this read, it is very important that you read this and click ALL the links so you can go to Mother Jones website, and see the charts that are there as well. This article is not being posted here only so you can read. Most importantly, I want you to respond, but not only in the comments below but with your actions. – Street Blogger


Update, 3/6/2013: The Dow hit a record high on Tuesday, but who’s winning? The conditions of America’s jobless recovery detailed in this essay nearly two years ago have only continued—corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20 percent since the end of 2008, according to the New York Times, while Americans’ disposable income has inched ahead 1.4 percent by comparison. Or, as a top economist for Bank of America told theTimes, ”So far in this recovery, corporations have captured an unusually high share of the income gains.” Here’s why.


ON A BRIGHT SPRING DAY in a wisteria-bedecked courtyard full of earnest, if half-drunk, conference attendees, we were commiserating with a fellow journalist about all the jobs we knew of that were going unfilled, being absorbed or handled “on the side.” It was tough for all concerned, but necessary—you know, doing more with less.


“Ah,” he said, “the speedup.”


His old-school phrase gave form to something we’d been noticing with increasing apprehension—and it extended far beyond journalism. We’d hear from creative professionals in what seemed to be dream jobs who were crumbling under ever-expanding to-do lists; from bus drivers, hospital technicians, construction workers, doctors, and lawyers who shame-facedly whispered that no matter how hard they tried to keep up with the extra hours and extra tasks, they just couldn’t hold it together. (And don’t even ask about family time.)

Webster’s defines speedup as “an employer’s demand for accelerated output without increased pay,” and it used to be a household word. Bosses would speed up the line to fill a big order, to goose profits, or to punish a restive workforce. Workers recognized it, unions (remember those?) watched for and negotiated over it—and, if necessary, walked out over it.

But now we no longer even acknowledge it—not in blue-collar work, not in white-collar or pink-collar work, not in economics texts, and certainly not in the media (except when journalists gripe about the staff-compacted-job-expanded newsroom). Now the word we use is “productivity,” a term insidious in both its usage and creep. The not-so-subtle implication is always: Don’t you want to be a productive member of society? Pundits across the political spectrum revel in the fact that US productivity (a.k.a. economic output per hour worked) consistently leads the world. Yes, year after year, Americans wring even more value out of each minute on the job than we did the year before. U-S-A! U-S-A!

Except what’s good for American business isn’t necessarily good for Americans. We’re not just working smarter, but harder. And harder. And harder, to the point where the driver is no longer American industriousness, but something much more predatory.

SOUND FAMILIAR: Mind racing at 4 a.m.? Guiltily realizing you’ve been only half-listening to your child for the past hour? Checking work email at a stoplight, at the dinner table, in bed? Dreading once-pleasant diversions, like dinner with friends, as just one more thing on your to-do list?

Guess what: It’s not you. These might seem like personal problems—and certainly, the pharmaceutical industry is happy to perpetuate that notion—but they’re really economic problems. Just counting work that’s on the books (never mind those 11 p.m. emails), Americans now put in an average of122 more hours per year than Brits, and 378 hours (nearly 10 weeks!) more than Germans. The differential isn’t solely accounted for by longer hours, of course—worldwide, almost everyone except us has, at least on paper, a right to weekends off, paid vacation time(PDF), and paid maternity leave. (The only other countries that don’t mandate paid time off for new moms are Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Samoa, and Swaziland. U-S…A?)

To understand how we got here, first let’s consider the Ben Franklin-Horatio Alger-Henry Ford ur-myth: To balk at working hard—really, really hard—brands you as profoundly un-American. Who besides the archetypical Japanese salaryman derives so much of his self-image from self-sacrifice on the job?Slacker is one of the most biting insults available in polite company.

And so we kowtow to—nay, embrace—a cultural maxim that just happens to be enormously convenient to corporate America. “Our culture has encouraged me to only feel valuable if I’m barely hanging on to my sanity,” one friend emailed as we were working on this article. In fact, each time we mentioned this topic to someone—reader, source, friend—they first took pains to say: I’m not lazy. I love my job. I come from a long line of hard workers. But then it would pour out of them—the fatigue, the isolation, the guilt.

“I am exhausted,” said a “part time” college instructor in Illinois. “I can’t help my son with his homework because I am grading papers until late into the night. I get up very early during the week, skip lunch to save not money but time, and the workload never lets up. My employer uses and abuses full-time employees even more so than those of us that are hourly. My supervisor, for example, runs a large department. He was just promoted to a new, even more demanding position, but his position running the department will not be filled. He will now be doing what is a 60-to-70-hour job ‘on the side.’ I can’t complain of overwork, because everyone is competing to get enough classes to pay the bills. If you lose a class, you lose a chunk of your paycheck. If we can’t handle it, the class can always be given to another teacher who will be desperate for the work or money.”
SURE, BUT THESE ARE tough times—employers struggling to survive the recession are just tightening their belts, right? That’s true for some. But in the big picture, the data show a more insidious pattern. Consider the charts above: After a sharp dip in 2008 and 2009, US economic output recovered nicely to near pre-recession levels—we did better than most of our fellow G-7 economies. But not so American workers: Far more people here lost their jobs, and fewer were hired back once the recovery began, than anywhere else.

Now, some jobs always get “rationalized” away, thanks to technological or organizational improvements—an area where, it’s not jingoistic to say, the US has led its European counterparts. But that “productivity gap” has narrowed considerably, and in any case, there certainly was no dramatic tech or efficiency breakthrough between 2008 and 2010 (quite—Twitter/Facebook/FarmVille—the opposite).

What about offshoring? That’s certainly a factor. But increasingly, US workers are also falling prey to what we’ll call offloading: cutting jobs and dumping the work onto the remaining staff. Consider a recent Wall Street Journal story about “superjobs,” a nifty euphemism for employees doing more than one job’s worth of work—more than half of all workers surveyed said their jobs had expanded, usually without a raise or bonus.

In all the chatter about our “jobless recovery,” how often does someone explain the simple feat by which this is actually accomplished? US productivity increased twice as fast in 2009 as it had in 2008, and twice as fast again in 2010: workforce down, output up, and voilá! No wonder corporate profits are up 22 percent since 2007, according to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute. To repeat: Up. Twenty-two. Percent.

This is nothing short of a sea change. As University of California-Berkeley economist Brad DeLong notes, until not long ago, “businesses would hold on to workers in downturns even when there wasn’t enough for them to do—would put them to work painting the factory—because businesses did not want to see their skilled, experienced workers drift away and then have to go through the expense and loss of training new ones. That era is over. These days firms take advantage of downturns in demand to rationalize operations and increase labor productivity, pleading business necessity to their workers.”

How does corporate America have the gall? You pretty much know the answer, but for official confirmation let’s turn to Erica Groshen, a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York: It’s easier here than in, say, the UK or Germany “for employers to avoid adding permanent jobs,” she told the AP recently. “They’re less constrained by traditional human-resources practices [translation: decency] or union contracts.” In plainer English, here’s Rutgers political scientist Carl Van Horn: “Everything is tilted in favor of the employers…The employee has no leverage. If your boss says, ‘I want you to come in the next two Saturdays,’ what are you going to say—no?”

And lest CNBC hornswoggle you, this is not just a product of the recession. Throughout the past decade, salaries stagnated and workloads grew, but Wall Street’s bubble allowed us to drown our sorrows in credit. (Sure, I’m working crazy hours and our pension fund is history, but check out my granite countertop!) Then came the crash, and the speedup…speeded up.

Source: MotherJones.com

FBMT

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 108 other followers