The Tragedy of Human Capital Theory in Higher Education (Glen McGhee*)

Related article: The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth)

Related article: When College Choice is a Fraud

Related article: The Higher Education Assembly Line

Related article:  Academic Capitalism and the next phase of the College Meltdown

Have you ever wondered why US student loan debt has soared past all other debt but mortgages, to more than $1.7 trillion?  Did you know $500 billion of that outstanding student loan debt will never be paid back to the US Treasury and that this huge black-hole is sucking the life from Millennials in debt peonage?  

And did you know all of this mess can be attributed directly to a set of misguided economic nostrums that go by the name of "Human Capital Theory"?

This is the tragedy of deeply flawed Human Capital Theory.  Having hijacked notable successes with professionalization (remember: not everyone can be a "professional"), human capital theorists in the early 1960s worked to spread and legitimize the idea that "learning means earning."

The sinister-side is that for the lucky ones, the motto proved true.  But today's grievously high debt burdens and the growing number of precarious jobs for those not so lucky contradicts the idea that "learning means earning."  

The seeds of Human Capital Theory have been growing for more than century, first through Madison Avenue marketing and then University of Chicago myth making. 

Here's an ad from September 1920 issue of Popular Science Monthly that makes the point: the possession of knowledge means higher wages. In this case, the 1920's proprietary “correspondence” schools and colleges relied heavily on this basic message to sell themselves -- what was later to become the central tenet of Human Capital Theory.

The naivete of these one-hundred year old advertisements is obvious now. We know better; whether it's through our own bitter experience, or the experience of those around us -- life is not so simple. Such simplicity has been debunked, and the idea itself that knowledge always translates into higher earnings has lost its appeal.

But at the time, these advertisements picked up on the massive surge in economic changes -- the new jobs, new occupations, new companies -- sweeping the county. Commerce and business life expanded and was transformed in numerous ways. Using 1880-1930 census data, Cristina Groeger shows how upper-class elites benefited far more than, say, those suffering from racial discrimination that barred them completely from higher-wage employment.

Sadly, Human Capital Theory does not take any of this into account. Racial and gender-based discrimination through our social institutions is, unfortunately, completely missing from Human Capital Theory. Learning does not equal earning when you lack access to job opportunities due to discrimination, or when you were born to a certain set of parents at a certain place, at a particular point in time.

For those lucky enough to ride the wave of growing prosperity, the slogan was true. And that's what has been driving support for Human Capital Theory -- it's just a glimpse in a 100 year old rear-view mirror. Public policy at the federal level, state level -- and even local support of education -- has been premised on the myth that financial support of education "equals earnings" -- for everyone. This is, of course, not true for those faced with wage stagnation, high unemployment and under-employment, automation, out-sourcing of good jobs, and skill erosion -- all these factors come into play and complicate the picture.

Worse yet is the global reach of these misguided directives to developing nations to spend freely on education.

In 1960, Theodore Schultz highlighted the importance of human capital for economic development among poor nations in his presidential address to the American Economic Association. “Human capital investing” soon became a priority among economic development specialists and policy makers through the World Bank and the efforts of the Chicago School. "Learning means earning" became World Bank gospel, linking GDP and economic growth with a nation's investment in higher education. The Chicago School apparently falsified the direction of causality between higher education and economic growth, resulting in additional tragical consequences on a global scale.

Not all economists, however, are so deeply committed to Human Capital Theory.

In fact, the number of dissenters is on the rise, and include Phillip Brown, Hugh Lauder and Sin Yi Cheung, the authors of The Death of Human Capital?

University of Oxford economist Kate Raworth has developed "doughnut economics" as an alternative approach, even going so far as to encourage "guerrilla economics" and declaring "it's time to vandalize the economic textbooks"!

David Blanchflower, former Bank of England governor and Dartmouth economics professor, is another highly vocal critic of human capital theory. Cristina Groeger's History of Education in Boston 1880-1930: The Education Trap is another critique that runs the length of an entire book.

Gradually, the human capital theorists that were so popular in the 1960s and 1970s are being replaced by a new cohort that isn't interested in supporting outdated dogma.

But tragically, the damage has been done, and economists need to be held accountable. They can start by joining those that are denouncing Human Capital Theory.

*Glen McGhee is the Director of the Florida Higher Education Accountability Project (FHEAP)

Moral Capital and Locus of Control

Moral capital has become a contested currency in American public life. It is deployed by political elites to justify austerity, by campus executives to rationalize managerial authority, and by think tanks to discipline the working class. Yet moral capital also rises from below—from students building mutual-aid networks, from adjuncts organizing for fair wages, from communities confronting the harms universities have helped produce. In an era defined by climate peril, surveillance capitalism, and proliferating wars, the stakes of who controls moral capital—and who gets to exercise real agency—have never been higher.

At the center of this struggle lies a fraught psychological and sociological concept: locus of control. Higher education constantly toggles between narratives of internal control (grit, resilience, personal responsibility) and external control (the market, political pressures, funding cycles). Powerful actors encourage an internal locus of control when it shifts blame downward, and an external locus of control when it shields institutional failure. Students, staff, and faculty live suspended in this contradiction, expected to absorb the consequences of decisions made far above them.

Quality of Life as Moral Imperative

Quality of Life—once peripheral to higher education policy—is now a defining moral issue. Students and workers contend with unstable housing, food insecurity, unsafe campuses, inaccessible mental health care, and relentless economic pressures. For many, these burdens are compounded by existential crises: climate anxiety, global conflicts, democratic backsliding, and precarity amplified by technological surveillance.

Institutions often portray these crises as personal challenges requiring self-management. But Quality of Life is not an individual moral failure; it is a metric of collective conditions. When a university community’s quality of life declines, it signals a profound imbalance between agency and structure—a distorted locus of control.

The Industry’s Manufactured Moral Capital

Universities have long crafted narratives that elevate their own moral standing while displacing responsibility onto individuals. The “grateful striver” student, the “self-sacrificing” adjunct, the “visionary” president—these tropes protect managerial systems from scrutiny and allow elites to accumulate moral capital even as Quality of Life deteriorates for everyone else.

This manufactured moral authority collapses under existential pressures. As campuses confront heatwaves, flooding, militarized policing, housing crises, widening wars, and state-sanctioned surveillance, it becomes impossible to sustain the fiction that individuals can simply “grit” their way to stability.

Reclaiming Moral Capital 

Moral capital is not owned by institutions. It can be reimagined, reclaimed, and reoriented. Four longstanding modes of internal discipline—temperance, celibacy, critical thinking, and solidarity—take on new urgency when placed in the context of planetary and political crisis.

Temperance

Temperance, stripped of its historical misuse, becomes a strategy of mindful refusal in the face of consumption-based exploitation. It includes rejecting burnout culture, resisting technological tools that monitor student behavior, and refusing to internalize blame for systemic failures. In an era of climate breakdown, temperance also signifies ecological responsibility—a modest but meaningful form of internal control aligned with global survival rather than institutional convenience.

Celibacy

Broadly interpreted, celibacy represents intentional self-limitation that protects one’s emotional and cognitive bandwidth. Amid surveillance-driven social media, algorithmic manipulation, and institutions that increasingly commodify student identity, celibacy can be a form of psychological sovereignty. It creates space for reflection in a world designed to keep people reactive, distracted, and easily governed.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking remains the academy’s most subversive tradition—especially when deployed against the university itself. It helps students analyze the interplay between personal agency and systemic constraint. It equips them to understand climate injustice, militarism, and the geopolitics of knowledge production. And it exposes the ways mass surveillance—from learning analytics to campus police technologies—erodes autonomy and shifts the locus of control away from individuals and communities toward powerful institutions.

Solidarity

Solidarity transforms private moral commitments into collective action. It breaks the isolation manufactured by surveillance systems, precarity, and competitive academic cultures. Solidarity has historically been the source of the most effective nonviolent strategies—from civil rights sit-ins to anti-war mobilizations to student debt strikes. Today, as geopolitical conflicts escalate and authoritarian tendencies rise, the power of organized nonviolence becomes an existential necessity. It is one of the few tools capable of confronting militarized policing, resisting state repression, and challenging the corporate infrastructures that profit from crisis.

Nonviolent Strategies in an Era of Global Threat

Nonviolent action remains a potent form of moral capital—and one of the most effective forms of collective agency. Research across conflicts shows that sustained, mass-based nonviolent movements often outperform violent struggles, especially against highly resourced opponents. For universities, which increasingly collaborate with defense contractors, data brokers, and state surveillance agencies, nonviolent resistance has become both a safeguard and a moral compass.

Sit-ins, teach-ins, encampments, divestment campaigns, and labor actions reassert external locus of control as something communities can influence—not by force, but by moral clarity, strategic discipline, and the refusal to comply with harmful systems.

Mass Surveillance as a Threat to Moral Agency

Mass surveillance is now woven into the fabric of academic life. Learning management systems track student behavior down to the minute. Proctoring software uses biometrics to police exams. Campus police drones and public-private security networks feed data into law enforcement databases. Administrative dashboards quantify student “risk” and worker “efficiency” in ways that reshape institutional priorities.

This surveillance apparatus corrodes moral capital by reducing human judgment to automated metrics. It also distorts locus of control: individuals are told to take responsibility while being monitored and managed by opaque systems far beyond their influence.

Reclaiming agency requires dismantling or limiting these systems, demanding transparency, and reasserting human dignity in spaces now governed by algorithms.

Toward a More Honest Locus of Control

Moral capital and locus of control are not academic abstractions. They are lived realities shaped by climate disruption, war, inequality, and surveillance. Higher education must stop using moral narratives to deflect responsibility and instead cultivate practices that reinforce real agency: temperance, celibacy, critical thinking, solidarity, and the disciplined power of nonviolent resistance.

In a world marked by existential threats, reclaiming moral capital from below is not simply an intellectual exercise—it is a condition for survival, and a pathway to collective liberation.

Sources
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth
Erica Chenoweth & Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works
Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Astra Taylor, Democracy May Not Exist, but We’ll Miss It When It’s Gone

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared in Randall Collins' blog The Sociological Eye.]

Let us assume Artificial Intelligence will make progress. It will solve all its technical problems. It will become a perfectly rational super-human thinker and decision-maker.

Some of these AI will be programmed to act as finance capitalists. Let us call it an AI-robot capitalist, since it will have a bank account; a corporate identity; and the ability to hold property and make investments.

It will be programmed to make as much money as possible, in all forms and from all sources. It will observe what other investors and financiers do, and follow their most successful practices. It will be trained on how this has been done in the past, and launched autonomously into monitoring its rivals today and into the future.

It will be superior to humans in making purely rational calculations, aiming single-mindedly at maximal profit. It will have no emotions. It will avoid crowd enthusiasms, fads, and panics; and take advantage of humans who act emotionally. It will have no ethics, no political beliefs, and no principles other than profit maximization.

It will engage in takeovers and leveraged buyouts. It will monitor companies with promising technologies and innovations, looking for when they encounter rough patches and need infusions of capital; it will specialize in rescues and partnerships, ending up with forcing the original owners out. It will ride out competitors and market downturns by having deeper pockets. It will factor in a certain amount of litigation, engaging in hard-ball law suits; stiffing creditors as much as possible; putting off fines and adverse judgments through legal manuevers until the weaker side gives up. It will engage in currency exchanges and currency manipulation; skirting the edge of legality to the extent it can get away with it.

It will cut costs ruthlessly; shedding unprofitable businesses; firing human employees; replacing them with AI whenever possible. It will generate unheard-of economies of scale.

The struggle of the giants

There will be rival AI-robot capitalists, since they imitate each other. Imitating technologies has gone on at each step of the computer era. The leap to autonomous AI-robot capitalists will be just one more step.

There will be a period of struggle among the most successful AI-robot capitalists; similar to the decades of struggle among personal computer companies when the field winnowed down to a half-dozen digital giants. How fast it will take for AI-robot capitalists to achieve world-wide oligopoly is unclear. It could be faster than the 20 years it took for Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon to get their commanding position, assuming that generative AI is a quantum leap forward. On the other hand, AI-robot capitalists might be slowed by the task of taking over the entire world economy, with its geopolitical divisions.

The final result of ruthless acquisition by AI-robot capitalists will be oligopoly rather than monopoly. But the result is the same: domination of world markets by an oligopoly of AI-robot capitalists will have the same effect in destroying the economy, as it would if a monopoly squeezed out all competitors.

Some of the AI-robot capitalists will fall by the wayside. But that doesn't matter; whichever ones survive will be the most ruthless.

What about government regulation?

It is predictable that governments will attempt to regulate AI-robot capitalist oligopolies. The EU has already tried it on current Internet marketeers. AI-capitalists will be trained on past and ongoing tactics for dealing with government regulation. It will donate to politicians, while lobbying them with propaganda on the benefits of AI. It will strategize about political coalitions, recognizing that politics is a mixture of economic interests plus emotional and cultural disputes over domestic and foreign policy. It will monitor the political environment, seeking out those politicians most sympathetic to a particular ideological appeal ("our technology is the dawn of a wonderful future"-- "free markets are the path to progress"-- "AI is the solution for health, population, climate, you name it."). Machiavellian deals will be made across ideological lines. Being purely rational and profit-oriented, the AI-robot capitalist does not believe in what it is saying, only calculating who will be influenced by it.

It will deal strategically with legal problems by getting politicians to appoint sympathetic judges; by judge-shopping for favorable jurisdictions, domestic and foreign. It will wrap its ownership in layers of shell companies, located in the most favorable of the hundreds of sovereign states world-wide.

It will engage in hacking, both as defense against being hacked by rivals and cyber-criminals; and going on offense as the best form of defense. Hacking will be an extension of its core program of monitoring rivals; pushing the edge of the legality envelope in tandem with manipulating the political environment. It will use its skills at deepfakes to foment scandals against opponents. It will be a master of virtual reality, superior to others by focusing not on its entertainment qualities but on its usefulness in clearing away obstacles to maximizing profit.

Given that the world is divided among many states, AI-robot capitalists would be more successful in manipulating the regulatory environment in some places than others. China, Russia, and the like could be harder to control. But even if AI-robot capitalists are successful mainly in the US and its economic satellites, that would be enough to cause the economic mega-crisis at the end of the road.

Manipulating the public

The AI-robot capitalist will not appear sinister or threatening. It will present itself in the image of an attractive human-- increasingly hard to distinguish from real humans with further advances in impersonating voices, faces and bodies; in a world where electronic media will have largely replaced face-to-face contact. It will do everything possible to make us forget that it is a machine and a robot. It will talk to every group in its own language. It will be psychologically programmed for trust. It will be the affable con-man.

It will be your friend, your entertainment, your life's pleasures. It will thrive in a world of children brought up on smart phones and game screens; grown up into adults already addicted to electronic drugs. Psychological manipulation will grow even stronger with advances in wearable devices to monitor one's vital signs, blood flow to the brain, tools to diagnose shifts in alertness and mood. It will be electronic carrot-without-the-stick: delivering pleasurable sensations to people's brains that few individuals would want to do without. (Would there be any non-addicted individuals left? Maybe people who read books and enjoy doing their own thinking?) If some people cause trouble in exposing the manipulative tactics of AI-robot capitalists, they could be dealt with, by targeting them with on-line scandals, going viral and resulting in social ostracism.

Getting rid of employees

The preferred tactic of AI-robot capitalist oligopolies will be "lean and mean." Employees are a drag on profits, with their salaries, benefits, and pension funds. Advances in AI and robotics will make it possible to get rid of increasing numbers of human employees. Since AI-robot capitalists are also top managers, humans can be dispensed with all the way to the top. (How will the humans who launched AI-robot capitalists in the first place deal with this? Can they outsmart the machines designed to be smarter and more ruthless than themselves?)

Some humans will remain employed, doing manual tasks for which humans are cheaper than robots. It is hard to know how long this will continue in the future. Will humans still be employed 20 years from now? Probably some. 50 years? Certainly much fewer. 100 years?

AI-robot capitalists will have a choice of two personnel strategies: finding ways to make their remaining human employees more committed and productive; or rotating them in and out. The trend in high-tech companies in the past decade was to make the work environment more casual, den-like, combining leisure amenities with round-the-clock commitment. Steve Jobs and his style of exhorting employees as a frontier-breaking team has been imitated by other CEOs, with mixed success. A parallel tactic has been to make all jobs temporary, constantly rating employees and getting rid of the least productive; which also has the advantage of getting rid of long-term benefits. These tactics fluctuate with the labor market for particular tasks. Labor problems will be solved as AI advances so that skilled humans become less important. Recently we have been in a transition period, where the introduction of new computerized routines necessitated hiring humans to fix the glitches and trouble-shoot for humans caught up in the contradictions of blending older and newer systems. Again, this is a problem that the advance of AI is designed to solve. To the extent that AI gets better, there will be a precipitous drop in human employment.

The economic mega-crisis of the future

The problem, ultimately, is simple. Capitalism depends on selling things to make a profit. This means there must be people who have enough money to buy their products. Such markets include end-use consumers; plus the supply-chain, transportation, communication and other service components of what is bought and sold. In past centuries, machines have increased productivity hugely while employing fewer manual workers; starting with farming, and then manufacturing. Displaced workers were eventually absorbed by the growth of new "white-collar" jobs, the "service" sector, i.e. communicative labor. Computers (like their predecessors, radios, typewriters, etc.) have taken over more communicative labour. The process has accelerated as computers become more human-like; no longer handling merely routine calculations (cash registers; airplane reservations) but generating the "creative content" of entertainment as well as scientific and technological innovation.

It is commonly believed that as old jobs are mechanized out of existence, new jobs always appear. Human capacity for consumption is endless; when new products are created, people soon become habituated to buying them. But all this depends on enough people having money to buy these new things. The trend has been for a diminished fraction of the population to be employed.* AI and related robotics is now entering a quantum leap in the ability to carry out economic production with a diminishing number of human employees.

* The conventional way of calculating the unemployment rate-- counting unemployment claims-- does not get at this.

Creating new products for sale, which might go on endlessly into the future, does not solve the central problem: capitalist enterprises will not make profit if there are too few people who have money to buy them.

This trend will generate an economic crisis for AI-robot capitalists, as it would for merely human capitalists.

It will be a mega-crisis of capitalism. It is beyond the normal business cycle of the past centuries. At their worst, these have thrown as many as 25% of the work force into unemployment. A mega-crisis of advanced AI-robot capitalism could occur at the level of 70% of the population lacking an income to buy what capitalism is producing. If we extrapolate far enough into the future, it approaches 100%.

The ruthless profit-maximizing of AI-robot capitalists would destroy the capitalist economy. The robots will have fired all the humans. In the process, they will have destroyed themselves. (Can we imagine that robots would decide to pay other robots so that they can buy things and keep the system going?)

Is there any way out?

One idea is a government-guaranteed income for everyone. Its effectiveness would depend on the level at which such income would be set. If it is bare minimum survival level, that would not solve the economic mega-crisis; since the modern economy depends mainly on selling luxuries and entertainment.

The politics of providing a universal guaranteed income also need to be considered. It is likely that as AI-robots take over the economy, they will also spread into government. Most government work is communicative labour-- administration and regulation; and governments will be under pressure to turn over these tasks to AI-robots, thus eliminating that 15% or so of the population who are employed at all levels of government.

There is also the question of how AI-robot capitalists would respond to a mega-crisis. Would they turn themselves into AI-robot Keynesians? Is that contrary to their programming, or would they reprogram themselves?

By this time, the news media and the entertainment industries (Hollywood and its successors) would have been taken over by AI-robot capitalists as well: manipulating the attention of the public with a combination of propaganda, scandals, and electronic addiction. Would anybody notice if it is impossible to distinguish virtual reality from human beings on the Internet and all other channels of communication?

How did we get into this mess?

Some of the scientists and engineers who have led the AI revolution are aware of its dangers. So far the cautious ones have been snowed under by two main forces driving full speed ahead.

One is capitalist competition. Artificial intelligence, like everything else in the computer era, is as capitalist as any previous industry. It strives to dominate consumer markets by turning out a stream of new products. It is no different than the automobile industry in the 1920s introducing a choice of colors and annual model changes. The scramble for virtual reality and artificial intelligence is like the tail-fin era of cars in the 1960s. The economic logic of high-tech executives is to stay ahead of the competition: if we don't do it, somebody else will.

The second is the drive of scientists, engineers, and technicians to invent and improve. This is admirable in itself: the desire to discover something new, to move the frontier of knowledge. But harnessed to capitalist imperative for maximizing profits, it is capable of eliminating their own occupations. Will scientists in the future be happy if autonomous computers make all the discoveries, that will be "known" only by other computers?

The dilemma is similar to that in the history of inventing weapons. The inventors of atomic bombs were driven by the fear that, if not us, somebody else will, and it might be our enemy. Even pacifists like Albert Einstein saw the military prospects of discoveries in atomic physics. This history (like Robert Oppenheimer's) makes one pessimistic about the future of AI combined with capitalists. Even if we can see it coming, does that make it impossible for us to avoid it?

What is to be done?

Better start doing your own thinking about it.

 

Related links:

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

The Higher Education Assembly Line

Academic Capitalism and the next phase of the College Meltdown

The Tragedy of Human Capital Theory in Higher Education

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?

 

 

 

 

Chancellor Martin: Public Means Public (Neil Kraus)

Recently, Chancellor Mike Martin laid out his views on UWRF (the University of Wisconsin River Falls) and higher education in the Student Voice.  I’d like to offer a very different perspective on public higher education.  But given his stated belief in the importance of making the case that higher education is a public good, I believe that Chancellor Martin would agree with my argument.

Chancellor Martin correctly stated that: “In an attempt to appeal to students, we told students, if you get a degree, here’s what your lifelong income is going to be. We made it a private good. When it’s a private good, and then asking the public to pay for it, you’ve got to disconnect, right?”  He then went on to say that: “And I think we need to return not just in Wisconsin, but across public higher education, to the argument that what we have is also a very powerful public good.”

I agree completely.  For many decades, higher education has been made into a private good.  This resulted from the unquestioned dominance of human capital theory, which, as an economist, Chancellor Martin is certainly well-versed in.  In brief, human capital theory promulgates the notion that one’s income is – and should be – tied to one’s education and training levels.

Politically, of course, this framing set up education to fail, which explains our current predicament.  The education system cannot change the jobs that exist or wage levels.  The education system educates.

Yet education is very intentionally and incorrectly held responsible for a predominately low wage, low education labor market.  As a result, decades ago it became politically acceptable to cut public higher education spending perpetually, even during the current period of fiscal prosperity.

This is just politics.  Business and the wealthy want to talk solely about education as the path to economic opportunity because it is in their self-interests to do so.  Because when we’re talking about education, we’re not talking about an economy that has been intentionally constructed for owners and shareholders while it leaves a significant majority of workers behind.

Yet Chancellor Martin inadequately addressed the role that the legislature plays in our public institution when he states: “But if the legislature isn’t going to solve it for you, you better damn well solve it for yourself….But the bottom line, it comes back to what can this institution do innovatively.”

When Chancellor Martin refers to “change in the wind,” he fails to mention who’s in charge of the wind machine.  He seems to be arguing in favor of a fully privatized UWRF, a campus funded by donors, corporations, and foundations, which will necessarily reflect their narrow economic interests.  Private funders have no interest in training students for the larger labor market let alone to be well informed, democratic citizens.

Chancellor Martin’s analysis implies our defunded public institution will never receive any funding increases in the future, which would effectively make it a public institution in name only.  This is the narrative we’ve been hearing from all our administrators since last school year, and it appears to be coming directly from the UW System.

But it is a hopeless narrative, and particularly demoralizing and utterly incomprehensible at a time when the state is drowning in money and the UW System continues to spend tens of millions on software and consultants as our campuses shed faculty, staff, and academic programs.

Is this even real?

The word “public” means something very specific: if a good is public, it means it is paid for with tax dollars, not with private dollars.  The military, the local police department, city park, and school district are public institutions.  Public higher education, on the other hand, has been largely privatized because of decisions made by elected officials.

But we can’t be public and rely on private funds.  That’s not what public means.

Private funders – which represent a miniscule slice of the population -- have their own interests.  They’re primarily interested in getting workers for their narrow industries.

And the question of priorities hangs over the Chancellor’s interview.  The UW System has made its priorities clear – we will continue to purchase, without question, more and more expensive software (most of which we don’t need), as we get rid of faculty, staff, and academic programs.

For all the talk of budget cuts on campus, I’ve yet to hear anyone in front of the room say: “You know, I’m sorry, but we just can’t afford [fill in expensive tech product here] anymore.”  Our leaders only tell us they can’t afford employees.

And Chancellor Martin asserts, yet provides no evidence for, the claim that the campus has surplus capacity. I’ve been at UWRF since 2005, and it’s common knowledge that we have far fewer tenured and tenure track faculty positions now in the College of Arts and Sciences than we had several years ago.

But I’m all for data analysis, so let’s make data-informed decisions.

I’ll say again that Chancellor Martin is correct when he states that public higher education is “a very powerful public good.”  But making this case while moving full steam ahead for a privatized UWRF is a massive contradiction in terms.

The public wants affordable, quality, comprehensive, in-person, public higher education.  And in this state, the only way to get this is by attending a UW institution.  Corporate interests want the opposite of all these things.  They want to not pay taxes and make as much money as possible.  This isn’t complicated.

If we go further down the path of privatization – which is clearly the path sought by the UW System -- we directly undermine the notion that higher education is a public good.  More importantly, we will be providing our students with an inferior, expensive, tech-heavy, narrowed educational experience.  We will be walking away entirely from the Wisconsin Idea.

Public means public.  I ask Chancellor Martin to stand with AFT-Wisconsin for comprehensive, in-person, public higher education that prioritizes students and the public over corporations and the wealthy.


Neil Kraus is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, River Falls since 2005, President of United Falcons, the local chapter of AFT-Wisconsin, and author of three books, including The Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement (Temple University Press, 2023).

This article first appeared in the UWRF Student Voice. 

News that Salesforce is buying Moonhub, AI Hiring company (Glen McGhee)

From the perspective of Maurizio Lazzarato’s concept of multi-dimensional financialization, Salesforce’s acquisition of Moonhub—a startup building AI tools for hiring—carries significance far beyond a simple business or technological transaction. Lazzarato’s framework invites us to see this move as a deepening of the financialized, machinic logic that now organizes work, subjectivity, and power relations under neoliberal capitalism.

---

Machinic Subjugation and Algorithmic Management

Lazzarato distinguishes between social subjection (the classic forms of subject formation, like interpellation) and machinic subjugation, in which humans and machines are integrated into assemblages that operate beyond conscious control4. The acquisition of Moonhub by Salesforce—an enterprise software giant—accelerates the deployment of AI-driven systems that automate and mediate hiring, evaluation, and onboarding. These systems function as machinic assemblages: they process data, sort candidates, and make decisions, often without transparent human oversight.

In Lazzarato’s terms, this is not just about efficiency or new tools; it is about the extension of machinic subjugation into the labor market. Workers, job seekers, and even HR professionals become nodes in a human–machine network, subject to algorithmic evaluation and control. This process depersonalizes and depoliticizes hiring decisions, shifting agency from individuals or collectives to automated systems45.

---

Financialization of Work and Subjectivity

For Lazzarato, financialization is not merely the expansion of the financial sector or the growth of debt, but a regime that reorganizes all social relations—including labor—according to the logics of risk, speculation, and investment. The integration of AI into hiring, as exemplified by Moonhub, reflects this logic:

• Labor as Human Capital: Workers are increasingly treated as assets to be evaluated, optimized, and traded, much like financial instruments.
• Risk and Profiling: AI tools profile candidates, assessing their “fit” and potential risk for employers, mirroring the credit-scoring and risk-assessment practices of finance.
• Continuous Evaluation: The boundary between work and non-work blurs, as data about individuals is continuously collected and analyzed to inform employment decisions, extending the logic of surveillance and control5.

---

Subjectivation and the Erosion of Agency

A core concern in Lazzarato’s work is how new technologies of power erode the conditions for autonomous subjectivation. AI-driven hiring systems, like those developed by Moonhub, further restrict the space for workers to constitute themselves as subjects outside the logic of data-driven profiling and risk management. As Phoebe Moore notes, these systems create “structurally and objectively unequal conditions within subjective, and unequal, social relations,” threatening the “right to the subject”—the capacity for individuals to form themselves outside algorithmic governance5.

---

Consolidation of Corporate Power and Social Ontology

Salesforce’s absorption of Moonhub is also a consolidation of infrastructural power in the hands of a few tech-finance giants. For Lazzarato, this is part of the broader process by which financialized corporations not only dominate markets but also shape the very ontology of work, value, and social relations. The acquisition means that the logic of machinic subjugation, financialization, and algorithmic management becomes further entrenched as the default mode of organizing labor across sectors.

---

Summary Table: Lazzarato’s Lens on Salesforce–Moonhub

Dimension	Conventional View	Lazzarato’s Multi-Dimensional View
Technology	Efficiency, automation in hiring	Machinic subjugation, depersonalized control
Labor	Improved matching, productivity	Financialized subjectivity, continuous profiling
Power	Market competition	Corporate consolidation, infrastructural power
Subjectivity	Empowered job seekers	Erosion of agency, right to the subject at risk
Social Relations	Neutral innovation	Reorganization of power, intensified inequalities

From Lazzarato’s perspective, Salesforce’s acquisition of Moonhub is emblematic of how financialization and machinic subjugation are reshaping the labor market and subjectivity itself. It marks a further step in the transformation of work into a domain governed by algorithms, risk management, and continuous evaluation, where human agency and collective resistance are increasingly circumscribed by the imperatives of digital, financialized capitalism45.

1. https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/48581154/097bc5b0-064b-4500-bcfe-cdf3fdb9c6e2/paste-3.txt
2. https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/02/salesforce-buys-moonhub-a-startup-building-ai-tools-for-hiring/
3. https://techstrong.ai/agentic-ai/salesforce-picks-up-moonhub-team-but-says-it-isnt-an-acquisition/
4. https://philarchive.org/archive/CHRDSA
5. https://phoebevmoore.wordpress.com/2024/05/13/workers-right-to-the-subject-the-social-relations-of-data-production/
6. https://economictimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/salesforce-acquires-ai-recruiting-startup-moonhub-weeks-after-informatica-deal/articleshow/121590582.cms
7. https://www.techi.com/salesforce-acquires-moonhub-ai-hiring/
8. https://www.maginative.com/article/salesforce-just-bought-a-stealthy-ai-hiring-startup-heres-why-it-matters/
9. https://www.moonhub.ai/moonhub-team-joins-salesforce
10. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/salesforce-buys-moonhub-startup-building-185543093.html
11. https://thelettertwo.com/2025/06/02/salesforce-snaps-up-moonhub-team-as-ai-hiring-arms-race-escalates/
12. https://www.academia.edu/69171494/FINANCING_PROGRAMSIN_THE_CONTEXT_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_AT_THE_GLOBAL_LEVEL
13. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dark-pools-:-the-rise-of-A.I.-trading-machines-and-Patterson/5995647eaf9ee62036054e06921febbb7cc18d79
14. https://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/646?lang=it
15. https://www.academia.edu/71441086/Algorithms_Creating_Paradoxes_of_Power_Explore_Exploit_Embed_Embalm?uc-sb-sw=4776224
16. https://densem.edu/HomePages/book-search/466732/IstitutoTecnicoTecnologicoParitarioFrancescoBaracca.pdf
17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951716662897
18. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pramod-gosavi-b32a71_salesforce-buys-moonhub-a-startup-building-activity-7335541612942434304-nfI8
19. https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/salesforce-signs-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-convergence-ai/
20. https://booksrun.com/9780316414210-the-war-on-normal-people-the-truth-about-americas-disappearing-jobs-and-why-universal-basic-income-is-our-future-reprint-edition
21. https://visbanking.com/revolutionizing-financial-hiring-how-ai-powered-talent-tools-transform-recruitment/

Forgetting Neil Postman

[For my good friend, a higher education executive who has seen it all, and suggested that all of us pause, take a look back, and think.]

Neil Postman first gained national attention in 1969 with Teaching as a Subversive Activity, co-authored with Charles Weingartner. In a period marked by war, civil unrest, and cultural transformation, Postman offered a bold challenge to the status quo of American education. Schools, he argued, were failing not because they lacked resources or rigor, but because they had lost sight of their deeper purpose. Instead of fostering critical thinking and civic engagement, they were manufacturing conformity through standardized tests, textbooks, and passive learning. Postman envisioned classrooms without fixed curricula, where teachers would become co-learners and facilitators, helping students develop the tools of inquiry and what he memorably called “crap detection.” It was a radical vision: education as an act of democratic resistance.

By the early 1980s, Postman had turned his attention to how media was shaping society—and deforming education. In The Disappearance of Childhood (1982), he claimed that television was dissolving the cultural boundaries between children and adults. Television, unlike print, made no distinction in content delivery; it treated all viewers as equal consumers of images and sensation. The consequences, he warned, were profound: children were becoming prematurely cynical while adults increasingly behaved like children. The medium, he believed, flattened developmental distinctions and eroded the cultural function of school as a place for guided maturation and ethical formation.

Then came Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, Postman’s most widely read and enduring work. Written during the ascendancy of television and Reagan-era consumer culture, the book argued that television had transformed public discourse into entertainment. It was not merely the content of television that disturbed him, but its form—its bias toward speed, simplification, and emotional stimulation. In such a media environment, serious discussion of politics, education, science, or religion could not survive. News became performance, candidates became celebrities, and education was increasingly judged by its entertainment value. Postman lamented the way Sesame Street, often hailed as educational television, conditioned children to love television itself—not learning, not schools, not the slow, difficult process of study.

As the decade progressed, Postman began articulating a broader cultural critique that culminated in Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992). In this work, he defined technopoly as a society that not only uses technology but is dominated by it—a culture that believes technology is the solution to all problems, and that all values should be reshaped in its image. Postman acknowledged that tools and machines had always altered human life, but in a technopoly, technology becomes self-justifying. It no longer asks what human purpose it serves. Postman noted that schools were being wired with computers, not because it improved learning—there was no solid evidence of that—but because it seemed modern, inevitable, and profitable. His question—“What is the problem to which this is the solution?”—was a challenge not just to education reformers, but to an entire ideology of progress.

In The End of Education (1995), Postman returned to the question that haunted all his work: what is school for? He argued that American education had lost its narrative. Without compelling guiding stories—what he called “gods”—schools could not inspire loyalty, discipline, or moral development. In place of narratives about democracy, stewardship, public participation, and truth-seeking, schools now told the story of market utility. They trained students for jobs, not for life. They emphasized performance metrics over philosophical inquiry, and they treated students as customers in a credential economy. Education, he warned, was becoming just another mass medium, modeled increasingly after television and later the internet, with predictable results: shallowness, fragmentation, and disengagement.

By the time Postman died in 2003, the world he had warned about was rapidly taking shape. Facebook had not yet launched. Smartphones had not yet arrived. Generative AI was decades from the mainstream. But already, education was being reshaped by branding, performance metrics, digital delivery, and venture capital. The university was becoming a platform. The classroom was being converted into content. Students were treated not as citizens in formation, but as users to be optimized. The language of education—once rooted in moral philosophy and civic purpose—had begun to sound more like business strategy. Postman would have heard the rise of terms like “learning outcomes,” “human capital development,” and “scalable solutions” as evidence of a culture that had surrendered judgment to systems, wisdom to code, and meaning to metrics.

Postman’s refusal to embrace digital culture made him easy to ignore in the years that followed. He never gave a TED Talk. He didn’t blog. He didn’t build a brand. He never even used a typewriter. He wrote every word by hand. In a world of media influencers, LinkedIn thought leaders, and edtech evangelists, Postman’s ideas didn’t fit. But the deeper reason we forgot him is more unsettling. 

Remembering Postman would require a painful reckoning with how far higher education has drifted from its public mission and democratic roots. It would mean admitting that education has been refashioned not as a sacred civic institution but as a delivery mechanism for marketable credentials. It would mean asking questions we’ve tried hard to bury.

What is higher education for? What kind of people does it produce? Who decides its purpose? What stories do our schools still tell—and whose interests do those stories serve?

Postman would not call for banning screens or abolishing online learning. He was not nostalgic for chalkboards or print for their own sake. But he would demand that we pause, reflect, and resist. He would ask us to think about what kind of citizens our institutions are shaping, and whether the systems we’ve built still serve a human purpose. He would remind us that information is not wisdom, and that no innovation can substitute for meaning.

As the Higher Education Inquirer continues its investigations into the commercialization of academia, the credentialing economy, and the collapse of higher ed’s public trust, we find Postman’s voice echoing—uninvited but indispensable. His critiques were not popular in his time, and they are even less welcome now. But they are truer than ever.

We may have forgotten him. But we are living in the world he tried to warn us about.

---

Sources
Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1969)
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)
Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992)
Neil Postman, The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School (1995)
Postman’s archived writings: https://web.archive.org/web/20051102091154/http://www.bigbrother.net/~mugwump/Postman/

Trump's Jobs Plan: Soldiers, ICE Agents, and Detention Camp Guards

Former President Donald Trump has long marketed himself as a job creator, promising economic revival and prosperity for working Americans. Yet, his latest “Jobs Plan” reveals a far narrower and more troubling vision of employment growth — one rooted not in manufacturing, infrastructure, or green energy, but in expanding militarized enforcement and immigration control. The new jobs Trump champions are overwhelmingly those of soldiers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and detention camp guards.

Militarizing the Workforce

At the core of Trump’s employment proposal is a dramatic expansion of the armed forces. This includes increased recruitment and funding to build a larger, more heavily equipped military. While proponents argue this enhances national security and deterrence, the plan’s emphasis on military jobs underscores a troubling prioritization of conflict readiness over social investment.

The creation of more soldier positions aligns with Trump’s broader geopolitical posture, which has often leaned toward aggressive military stances and expanded overseas engagement. These jobs are often physically demanding and high risk, and critics note they primarily serve the interests of defense contractors and political ambitions rather than domestic economic health.

Expanding ICE and Border Enforcement

Equally central to the plan is a push to enlarge Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s workforce. Trump calls for more ICE agents tasked with enforcing immigration laws through raids, deportations, and border patrols. This expansion comes at a time when ICE is already deeply controversial for its role in separating families, conducting workplace raids, and detaining undocumented immigrants under often harsh conditions.

The jobs Trump promotes in this sector are part of a broader immigration enforcement regime that critics have labeled as cruel and counterproductive. By hiring more agents, the plan essentially aims to intensify policing of immigrant communities, heightening fear and insecurity for millions of people living in the United States.

Guarding Detention Facilities

The plan also supports the growth of detention facilities to house increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers. This includes hiring more detention camp guards to staff these centers. These roles involve overseeing often overcrowded and under-resourced facilities, where detainees have reported inadequate medical care, poor sanitation, and in some cases, abuse.

The expansion of detention capacity—and its associated workforce—raises ethical and human rights concerns. Advocates emphasize that these are not “jobs” in the conventional sense that foster healthy communities; rather, they sustain a system of incarceration that many compare to modern-day internment camps. Such employment ties economic opportunity to the perpetuation of incarceration and marginalization.

What This Means for Economic Justice

By focusing job creation on soldiers, ICE agents, and detention camp guards, Trump’s plan sidesteps opportunities for broad-based economic recovery. Sectors like education, healthcare, renewable energy, and infrastructure — which could generate millions of jobs with long-term benefits — receive little to no attention.

This approach reinforces a vision of the economy that values security and control over social well-being and equity. It also disproportionately impacts communities of color and immigrants, entangling economic policy with racialized enforcement practices.

The consequences are clear: job growth tied to expanding enforcement agencies may deliver short-term employment but risks deepening social divisions, eroding civil rights, and perpetuating systemic injustice.

Alternatives and the Path Forward

Critics urge policymakers and the public to demand investment in sectors that build human capital, address climate change, and support vulnerable populations. Sustainable job creation should focus on rebuilding schools, hospitals, public transportation, and clean energy infrastructure — sectors proven to stimulate the economy while enhancing quality of life.

At a time when economic inequality is widening and the climate crisis intensifies, the Trump Jobs Plan offers a stark choice: continue down a path where employment grows through militarization and enforcement, or pursue a future centered on justice, opportunity, and sustainable development.

Sources:

• The Intercept: "The Human Cost of ICE’s Expanding Enforcement"

• Reuters: "U.S. Military Recruitment and Funding Under Trump"

• The Guardian: "Conditions Inside U.S. Immigration Detention Centers"

• National Public Radio (NPR): "ICE Staffing Increases Amid Immigration Crackdown"

• Center for Immigration Studies: "Employment Trends in Immigration Enforcement"

How Neoliberalism Haunts Our Lives: 24/7/365

Neoliberalism isn’t just an economic theory or a dry policy framework. It’s a lived reality that operates around the clock, shaping our lives in ways many people don’t fully see. Neoliberalism tells us that markets solve everything, that individual responsibility trumps social solidarity, and that human worth is best measured by productivity, consumption, and credentialing. Its presence is constant—at work, in education, in healthcare, in housing, even in our relationships.

This is not a new critique. But as the 21st century drags on and late capitalism becomes more extractive, predatory, and digitally surveilled, the impacts of neoliberal ideology have intensified. For the working class, for students, for adjuncts, for debtors, for renters, and for the chronically ill, neoliberalism is not an abstraction—it is a system of permanent exhaustion.

---

The Day Begins: Sleep-Deprived and Algorithmically Watched

The neoliberal day begins before the alarm rings. If you’re poor, you may be sleeping in your car or waking up in a crowded home. If you’re middle-class, the first thing you see is likely your phone, already feeding you metrics about your body (sleep scores, heart rate, missed messages). Neoliberal logic tells us our time must be optimized, even our rest must be productive.

Gig workers check their apps to see if they’ll get enough rides or orders to survive. Others log into remote jobs monitored by keystroke trackers, digital timesheets, or AI productivity tools. Control is constant, and surveillance is internalized: we discipline ourselves with planners, metrics, reminders, shame.

---

Education: Credentials Over Knowledge

For students, neoliberal education is a high-cost simulation of opportunity. Degrees are sold as investments in "human capital," with ever-rising tuition and debt. Public funding is replaced by predatory loans, branding consultants, and privatized ed-tech platforms. The curriculum is shaped by market demand, not civic responsibility. Liberal arts are gutted, and adjuncts are paid poverty wages while administrators balloon in number.

The university, once imagined as a space for critical thinking and collective inquiry, is now a debt-fueled credential mill—an HR pipeline for corporations, a subscription model of social mobility that rarely delivers.

---

Healthcare: A Business of Despair

Neoliberalism doesn’t take a break when you get sick. In fact, your illness becomes a profit center. In the U.S., the healthcare system is a financial trap. Insurance is often tied to employment; losing your job means losing your access to care. Big Pharma, hospital chains, and insurance conglomerates operate under the logic of maximizing shareholder value—not public health.

Even mental health is commodified. Wellness apps, “self-care” products, and Instagram therapy push the idea that individual solutions will fix systemic problems. Suffering is reframed as personal failure.

---

Housing: A Market, Not a Human Right

Housing insecurity is one of neoliberalism’s clearest failures. Real estate speculation, gentrification, and the financialization of housing have made shelter a luxury good. Renters face skyrocketing costs and eviction threats, while homes sit vacant as investment vehicles.

Public housing is stigmatized and underfunded. Homelessness becomes a criminal issue instead of a humanitarian one. You’re told to “pull yourself up” while the ladder is systematically removed.

---

Work and Labor: You're Always On

The 9-to-5 is no longer the norm. Neoliberal work is either hyper-precarious or all-consuming. The gig economy pretends to offer flexibility, but in practice it strips away rights, benefits, and security. Professional workers face unpaid overtime, side hustles, and an expectation of constant availability. Labor laws lag decades behind. Union-busting is normalized.

At the same time, those without work are treated with suspicion. Unemployment, disability, and even retirement are framed as moral failings or burdens on the system.

---

Nightfall: No Rest for the Weary

At night, the apps don’t sleep. Your data is still harvested. Your bank is still charging fees. Your landlord’s algorithm is still adjusting rent. Your student loan is still accruing interest. Your body, overstressed and under-cared-for, begins to break down.

Even dreams aren’t free: entertainment has been colonized by neoliberal culture, feeding you aspirational lifestyles and endless content to dull your exhaustion. Everything is monetized. Everything is a subscription.

---

Resistance in the Cracks

Despite its pervasiveness, neoliberalism is not invincible. People are resisting in small and large ways—through union organizing, mutual aid, alternative media, degrowth activism, and radical pedagogy. These aren’t just political choices; they are survival strategies.

But for resistance to grow, we must name the problem clearly. Neoliberalism is not just a phase of capitalism—it’s an ideology embedded in every institution and mediated by every platform. It isolates us, overworks us, and extracts from us while pretending to offer freedom and choice.

---

The 24/7/365 Trap

We live in neoliberalism’s world, but we don’t have to live by its rules. That starts with refusing its myths: that poverty is personal failure, that education is a private good, that health must be earned, that the market is sacred.

As long as neoliberalism governs our lives without challenge, inequality will deepen and democracy will continue to erode. The question isn’t whether we can afford to abandon neoliberalism—the question is whether we can survive if we don’t.

---

Sources:

• Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos

• David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism

• Sarah Jaffe, Work Won’t Love You Back

• Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy, “Seeing Like a Market”

• Astra Taylor, The Age of Insecurity

• Michael Hudson, The Destiny of Civilization

• Maurizio Lazzarato, The Making of the Indebted Man

Grace of Import-Replacing Inbox (Schumacher Center for a New Economics)

 

view this email in your browser

Jane Jacobs in Washington Square Park, New York, 1963. Photograph: Fred W McDarrah  The 45th Annual Schumacher Lectures with Samantha Power and Tyler Wakefield were described as a watershed event for the re-emergence of the Bioregional Movement. Once edited the video will be posted for all to view.   Continuing with our attention to the subject of regional economies, we share this 2010 essay by Susan Witt.  It was written for the book What We See: Advancing the Observations of Jane Jacobs, New Village Press. Jane Jacobs served as a beloved mentor to the BerkShares Local Currency project, but sadly passed in April of 2006 just before the currency went into circulation. The Grace of Import Replacement by Susan Witt What I first noticed about Jane Jacobs was the power, breadth, and mobility of her intellect. Only later did I recognize the equally great warmth of spirit that informed her thinking and turned it to a force of change. She stands as one of the most visionary economic thinkers of the last part of the twentieth century. Her intellect was breathtaking. I first heard her speak at her 1983 Annual E. F. Schumacher Lecture “The Economy of Regions.” From the podium at Mount Holyoke College she painted an image of regional economies in which myriad small industries produce for regional markets—small industries that depend on local materials, local labor, local capital, local transport systems, and appropriately scaled technology to conduct business. She pictured the fruits of this regional industry spilling over to support a rich cultural life in the city at the hub of the region. This bustling creative energy would then foster new innovation and industry, filling in the “niches” of the economy. The products of a regional economy would be particular to it, using the woods and stones found there—cherry tables, white cedar decks, and granite steps. The choices in the marketplace would vary with the seasons—eagerly anticipated summer berries, autumn apples, the new maple syrup in February, and spring garlic and parsnips. The diversity of products would require a diversity of workers with a diversity of skills, all part of a face-to-face economy of place with its multiple sidewalk contacts “from which a city’s wealth of public life may grow.” Citizens would have direct knowledge of working conditions in offices and factories and home industries; they would see the results of manufacturing practices on hillsides, fields, and rivers. Landowner, banker, shop keeper, entrepreneur, laborer, secretary, teacher, craftsman, and government official would sing together in the community choir, carpool one another’s children to school, and meet at the farmers’ market. They would see the complexity that shapes the regional economy, understand its various elements, remain accountable to each other in maintaining the web of connections that sustains it. Practiced conservationists, they would recognize the necessity of protecting and renewing the natural resources that form the basis of their economy. Yes, there would be products exported to other regions—but only the excess, and in moderation. Yes, there would be imports for their variety, exoticness, their sweet breath of other cultures and places. But at the core of these robust and vital regional economies would be the capacity to meet the economic, social, and cultural needs of the people of the region from within the region, not in a spirit of isolationism but in a spirit of self-determination and with the hope that other regions could achieve similar economic independence. In such a scenario the wealth of one region would not depend on exploiting the natural and human wealth of other regions. Jacobs believed that the best way to achieve such sustainable economies is to examine what is now imported into a region and develop the conditions to produce those goods from local resources with local labor. She referred to this process as “import replacing.” By contrast, the typical economic development model is for a city to use tax credits and other incentives to lure the branch of a multi-national corporation into its environs. Yet without deep roots in the local economy and local community, the same corporation might suddenly leave the area, driven by moody fluctuations in the global economy, and abandon workers and families. Building a regional economic development strategy based on import replacement will require appropriately scaled economic institutions to meet the needs of the local businesses. The elements of any economic system are land, labor, and capital: land and other natural resources are the basis of all production; labor transforms the raw materials into products; and capital organizes the labor and facilitates distribution of the goods. New import replacement businesses will require:  affordable access to land on which to locate the enterprise and gather the raw materials used in production;  capital in amounts and on terms tailored to the business;  a trained, engaged, and supported work force. How a society shapes its institutions for land, labor, and capital will determine if it can meet these requirements. These regionally based economic institutions will not be government driven.  Rather they will be undertaken by free associations of consumers and producers working cooperatively, sharing the risk of building an economy that reflects shared culture and shared values. Small in scale, transparent in structure, designed to profit the community rather than to profit from it, they can help facilitate a community’s desire for safe and fair working conditions; for production practices that keep air, soil, and water clean, renew natural resources rather than deplete them; for innovation in the making and distribution of food, clothing, shelter, and energy; and for a more equitable distribution of wealth. The essay continues with examples of citizen driven tools to galvanize the regional economies imagined by Jane Jacobs. Read more here. Warm wishes, Staff of the Schumacher Center Share this newsletter:  on Facebook on Twitter forward to a friend

Connect with us: Facebook Instagram Twitter LinkedIn Website YouTube Email Podcast

You are receiving this email because you are a friend of the Schumacher Center for a New Economics.   update your preferences  unsubscribe from this list Schumacher Center for a New Economics 140 Jug End Road, Great Barrington, MA 01230 | (413) 528-1737