Lumpen Bourgeoisie
The term “lumpen bourgeoisie” gained prominence sometime in the mid-20th century to describe the middle class composed of people with little or no collective bargaining or self-awareness. Additionally, the individuals who fall under this class do not have any economic base to create wealth or own capital. In other words, lumpen bourgeoisie depended on owners of capital or colonial masters for their survival. These people did not have social benefits for working for their masters, as they would be paid based on the amount of work done. They functioned as independent contractors.
The technological revolution of the 21st century and the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008 have created an environment that increased the size of the lumpen bourgeoisie, which precipitated the tragedy of the commons associated with author William Forster Lloyd. In this tragedy, individuals working independently exploit shared resources for personal gains without considering the good of others. The emergence of the gig economy associated with companies such as Uber along with shrinking economic growth has forced workers to become independent contractors without benefits.
According to Reich, after the 2008 economic crisis, many people decided to become entrepreneurs after they were laid off as companies struggled to survive. Additionally, some companies started rehiring the former employees as independent contractors with low wages and zero benefits.
In the case of Uber, the company offers an opportunity for unemployed people to make a living by becoming independent contractors to offer transport services using their cars and labor. The company takes between 25% and 30% of the drivers’ earnings (Hill). The tragedy of the commons stands out clearly in this case.
The common resource in the case of Uber is the environment. People, acting as independent contractors to Uber and forced by low wages elsewhere, join the industry. Ultimately, the number of unsafe and environmentally unfriendly cars increases. In addition, such a scenario does not offer incentives for the development of public transportation and consumerism increases due to the need for people to travel more. The shared resource, or the environment, is depleted in the pursuit of personal gains, thus creating and worsening the tragedy of the commons problem.
The gig economy is also reshaping the world of work. As people compete for the few available opportunities, they are willing to work for low wages under poor working conditions, which is ultimately a race to the bottom. In the gig economy, workers lose their benefits and there is no job security. Consequently, social inequalities and class differences grow exponentially as wealth is concentrated among a few technocrats. For instance, the owners (and many shareholders) of Uber are millionaires, while the millions of independent contractors, working as drivers, struggle to afford a decent lifestyle.
Motherhood Penalty
The concept of “motherhood penalty” is associated with author Shelley Correll, and it fits well in what is happening at Silicon Valley, where jobs are male-dominated. The motherhood penalty describes the scenario wherein mothers are penalized, especially in the workplace, for who they are, and thus they face numerous challenges as compared to women who have not given birth or men. According to Correll et al., mothers are discriminated at many different levels in the workplace, and the problem is compounded by other gender disparities that women face in general (1297). Additionally, the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is bigger in comparison to that between males and females (Correll et al. 1298).
Mothers are considered to be less competent, less committed to their work, and more irrational as compared to their childless counterparts. The results of these misconceptions associated with motherhood are magnified in Silicon Valley where the number of women owning startups or working in different companies is disproportionately lower as compared to that of men. To explain this phenomenon, Sandberg argues that women, and especially mothers, are likely to be less ambitious and committed to work because they have to balance between work and other motherhood responsibilities like raising their children (23).
Besides, women have been suffering from wage disparities caused by gender differences. Chang argues that women working full-time experience a gender income ratio of around 78 percent (38). Given the earlier argument that the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is huge, it means that mothers are likely to suffer the worst consequences of the general wage gaps between genders. Therefore, based on the empirical evidence provided in this paper, it suffices to conclude that the motherhood penalty exists, and it is time mothers stood up for their rights.
Works Cited
Chang, Mariko. “The Wealth Escalator and the Debt Anchor.” Shortchanged: Why Women Have Less Wealth and What Can Be Done About It, by Mariko Chang, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 37-58.
Correll, Shelly, et al. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 112, no. 5, 2007, pp. 1297-1339.
Hill, Steven. “Can Workers Get a Fair Deal in the Gig Economy?” Yes Magazine. Web.
Reich, Robert. “Entrepreneur or Unemployed?” The New York Times. Web.
Sandberg, Sheryl. “The Leadership Ambition Gap.” Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, by Sheryl Sandberg, Knopf, 2013, pp. 12-26.