The Never-Ending Cycle 1
The Never-Ending Cycle:
The Treadmill Theory of Production
NAME
PROFESSOR
COURSE
DATE
The treadmill theory of production is an almost apocalyptic vision of the economy in that it is entirely self-perpetuating. Workers and consumers become trapped in a never-ending cycle of labor-consumption-harder labor-more intensive consumption. The result is a decreased quality of life and increased ecological destruction, as the environment is plundered for the resources needed to meet growing production needs. Sadly, the US education system is powerfully embroiled in this cycle in that higher education in particular has come to be viewed as another product, one that is essential for the consumer’s success. According to contemporary economic and sociological models, only those with advanced degrees can truly survive in the modern US workforce and/or enjoy the standard of living that most Americans have come to view as not only desirable but necessary. Higher education becomes, in this sense, an obligation and a burden, producing both massive debt and an increasingly chaotic working life, all to drive the consumption which in turn creates the need for more work and more education.
Developed in 1980 by Schnaiberg, the treadmill theory of production seeks to understand the causes underlying the massive spike in environmental degradation in developed Western nations after World War II. According to Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg (2004), “The treadmill theory presented an image of a society running in place without moving forward” (297). This, the theory asserts, is due to the profit-driven nature of the treadmill system. Business owners and shareholders turn to the development of new technologies in order to increase profitability. As technology increased and became more efficient, the demand for workers and man hours decreased, thus weakening the worker’s power and employment stability. Further, the investment in the new technologies required an increase in company productivity to ensure that profit margins continued to increase despite the financial costs of these investments. This meant an acceleration in the use of natural resources as production levels ballooned. This also meant a redoubling of devastating environmental impacts due to the growth of these production facilities (for example, in the environmental pollution caused by air emissions from these facilities).
The US higher education system is a powerful actor in this destructive cycle. Workers, their status already weakened by the advent of technologies that make most human labor largely unnecessary or inefficient, must make themselves increasingly competitive in an ever-tightening job market. Benner, Pastoren and Leete (2007) write, “Job security in core sectors of the economy has eroded to some extent, and the model of a long-term stable career in a single company…no longer represents the dominant employment system in this country” (6). Higher education has been promoted as the key to remaining competitive in this volatile work environment. Once a high school education was deemed sufficient to ensuring a so-called “acceptable” standard of living in the US, in recent decades, particularly due to the once wide-scale availability of manufacturing jobs. With the outsourcing of many of these jobs overseas and the turn toward technology and skilled labor jobs in the US, a four-year college degree has increasingly come to be viewed as the minimum standard for employability.
True to the treadmill theory, however, as this standard is increasingly met, the goal post only gets moved further backward. A highly skilled labor force produces increased technological innovation and drives production efficiency. This, again, reduces the demand for human labor, requiring workers to once again seek the competitive advantage, this time by pursuing graduate degrees. This pursuit of higher education also typically leads to the accumulation of massive student debt, which further drives the pressure on workers to secure high paying jobs in order to cope with this debt.
This combines with a second and exceedingly important attribute of the treadmill: the consumption cycle. As workers contend with an increasingly competitive, technology-driven economy, the availability and status of consumer goods (especially consumer technologies and luxury items) also grow. To keep pace with the consumer culture, workers must work longer hours and must, again, hone their competitiveness to cope with the ever-present threat of job loss. Continuous professional development and the pursuit of higher education are now marketed as the go-to method for ensuring this competitive advantage, but US labor statistics suggest that the education sector is not living up to its promises. A 2015 report from the Economic Policy Institute argues that new college graduates and even those with advanced degrees still face uncertainty and challenges when seeking “high paying” jobs that will ensure the standard of living expected in the modern, technology-driven consumer culture (Davis, Kimball, & Gould, 2015). Unfortunately, these graduates, often saddled with student debt and embroiled in a highly competitive labor force and a culture saturated by conspicuous consumption, have no choice but to jump on the treadmill and start running—but with no destination, and no rest, in sight.
The treadmill theory of production presents a grim view of the post-WWII western economy. This view predicts continuous and profound environmental destruction and a decreasing quality of life for workers stuck in this cycle. Once touted as the key to prosperity and security, the promises of higher education to secure high paying job and acceptable standard of living are proving increasingly hollow. Instead, the US worker finds him/herself trapped in this cruel cycle, feverishly running, but getting nowhere.
References
Benner, C., Pastor, M., & Leete, L. (2007). Staircases or Treadmills?: Labor Market Intermediaries and Economic Opportunity in a Changing Economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Davis, A., Kimball, W., & Gould, E. (27 May 2015). The class of 2015. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
Gould, K.A., Pellow, D.N, & Schnaiberg, A. (2004). Interrogating the treadmill of production: Everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organization & Environment, 17(3), 296-316.
1