The precariat has just spoken, and the commentariat did not notice. Rather, the political establishment views today’s mass ‘working class’ – defined by its insecure work, unstable incomes, and an increasingly fragile relationship with the state itself – as a ‘dangerous’ class; not because it is inherently extremist, but because it does not support traditional political norms. Failing to understand this class’s character is at the heart of the failure of all centre-left political parties to mobilise support from it.
Very briefly, consider the three dimensions that make the precariat a class. First, but not most importantly, those in the precariat have to endure unstable labour, including unpaid labour and work-for-labour off workplaces and outside of designated labour time. They also lack an occupational or organisational narrative to give to their lives, and are the first working class in history that, as a norm, has a level of schooling above what is really required for the type of job they can obtain.
Second, they have to rely almost solely on money wages, which are low, stagnant, volatile and uncertain. They typically lack non-wage benefits and entitlements, quite unlike the old proletariat. They are also systematically exploited by debt. Least appreciated, their living standards have been eroded by the loss of all forms of commons, including free libraries, free parks, allotments, free or subsidised legal institutions, and free or subsidised education.
