What do you think?
Rate this book
Capital Moves: RCA's Seventy-Year Quest for Cheap Labor
Find a pool of cheap, pliable workers and give them jobs―and soon they cease to be as cheap or as pliable. What is an employer to do then? Why, find another poor community desperate for work. This route―one taken time and again by major American manufacturers―is vividly chronicled in this fascinating account of RCA's half century-long search for desirable sources of labor. Capital Moves introduces us to the people most affected by the migration of industry and, most importantly, recounts how they came to fight against the idea that they were simply "cheap labor." Jefferson Cowie tells the dramatic story of four communities, each irrevocably transformed by the opening of an industrial plant. From the manufacturer's first factory in Camden, New Jersey, where it employed large numbers of southern and eastern European immigrants, RCA moved to rural Indiana in 1940, hiring Americans of Scotch-Irish descent for its plant in Bloomington. Then, in the volatile 1960s, the company relocated to Memphis where African Americans made up the core of the labor pool. Finally, the company landed in northern Mexico in the 1970s―a region rapidly becoming one of the most industrialized on the continent.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1999
6 people are currently reading
337 people want to read
About the author
Jefferson R. Cowie
8 books60 followersA social and political historian whose research and teaching focus on how class, race, inequality, and work shape American capitalism, politics, and culture, Jefferson Cowie is James G. Stahlman Professor of History at Vanderbilt University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 15, 2021
Engaging and revelatory. Many surprising parallels to the behavior and rhetoric of the modern-day tech giants. A must-read for anyone interested in industrial labor history in the US and Mexico.
October 3, 2018
Cowie argues that capital mobility is not a new phenomenon, that corporations (specifically and perhaps especially RCA because of being in competitive consumer electronics industry) sought sources of cheap labor they could control throughout the 20th century, even if "the pace and scope of events may have increased" with globalization. The book "focuses on the relationship between industrial investment and social change, and it is only peripherally concerned with the well-studied impact of 'deindustrialization'" (p. 6). It traces RCA from its beginning in Camden, NJ, to moves to Bloomington, IN, Memphis, TN, and Juarez, Mexico (though it also had factories in many other places). In all of these places, RCA relied on gendered division of labor, seeking out young women for the majority of initial employment. The experience of industrialization had similar effects on workforces of all these places. Each attempted to gain more dignity and control over lives by unionizing and resisting in day-to-day activities, and as they did, RCA began to seek more pliant workforces elsewhere. He questions the labor/management peace that supposedly existed during the middle of the 20th century, and also the idea that plant location decisions are based on static variables. Argues that community is both a strength and a weakness - need to expand solidarity and regulations transnationally in order to combat ill effects of capital's mobility.
April 4, 2011
Labor historian Jefferson Cowie follows RCA's radio and television manufacturing operations from Camden, New Jersey to Bloomington, Indiana to Memphis, Tennessee and finally to a maquiladora industrial park in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. RCA's quest for a cheap, docile and sexually stratified workforce fails to ensure its survival as an independent company, but vividly illustrates the flight of capital to havens of cheap labor and lax regulation. Cowie's work is at once scholarly, compassionate and balanced as it considers both the benefits and detriments of manufacturing as it waxes in one community but wanes in another. Over a decade old, this book's message rings truer than ever: If labor and its policymaking allies are to counterbalance multinational corporations, they must integrate their efforts worldwide.
November 18, 2021
Strong storytelling depicting workplace strife and management incentives to move industries away from communities. Ultimately a labor history, but good information and perspectives from management as well. Keeping U.S. jobs at home is clearly a priority policymakers and regular consumers alike should support, however, the book provides some nuance on how this process unfolds and (indirectly) helps readers consider some solutions to this issue.
Demonstrated important responsibilities of both domestic businesses and unions in protecting worker opportunities, rights, and compensation/benefits (and solutions to strengthen them-- something that must happen), but also shows the powerlessness of both unions and, arguably, individual company (joint-stock) directors from high-pressure, cut-throat, commodity-based industries to protect a domestic manufacturing workforce (unlike what a small business or manufacturer making unique or high value/skill goods might be able to do). It seems like competition and industry trends, not just corporate decision making/greed or organizing vigor, ultimately affected the choices available to directors and informed business decision making as a whole. Ultimately, RCA kept TV manufacturing in the U.S. far longer than its competitors like Zenith, but the pressures of foreign imports and multinational manufacturing likely pressured directors to outsource all manufacturing (likely even if they personally or patriotically felt against it). While it is true that outsourcing led to a major loss of jobs in the U.S., even more palatable options seem likely to have resulted in worker losses. If the company did not move production physically and did not attempt to bury its investments acquiring a random assortment of business entities for business/conglomeration diversification, opting instead to keep and invest heavily in domestic manufacturing processes (which the book suggests was a viable alternate path for the company), it seems likely that still, most RCA jobs would have been lost due to automation and productivity gains in U.S.-based factories.
While not directly mentioned, the success of Japanese industrial policy and references to the limited impact of U.S. de-industrialization policies for laid-off workers and communities experiencing industry flight suggests in contrast to individual businesses, the burden of intervention really lies in the U.S. government to better coordinate industrial policy. Either through reversing de-industrialization through a subsidy regime and a coherent industrial policy, or by softening the blow of de-industrialization as a whole, embracing the benefits of market competition and labor outsourcing, while creating a 'soft-landing' for U.S. workers-- both of these options seem viable. Additionally more work might be done to support expanding union rights and promoting business-union harmony and cooperation through legislation re-organizing bargaining to be more productive and amicable for both workers and management. Bloomington's economic diversity in a post-industrial context helped the city stay vibrant even after RCA's departure, perhaps providing a model for resiliency which through government support/intervention from the local, state, and federal levels, can be made a goal and benefit places like Camden or single-industry U.S. cities.
Demonstrated important responsibilities of both domestic businesses and unions in protecting worker opportunities, rights, and compensation/benefits (and solutions to strengthen them-- something that must happen), but also shows the powerlessness of both unions and, arguably, individual company (joint-stock) directors from high-pressure, cut-throat, commodity-based industries to protect a domestic manufacturing workforce (unlike what a small business or manufacturer making unique or high value/skill goods might be able to do). It seems like competition and industry trends, not just corporate decision making/greed or organizing vigor, ultimately affected the choices available to directors and informed business decision making as a whole. Ultimately, RCA kept TV manufacturing in the U.S. far longer than its competitors like Zenith, but the pressures of foreign imports and multinational manufacturing likely pressured directors to outsource all manufacturing (likely even if they personally or patriotically felt against it). While it is true that outsourcing led to a major loss of jobs in the U.S., even more palatable options seem likely to have resulted in worker losses. If the company did not move production physically and did not attempt to bury its investments acquiring a random assortment of business entities for business/conglomeration diversification, opting instead to keep and invest heavily in domestic manufacturing processes (which the book suggests was a viable alternate path for the company), it seems likely that still, most RCA jobs would have been lost due to automation and productivity gains in U.S.-based factories.
While not directly mentioned, the success of Japanese industrial policy and references to the limited impact of U.S. de-industrialization policies for laid-off workers and communities experiencing industry flight suggests in contrast to individual businesses, the burden of intervention really lies in the U.S. government to better coordinate industrial policy. Either through reversing de-industrialization through a subsidy regime and a coherent industrial policy, or by softening the blow of de-industrialization as a whole, embracing the benefits of market competition and labor outsourcing, while creating a 'soft-landing' for U.S. workers-- both of these options seem viable. Additionally more work might be done to support expanding union rights and promoting business-union harmony and cooperation through legislation re-organizing bargaining to be more productive and amicable for both workers and management. Bloomington's economic diversity in a post-industrial context helped the city stay vibrant even after RCA's departure, perhaps providing a model for resiliency which through government support/intervention from the local, state, and federal levels, can be made a goal and benefit places like Camden or single-industry U.S. cities.
April 3, 2015
In Capital Moves, Jefferson Cowie explains why the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) moved its radio and television factories to four different locations from the 1930’s to the 1990’s. Cowie shows the economic, social, and political factors behind these decisions, how the coming and going of factories impacted communities, and how those communities adapted to this process. He challenges labor historians to rethink numerous aspects of labor history, especially how capital mobility in an increasingly globalized economy has shifted the balance of power between labor and capital.
Cowie discusses the movement of RCA factories into and out of four cities: Camden, Bloomington, Memphis, and Ciudad Juarez. RCA’s decisions to relocate these factories followed a remarkably consistent pattern. They sought a specific labor environment with low unionization, high unemployment, and plenty of young female workers. They believed that they could pay these workers low wages, work them hard in tough conditions, and restrict their unionization. RCA’s ideal labor environment was highly gendered because they believed that young women could be paid less, were more docile and controllable than men, and had the deft motor skills and high tolerance for rote work needed for assembling electronics.
RCA and its workers engaged in a vicious cycle that drove the relocation process. Usually a brief honeymoon period accompanied the establishment of these factories as desperate workers accepted low-paying positions. Over time, growing dissatisfaction with low pay and poor conditions as well as a growing sense of empowerment drove workers to unionize and advocate for a better deal. Although workers frequently formed unions and gained concessions from RCA management, growing tensions and expenses consistently caused RCA to look elsewhere for their ideal labor environment. RCA would then move some or all of their production to a cheaper move impoverished area, and the same general process would restart.
Of course, Cowie spells out the many ways in which this process varied from place to place. He emphasizes that RCA did not move simply because of macro-economic factors such the cost of labor in different places. Instead, he argues that local factors and perceptions were vital in forming RCA’s decisions. For example, RCA stayed in Memphis for a mere six years largely because racial unrest gave Memphis the appearance of an unstable labor environment. If not for this key local factor, Cowie contends that RCA might have shut down the more expensive Bloomington plants first. Moreover, the removal of RCA factories generally created employment crises in left-behind cities, but variations in those places determined the severity of deindustrialization. Bloomington’s “diverse economic base” and the presence of the University of Indiana cushioned the blow of deindustrialization, whereas Camden collapsed into an archetypical post-industrial slum (150).
Cowie’s work offers numerous innovative ways for labor historians to think about their subject. For one, Cowie finds limited significance in the relocation of capital across national borders. Although the globalization of capital does “question the role of the nation-state as overseer of industrial relations,” the same basic dynamics of the struggle between labor and capital repeated in the US and Mexico (2). He thus invites historians to investigate the local processes that shaped these kinds of struggles. Cowie also challenges the longstanding historiographical and popular idea that the main victims of deindustrialization are men. Rather, he shows that women were the majority of RCA’s employees and that RCA usually fired them first as they moved from city to city.
Cowie finds another historiographical shortcoming in the idea of the “labor-management accord” as a framework for analyzing the postwar relationship between labor and capital (5). This concept says that the New Deal and World War II forged a more balanced and congruous relationship that underwrote postwar prosperity and stability. He contends that concept ignores the fact that unorganized workers were not part of this relationship.
More importantly, Cowie argues that this concept does not account for capital’s increasing ability to move to areas with more controllable labor. RCA constantly broke up this accord and reformed it in new places, keeping its interests separate from its laborers’ interests. Unlike capital, workers based their lives and identities in smaller communal spaces and lacked the means to move with RCA across larger economic spaces. Cowie finds that community was a double-edged sword for RCA’s workers. On one hand, communal bonds and activism helped them advocate for more power in their relationship with RCA. On the other hand, their rootedness in community prevented them from adopting the extra-communal working class consciousness that could have been built on their “universal experience of deindustrialization” (102). Such a transregional and transnational movement may have enabled these workers to effectively challenge RCA’s wielding of mobility as a trump card against labor activism. Older labor history emphasizes community as a source of strength for workers, but Cowie shows how it could also be a weakness.
Finally, Cowie offers an important re-periodization of deindustrialization. Along with scholars like Thomas Sugrue, Cowie sees deindustrialization occurring in some parts of the country immediately after if not during World War II. By the mid-1950’s, for example, RCA had completely extricated itself from Camden. This point suggests that labor historians should see deindustrialization as a long process that hit some parts of the US well before it hit others, not a wave that crashed suddenly in the 1970’s.
Cowie offers historians many ways to rethink labor history and the history of deindustrialization. He is right to point to local factors as crucial in driving capital’s moves, but he may have pushed the pendulum too far away from macroeconomics. One wonders if RCA would have stayed long in Camden or Bloomington even if they had kept their initial control over a docile and desperate working class. The pull of vastly cheaper labor pools elsewhere, the reduced need for workers due to automation, and the pressure of cutthroat competition weighed heavily on RCA’s decisions. Local factors may have delayed or hastened capital relocation, but Cowie should more clearly acknowledge the structural factors behind these decisions. Still, this concise and thought-provoking book merits a wide readership among 20th century American and labor historians.
Cowie discusses the movement of RCA factories into and out of four cities: Camden, Bloomington, Memphis, and Ciudad Juarez. RCA’s decisions to relocate these factories followed a remarkably consistent pattern. They sought a specific labor environment with low unionization, high unemployment, and plenty of young female workers. They believed that they could pay these workers low wages, work them hard in tough conditions, and restrict their unionization. RCA’s ideal labor environment was highly gendered because they believed that young women could be paid less, were more docile and controllable than men, and had the deft motor skills and high tolerance for rote work needed for assembling electronics.
RCA and its workers engaged in a vicious cycle that drove the relocation process. Usually a brief honeymoon period accompanied the establishment of these factories as desperate workers accepted low-paying positions. Over time, growing dissatisfaction with low pay and poor conditions as well as a growing sense of empowerment drove workers to unionize and advocate for a better deal. Although workers frequently formed unions and gained concessions from RCA management, growing tensions and expenses consistently caused RCA to look elsewhere for their ideal labor environment. RCA would then move some or all of their production to a cheaper move impoverished area, and the same general process would restart.
Of course, Cowie spells out the many ways in which this process varied from place to place. He emphasizes that RCA did not move simply because of macro-economic factors such the cost of labor in different places. Instead, he argues that local factors and perceptions were vital in forming RCA’s decisions. For example, RCA stayed in Memphis for a mere six years largely because racial unrest gave Memphis the appearance of an unstable labor environment. If not for this key local factor, Cowie contends that RCA might have shut down the more expensive Bloomington plants first. Moreover, the removal of RCA factories generally created employment crises in left-behind cities, but variations in those places determined the severity of deindustrialization. Bloomington’s “diverse economic base” and the presence of the University of Indiana cushioned the blow of deindustrialization, whereas Camden collapsed into an archetypical post-industrial slum (150).
Cowie’s work offers numerous innovative ways for labor historians to think about their subject. For one, Cowie finds limited significance in the relocation of capital across national borders. Although the globalization of capital does “question the role of the nation-state as overseer of industrial relations,” the same basic dynamics of the struggle between labor and capital repeated in the US and Mexico (2). He thus invites historians to investigate the local processes that shaped these kinds of struggles. Cowie also challenges the longstanding historiographical and popular idea that the main victims of deindustrialization are men. Rather, he shows that women were the majority of RCA’s employees and that RCA usually fired them first as they moved from city to city.
Cowie finds another historiographical shortcoming in the idea of the “labor-management accord” as a framework for analyzing the postwar relationship between labor and capital (5). This concept says that the New Deal and World War II forged a more balanced and congruous relationship that underwrote postwar prosperity and stability. He contends that concept ignores the fact that unorganized workers were not part of this relationship.
More importantly, Cowie argues that this concept does not account for capital’s increasing ability to move to areas with more controllable labor. RCA constantly broke up this accord and reformed it in new places, keeping its interests separate from its laborers’ interests. Unlike capital, workers based their lives and identities in smaller communal spaces and lacked the means to move with RCA across larger economic spaces. Cowie finds that community was a double-edged sword for RCA’s workers. On one hand, communal bonds and activism helped them advocate for more power in their relationship with RCA. On the other hand, their rootedness in community prevented them from adopting the extra-communal working class consciousness that could have been built on their “universal experience of deindustrialization” (102). Such a transregional and transnational movement may have enabled these workers to effectively challenge RCA’s wielding of mobility as a trump card against labor activism. Older labor history emphasizes community as a source of strength for workers, but Cowie shows how it could also be a weakness.
Finally, Cowie offers an important re-periodization of deindustrialization. Along with scholars like Thomas Sugrue, Cowie sees deindustrialization occurring in some parts of the country immediately after if not during World War II. By the mid-1950’s, for example, RCA had completely extricated itself from Camden. This point suggests that labor historians should see deindustrialization as a long process that hit some parts of the US well before it hit others, not a wave that crashed suddenly in the 1970’s.
Cowie offers historians many ways to rethink labor history and the history of deindustrialization. He is right to point to local factors as crucial in driving capital’s moves, but he may have pushed the pendulum too far away from macroeconomics. One wonders if RCA would have stayed long in Camden or Bloomington even if they had kept their initial control over a docile and desperate working class. The pull of vastly cheaper labor pools elsewhere, the reduced need for workers due to automation, and the pressure of cutthroat competition weighed heavily on RCA’s decisions. Local factors may have delayed or hastened capital relocation, but Cowie should more clearly acknowledge the structural factors behind these decisions. Still, this concise and thought-provoking book merits a wide readership among 20th century American and labor historians.
June 7, 2017
Crowie argued that the RCA company, maker of records, radios, and televisions has developed a pattern of moving to labor markets with cheap female and perceived to be docile labor, in the wake of rising worker militancy. He traces this history from the southern and eastern European immigrants unionizing in the 1930s with United Electrical Workers in Camden NJ, to Scotch-Irish workers in Bloomington IN from the 1950s on, with a brief interlude to the growing militancy of African-American workers in Memphis from 1965-1971, to finally the slow bleed from Bloomington to Ciudad Juarez in Mexico from the 1960s to 1998. Even there, in perceived vulnerable and exploitable workforce, growing union efforts, with sit-down strikes and plant occupations have won gains for workers.
Key Themes and Concepts
-Each workforce that RCA left had grown militant and united, and the company sought union-free environments with perceived docile female workforce. The language used in hiring was feminine, arguing for small skilled fingers.
-The buzzword of globalization, usually argued by labor historians to have begun in the 1970s, actually far predates that period. The so-called labor peace and understanding from the New Deal pact actually was far less stable, with more anti-union companies seeking to shift costs across stateliness, first away from eastern cities to the Midwest, and then to the South, and finally internationally. They always argue that they need to stay competitive.
-Working class communities, even those without much labor militancy history, eventually develop ones as the years go by in response to poor treatment by RCA. This happened in all four cities.
Key Themes and Concepts
-Each workforce that RCA left had grown militant and united, and the company sought union-free environments with perceived docile female workforce. The language used in hiring was feminine, arguing for small skilled fingers.
-The buzzword of globalization, usually argued by labor historians to have begun in the 1970s, actually far predates that period. The so-called labor peace and understanding from the New Deal pact actually was far less stable, with more anti-union companies seeking to shift costs across stateliness, first away from eastern cities to the Midwest, and then to the South, and finally internationally. They always argue that they need to stay competitive.
-Working class communities, even those without much labor militancy history, eventually develop ones as the years go by in response to poor treatment by RCA. This happened in all four cities.
August 30, 2025
RCA at one time was a model of innovation coupled with quality. CAPITAL MOVES is the story of its many incarnations and eventual demise. This book concentrates on the branch of RCA which makes radios (which are slowly disappearing as a transmission of information as well).
Jefferson R. Cowie tells the story of its movements from Camden New Jersey to Bloomington Indiana to Ciudad Juárez, Mexico in the pursuit over its lifetime for cheaper labor. Treating its employees well was not a priority. I enjoyed knowing the information in this part of the book.
The last few theoretical chapters were highly complex and less informative. This book would be great in a business class.
Jefferson R. Cowie tells the story of its movements from Camden New Jersey to Bloomington Indiana to Ciudad Juárez, Mexico in the pursuit over its lifetime for cheaper labor. Treating its employees well was not a priority. I enjoyed knowing the information in this part of the book.
The last few theoretical chapters were highly complex and less informative. This book would be great in a business class.
September 20, 2019
Fascinating look at the portability of capital, the impact of labor unions, and the struggles and challenges of being in the working class.
March 1, 2023
I think about this book every day.
July 4, 2007
An engaging history of communities where RCA had major manufacturing plants over the course the 20th century: Camden, Bloomington, Memphis and Ciudad Juarez. Provides an outstanding overview of why factories move, and the experiences of the people who are effected.
February 27, 2008
If you are intersted in labor history this is for you. For the other 99.9% of us, absolutely boring. The only thing I gained from this is a better understanding of the devastation felt by those who see their jobs shipped out of the country.
April 28, 2016
Concisely written. Does not consider the practicalities of organizing across locations, nor sectoral shifts in the global economy, but I think this can be forgiven since the book achieved its goals so thoroughly.
April 19, 2016
A great historic account of the lengths businesses will go to find the cheapest labor.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews