----------
Hi all,
[Thomas Lunde wrote...]
>Excuse me if this is a reposting.
>
>>----------
>
>But my concern is for those,
>>who for whatever reason, do not want to be, or are unable to be,
>>'knowledge' workers.
>>
>>Will there be a place for them in our future economy? Sure, you can
>>retrain many workers, but we need decent jobs even for those who do
>>not fit in to the ideal of the 21st century worker.
>These two paragraphs indicate how strong our current paradigm is that self
>worth comes from worthwhile employment. I would argue that we need decent
>incomes for all rather than decent jobs for all. We have accepted as a
>culture that not to work is to be not worthy. Yet others have posted and I
>agree with them that in one way or the other everyone works. The Budda did
>not have a job and yet to say his contribution to thought and philosophy was
>worthless could be strongly argued. The idea behind this thread is to
>accept the concept that there may not be monetized jobs for everyone - that
>will, perhaps be, the "fact' of the 21st century. The question then
>becomes, do we provide decent incomes for all or do we marginalize a
>minority which if automation continues may become a majority.
Tom points out the two avenues towards a solution of our perceived
economic situation.
1. We can distribute moneys to those who are not direct participants
in the cash economy.
This is a path that may follow from the experience of some
European countries.
2. As I pointed out earlier, we may monitize the work that is not
currently considered part of our ash economy.
I contend that this may be the easier path in the US where I
live. (I recognize the confusion between CA as in California and
CA as in Canada.)
I don't really think that these paths differ all that much. They are
just two roads to a similar destination.
It has yet to be shown that there is not a need for personal services
in as great a quantity as the labor force may provide. Most people
like to be waited on, in one manner or another.
The problem is that these jobs have been under-valued. Until wage
payments are raised, or goods made cheap enough through automation,
we will be unable to pay a livable wage for most kinds of personal
services.
I am concerned about another phenomenon. There is the likelihood that
thoughtful computer programs and the Internet will allow the most
skilled in certain service areas, namely education and medicine, to
spread their influence very widely and displace local less-skilled
practitioners.
>>
>>So the issue is not just automation. It is finding a place in our
>>economy for everyone that rewards knowledge, effort and ability.
>Again, I would argue that an economy is a device that we have invented.
>Like any technology, it is subject to improvement. Perhaps we may find that
>we require a way to invent an ecomomy in which something else is monetized
>instead of labour.
>>
>>If we cannot find such a place, we will not have a sustainable
>>economy, or a sustainable social system.
>Again I might argue that our current concept of an economy is not
>demonstrating either of your two criteria. If sustainability is the goal,
>capitalism may not be the method or at least capitalism as is now
>pracitised.
>>
>>If the industrialists will not learn this message, I hope that the
>>public will elect politicians who do!
>I do not think our solution will come from industrialists or from
>politicians. I think our solution will come from re-educating the public to
>think of what they want and then to demand that in a way that those in power
>become powerless to refuse. That education can come from a disaster or it
>can come from frustration with the inequalities of the present situation.
>>
>>Dennis Paull,
>>Los Altos, CA
>>
>>Note! I am a well paid automation engineer.
Politicians are not all of one note. They vary almost as much as their
constituents. It is a problem that these days those aspiring candidates
who really have the interests of the voters of their districts at heart
are chased off by the high cost of raising money. They also having to
listen to the whines of those who have provided those funds.
Many good folks who might led us in the economic direction being
discussed on this list simply refuse to run. If we, the voters, could
push the existing movers and shakers to make some of the changes we
propose, we may very well attract a new class of more future-thinking
leaders.
It will take all our efforts to popularize and make socially acceptable
what we propose. Let's get with it. It is not rocket science. Most
welfare recipients are equally able to promote our ideas as engineers,
moreso really as they may have the contacts among the ranks of non-voters
that is necessary to turn us around.
If everyone voted their personal interests the world would be a much
different place. In the US at least, the existing crop of government
leaders seem bent on discouraging participation. The same, only moreso
for the national media.
Dennis Paull
Los Altos, California
>Note I am not a well paid welfare recipient
>
>
>
