Brad, It's more complicated than that.
People have children because they want to have a family. I doubt that new parents in their twenties are thinking of " old age and disability insurance". However, in most viable families when Dan and Mum are beginning to get old, it is normal for the kids to help out - just because they are family. However, that was then, this is now. People mostly can't have families. They have a child, or two. This is less the result of normal human desire than of economic pressures - including long working times and wages that don't keep up with "needs". We keep most kids at school for many years longer than they should be involved - for not a lot of practical purpose. They don't learn a lot. But it keeps them off the labor market. As does early retirement, a huge governmental bureaucracy, and a large military establishment - only to result in continuing problems finding jobs for those left. When we recall the first assumption of Classical Political Economy - 'that people's desires are unlimited' - one must wonder whether the practice of neo-Classical economics contains any common sense at all. We can conclude that if jobs cannot be found for the remnant of workers after so many have been taken out of play by the above "policies", that something is seriously wrong. Maybe it's because everyone has everything they need and want, so production isn't needed. But that means we can spend much of our time walking the Appalachian Trail, or something. Our material needs are satisfied with so little time and effort that we can spend our time sailing. I doubt anyone believes that. In California, we are shocked by the recent statistic that only 23% of our kids go to college. I am shocked that so many go to college instead of taking a decent job, learning a trade, and easily supporting themselves. (Actually about half of all UC freshmen need remedial reading after 12 years of education.) I haven't figures for numeracy, but would expect them to be higher. However, I would argue that the reason for more college openings is to get those 18 year olds off the labor market. This is not something new. When the kids went to school in the US after leaving Canada, they found that their new High School was a year behind their Canadian experience. This was in La Jolla in San Diego - a rich community that looks down on Beverley Hills - yet they were a year behind their equivalents in Canada. I am an advocate of removing compulsion from education. Attending school should be voluntary. The most usual answer to this suggestion is that if kids were not forced to go to school, they would roam the streets, getting into trouble. They don't realize it but this places the high school in its proper context. It's not a place of learning at all. Rather it's a place built to take care of kids while their parents are at work. Perhaps that's why after 12 years of education, half the 'cream' that goes to the University of California need remedial education. But, you understand, we must get as many of these kids off the labor market as possible. Now Clinton's educational policy to put every kid through first year college falls into place. Get 'em off the streets. Harry ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************* -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad McCormick, Ed.D. Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Christoph Reuss'; [email protected]; 'Cordell, Arthur: ECOM' Subject: Re: [Futurework] From 9 to 5 to 24/7 Harry Pollard wrote: > Of course things would be different if there was a shortage of > available labor instead of an abundance. > There are *so many reasons* for the not-well-to-do to have few or no children, including to be able to apply their meager earnings undiluted to meeting their own needs, and also to reducing the pool of available "labor power". I know there are also down-side considerations (I, for one, would not like to understand that the reason I was born was to be my parents' "old age and disability insurance", however), but at least our great universities could do the relevant research, to "quantify" the option space, couldn't they? \brad mccormick > Harry > > ********************************* > Henry George School of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > 818 352-4141 > ********************************* > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Cordell, Arthur: ECOM > Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:19 AM > To: Christoph Reuss; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] From 9 to 5 to 24/7 > > As a business consultant in NY City I once had a boss who no > matter what time I arrived in the office, he was always there > earlier. > > And he often left a note on my chair asking for something. On > the note he always put down the time. This, probably, to > underscore that I should have been there earlier. > > In the aged of Blackberries and cellphones I can see how this > ex-boss of mine would have a "field day" terrorizing his > employees. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 7:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] From 9 to 5 to 24/7 > > > Ed Weick wrote: > >> When I was in my teens I spent fourteen months working in a >> > sawmill which > >> was part of a huge pulp and paper mill. We worked three >> > shifts, changing > >> every couple of weeks. Day shift was 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Night >> > shift was 5 > >> p.m. to midnight; and Graveyard was midnight to 8 a.m. It's >> > probable that > >> people who work in large operations that are difficult to shut >> > down and > >> start up still work shifts like that. >> > > Shift work is still of the "9 to 5" kind, albeit shifted. "24/7" > is > different -- it refers to an around-the-clock availability of the > wage > slave that is fostered by e-mail and cell-phones. People have > been fired > because they dared to turn off their private cell-phone (during > their > "leisure" time!) so they didn't "see" a new order from the boss > in time. > (Self-employed "one-person companies" are also often exposed to > "24/7", > waiting for orders from customers.) > > The shift workers of the old days couldn't even dream of such a > level > of exploitation -- they at least had their leisure and sleep > times and > their weekends for themselves. > > Chris > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
