Harry Pollard wrote:
Brad,
A little more on this.
I rather think that in the natural order of things
Human beings do not live in a "natural order of things", unless we want to
call each individual's pre-reflectively introjected ethnicity of origin
"natural".
And, of course, each ethnicity is "natural" in the sense that it was not
self-critically.reflectively designed but rather evolved prereflectively [I
equate pre-/non-reflective with "natural"]. And, as [the well-known
science popularizer
who died recently and whose name I can't at the moment recall] said: "Nature
is in love with the idea of the individual, but not with particular
individuals." The
"natural order of things" don't give a shit about any person, but only
-- albeit only
metaphorically at that... -- about the "survival of the species"....
people have
families. Certainly, not having much money makes raising a family
a difficult proposition - but the rewards are huge.
There is no such thing as a huge reward (or any other size reward, or even a
reward as opposed to a penalty...), except in terms of some
specific set of values/goals, among other diverse and even often
divergent alternatives.
I would "simply" like persons to evaluate their values/goals instead of
just evaluating the things they encounter in their
lives in terms of the values/goals they were childreared into having without
any choice in the matter. [OK, replace "persons" with: I have struggled
my whole life
to try to extricate myself from the semiotic virus with which I was infected
as a child. Let other be infected unwittingly if they so wish (that is, of
course, a self-contradictory statement, since a person cannot wish for
anything without being witting about it).]
Six of us arrived in Canada (four children) in the mid fifties.
Now, our extended family is 30. We all like each other and are
also attached to our English cousins.
I would never argue against that a good family is a very good thing -- would
that I had had one. But I know from experience that bad families are
bad things,
too (for one artistic example, see, e.g., the film: "The Return of
Martin Guerre"...).
A close friend of mine - pretty well heeled - has no children
because of global overpopulation - a pretty potty argument in my
estimation. But different strokes, I suppose.
How silly to try to solve global problems locally! The person would
perhaps do better to just despair.
I doubt anyone refuses to have children to avoid dilution of the
'labor pool'.
That's a shame: It could be a powerful social strategy -- of course the
"ringleaders" would probably get incarcerated at best....
Nor do I think that that in the West children are conceived to be
a personal social security system. In the LDCs this is often
true, but not here.
Here we agree -- on the putative facts. I do believe part of George W
Bush's
war against Social Security is aimed at changing this so that
people here have to have children if they want a personal social security
system. The Enlightenment (the Kantian, not new-agey kind!) may yet be
undoable!
"Cheers!"
\brad mccormick
Harry
*********************************
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
818 352-4141
*********************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Cordell, Arthur: ECOM'; 'Christoph Reuss';
[email protected]
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
