Keith, I agree that most people want to work--at something they care about and enjoy. What most people could do without is complete dependence on an income that requires them to hold a 'job', under the control of someone else, where they are 'employed' (used) as the means to someone else's ends. Granted, 'wage slavery' is an old-fashioned term, but it's remarkable how many people feel exactly like that about what they do for a living.
It's always enlightening to read the business-page articles that provide endless advice on how employers can manipulate employees to work harder, be more loyal, etc. and how employees can manipulate employers to get promotions, more money or (these days) not to fire them. Then there are the jobs that are beneath business press notice--so dull, dirty and dangerous that only the desperate take them (or we import immigrants to do them). At least, with basic income, people could refuse to be employed in this way until wages and working conditions were improved. Given more power to choose what work they will do--waged or unwaged or some combination--people will be able to find meaningful groups to which they can belong and in which they can, if so inclined, play status games. A basic income would go unconditionally to every individual (citizen, resident, whatever rules were politically established) and thus, like the 'baby bonus' in Canada and similar payments elsewhere, it would carry no stigma. It would not be taxed, but every cent above it would be (again, the taxation rules to be democratically determined.) How to finance a basic income in any given society has been closely studied in a number of countries. The challenges are understood and are not insurmountable. One can only wonder that there is so much opposition to the idea that people could have more choice about how they work and more control over their lives. Google 'basic income' or 'guaranteed annual income' for a range of information and opinions. Cheers, Sally ________________________________________ From: Keith Hudson [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:46 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Sally Lerner Subject: RE: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Jobless Turn to Family for Help Sally, I don't really know what you mean by "wage slavery". Most people want to work -- particularly the "hunter" male -- because this gives them a place in a group. High, medium or low status doesn't matter so much as belonging and being acccpted. In the UK I judge that there are probably at least two or three million people in jobs who would be no worse off financially if they could invent a medical condition and went on benefit. I'm surprised there aren't more who are swinging the lead. (The Labour Government here considers that at least 1 million of the 2.5 million of working age who are on benefit shouldn't be -- it's grown that much in recent years! -- and are now whittling this down via new medical examinations.) If a basic income for all were instituted then the middle class would have to pay more taxation. Even if this were politically achievable then the government would have to increase benefits to compensate. As always, these benefits are skewed to the benefit of the middle class so the jobless and the low waged wouldn't benefit. On the other hand if a government could replace the present taxation system with a sales tax then you could give a basic income to those who don't have one without any subsequent distortions. There's no reason why at all why a sales tax shouldn't be progressive from basic goods all the way up to luxury items. After all, the rich often pay absurd prices for things which give them high status. Even the purchase of a house (the most precise status good there is) can carry a sales tax, to be paid for over a number of years like the mortgage itself. Keith At 08:52 02/02/2010 -0500, you wrote: My error. Probably less Freudian than just sloppy. I can't see how it's worse to have a secure basic income under everyone than to have almost everyone at the mercy of wage slavery or no "job" in our loopy economic system. Sally ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 3:59 PM To: Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Jobless Turn to Family for Help >> Time for basin income yet? Freudian typo? Keith wrote: > But I don't see how the middle class will stomach the taxation > involved if it's to be a basic income for all. Good point, Keith. BI is actually a plot to give the final blow to the middle class. After that, what's left is only a small "elite" of fatcats exploiting masses of cheap slaves. No wonder they consider China the model. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, Saltford, England _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
