So much of what we do as work depends on our needs for income and the technology that we have to work with; that is, whatever the technological tools are, someone has to do the work because he or she needs the money it provides.
More than sixty years ago, as a dumb kid of sixteen, I dropped out of highschool because I was going to be the world's greatest artiste and live a life of luxury and ease on the Riviera (don't ask me where my ideas came from!). But to become the greatest artiste, I needed money to get to art school so I got a job in a huge sawmill that supplied wood to a paper mill in upcoast BC. My first job with the mill was "block picker", sorting wood of different kinds for different kinds of paper. I was then promoted to "slasher man", which meant that I operated two huge banks of circular saws. I would have to crawl among the saws to put belts back on, unstick wood, etc. I then moved on to tail sawyer, peddle man, drumbarker man and finally to the high paying job of boom man. All of the jobs and others like them were dangerous, and people were injured and sometimes killed. But that was the technology of the time and those were the jobs that were available. If someone hadn't been doing them, the market would not have had newspapers, writing paper or toilet paper. If we had had a basic income, or if money were available to help us fulfill our ambitions, I might not have done the jobs, but that was not the kind of world we lived in then nor, I suspect, live in now. Since I was a kid we've moved from an economy that was largely manufacturing based to one that is largely service based. It has also become a world of bubbles: this or that activity flairs way up and then flairs way down. People get jobs and lose them. In the US and Canada, the official unemployment rate is now about 10%, but it is much higher than that if people who have dropped out of the labour force are included. Under such circumstances, a guaranteed basic income would make sense, but governments are already hugely overcommitted and indebted and must cut back if they are to re-attain solvency. I doubt very much that we can depend on the creation of new social programs. Maintaining those that already exist is difficult enough. So people will have to try to find jobs, even dirty and dangerous jobs to keep themselves going. While some dangerous jobs like some I did as a kid are still with us, globalization has moved many and perhaps most to the third world. I bought a book on the violence caused by this movement (Vincent A. Gallagher, The True Cost of Low Prices) in poor countries that now make many of the goods we use in daily life. If anyone needs a guaranteed income to keep them out of dangerous, monotonous and demeaning work, it is the poor of the third world, especially young people and children. On a personal note, though I dabble with paint once in awhile, I never did become a great artiste. I moved to the extreme other end of the intellectual spectrum and became an 'economiste'. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sally Lerner" <[email protected]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Jobless Turn to Family for Help > 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 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
