The bogeyman of small families and long life are irrelevant when the
companies wouldn't hire them anyway due to robotics and automation.   You
posited a 50% unemployment while the list ten years ago posited a 40%.
Either way it wouldn't matter whether the elderly lived a few more years or
the families had fewer children if the children that were born weren't
hired. 

 

The game you are accepting on this is called a "shell game" for who gets the
blame.   The result is that the people walking away with the money don't get
taxed and aren't blamed either for not hiring under the economist rubric of
"productivity" which is great.    However under productivity I am working
twice as long as my teacher for half the funds.   But I'm still required to
have the same knowledge as he to keep up the quality of the opera house.
Screw that!

 

REH

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:13 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] How Long (Before this happens here?

 

At 21:49 25/09/2011, Mike Gurstein wrote:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/world/europe/as-welfare-state-collapses-gr
eeks-suffer-and-fear-future.html 


Not very long, to answer the question in the Subject line.

As well the Greeks might be fearing already. As well we might, too. In
England we have an incredibly inefficient and wasteful welfare state and
major reforms have been planned for years. But now our Treasury officials
(the real power-holders in any and every nation-state) have just told our
Chancellor that we can't even afford the cost of reforms! Headlines in
today's Daily Telegraph are:

"Osborne is warned of welfare reform disaster"

No advanced nation-state can afford an "adequate" welfare state for much
longer because it was devised (unknowingly) as a Ponzi scheme. Unlike a
private pension scheme in which money is saved and invested in a fund which
then pays profits as dividends, nation-state welfare schemes depend on
current worker contributions. In the state system, as the burden of the old,
the ill, the delinquent and the unemployed grows, then taxation from workers
is supposed to grow even faster to pay for it.

The originators of the modern welfare state (Count von Bismark in 19th
century Germany and Lord Beveridge in 20th century England) shouldn't really
be blamed. In the heyday of economic growth they both thought that there
would always be plenty of current workers available to pay for it. They were
also unable to foresee just how long people would live these days or how
small families would become. Those who ought to be blamed, however, are the
civil servants (and their politician puppets) of the last few decades in the
advanced countries who've been in denial and have made no effort to reform
it so far. They must have been aware of the problem because they've been
surreptitiously encouraging mass immigration by poor people from the Third
World who can live (to them, in relative luxury) off welfare state handouts
while they look for work*. The free movement of labour according to skills
is one thing but this devious practice for political power purposes has been
quite another. 

*And have competed for jobs more successfully against the dregs of our own
secondary school system -- another product of the advanced nation-state. In
England, among 14 year-old boys, approaching half are now completely
alienated from education and would like to leave school if they were allowed
to. I dare say it's not a lot different in Western Europe and America.

We'll always have welfare (if we remain remotely human) but it won't be of
the sort that presently operates. Besides the collapse of state welfare
systems we'll likely have the collapse of most large private pension
schemes. Most of them had black holes even before the 2008/9 collapse. Many
of them are already adjusting their pensions downwards. If (or, rather,
when) the Eurozone economy collapses to a new lower level, likely taking
America and China with it, then state welfare will likely regress to
something like a benefit-queue system with basic hand-outs irrespective of
real need or former expectations. 

Keith
     






Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
  

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to