I just caught an old interview on CBC radio (from 19440 when a "child"
subsidy was being presented as a question for parliamentary debate. One
perspective was that it idea was against everything Canada stood for
(there were no "Canadians" at the time, we were all British subjects
living in Canada)). But, I'm just saying that the people had to fight
hard for that pittance of $9.00 per child per year back then and now
there has to be just a hard a fight to win over some 'elected' champion
to bring respite to this rising problem of unemployment or, at least,
under-employment.
I still hear comments from people that they have no idea what OWL is all
about. I can only think they must have very idyllic lives and must
believe that those people are lazy, shiftless lay-abouts who want to
undermine the fabric of their personal wealth. I can't imagine what they
would say about Basic Income but there would be those who would likely
go as far as to advertise it as a destructive force capable of
destroying the very nature of our society.
Does blindness create greed or is that reversed, or does it all evolve
from fears and insecurities in the womb and the crib?
One thing I do feel very strongly about is things will get much worse
before they get better.
Darryl
On 10/27/2011 10:43 AM, Sally Lerner wrote:
This has been in the cards, and foreseen, for decades. Predictably, I think
discussion of Basic Income is (again) in order. Sally
________________________________________
From: [email protected]
[[email protected]] on behalf of Stennett
[[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:43 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] More Jobs Predicted for Machines, Not People
Ray,
I don't think it's that we frittered your comments so much as we don't see what
to do about it. But, this is an old problem - I'm told that at one point, there
were more British Army soldiers fighting the Luddites than were fighting
against Napoleon. Mechanization and it's associated problems have been around
for a while!
The immediate problem is that there are no new jobs being created (possibly
because, as Keith is fond of pointing out, there are no truly new inventions)
and no significant wars (also becoming increasingly mechanized) or penal
colonies (Australia, the United States, etc., during colonial times) that can
absorb excess people. This, coupled with the fact that the bankers and a few
others have gained almost total control over our governments and other
institutions, bodes poorly for the near-term future.
Barry
---- Ray Harrell<[email protected]> wrote:
=============
Just like we pointed out on this list ten years ago and then frittered it
away as mere speculation. It happened first in the Arts after 1929 when
there was a 98% decline in live performance and an equilibrium depression
that continued down to the present. Everyone thought I was paranoid at
worst and probably just a loser complaining about what couldn't be changed.
Now that world is on everyone's doorstep.
REH
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
