Keith, Arthur, Ray, George's analysis suggested that improvements in production that raised the wages of the lowest inevitably lost any advantage to the poor to higher land rents. This is why deep poverty of the lowest earners is so hard to tackle by government policies.
Churchill made the point well during the debates before WW!. He said that poor people south of the Thames had tp cross a bridge to get to their jobs in the city. It cost them one halfpenny each crossing. To help them, a group of good people bought the rights to the bridge and made it free passage. Said Churchill, before very long the cost of accommodation rentals south of the Thames had increased by about sixpence a week. Another example he quoted referred to a Church south of the Thames which was well known for distributing food and clothing to the local poor, As a result - said Churchill - accommodation costs in the area were higher than in surrounding areas, Again, these small advantages disappeared into increased land rents. Nothing has changed since Churchill made these speeches. The welfare states find that the effects of last year's aid to the poor disappear forcing more aid - or in these times - leaving the poor to fend for themselves. Meantime, as you have often mentioned, Keith, societies split between - as George said in 1879 - the House of Have and the House of Have Not. Just in case you missed it mere's an interesting cite. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts#zoomed-picture Harry \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Keith Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > At 15:26 21/05/2012, REH wrote: > > We always count on you Keith for a mega view of things. Your comments are > the reverse of the rave reviews for agriculture in Jared Diamond. > Agriculture in America was considered women's work because women are > directly connected to the earth mother. They also owned the fields and > conscripted the men to help working them. They owned the house as well and > could divorce the husband simply by leaving his shoes on the porch. > > > There's little doubt that in all three economic eras, women have worked > harder than men even if not at the more explosive activities. > > Keith > > > REH > > From: [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:43 AM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Women and the world economy:A guide to womenomics > > At 01:06 21/05/2012, Mike wrote: > > > Women and the world economy:A guide to womenomics |The Economist > http://t.co/Ag4XLuui ... > > It's a useful article (so thanks for making it available to us) but pretty > pedestrian for all that -- and entirely missing out the single most > important reason why women have been heavily oppressed for thousands of > years. Agriculture. Incredibly, the word itself didn't appear in the whole > article! It was the spreading of manual agriculture all round the world that > necessitated the maximum number of children to work in the fields and women, > too, at seeding and harvesting times, which broke the contraceptive effect > of breast feeding as it had occurred during hunter-gatherer times. Thus > women were hit by a double whammy during the agricultural era. They were > required to work the fields on occasion but they were also necessary to work > hard at home, feeding, cleaning, educating and organizing far too large > families. > > All this has gone by the board in the case of about one third of the world > population but it's still the case that most women are still oppressed -- > and to the most vile extent in the Islamic countries where the agricultural > culture has become further strengthened by sharia law. However, as > agricultural syndicates are pushing most of the rural poor into the cities, > then women will start re-asserting themselves in the same way as has already > happened in the West and is now taking place in the coastal provinces of > China. > > All this may not seem relevant to the authors of the article (anonymous as > usual) who were, quite obviously, confining themselves to the advanced > world, but it should have been. The plain fact is that newly assertive women > of the West have, for the past 30 years or so, decided to have less than > replacement-sized families. From now onwards it doesn't really matter what > further marginal changes take place in the role of women -- politically, > economically, culturally -- because populations of European countries and > the white population of America are already at the point of dropping > precipitously. The article was describing the table manners of those who > were dining on the Titanic when it hit the iceberg rather than the fate of > the whole ship. > > Keith > > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com > > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
