Yes, I was going to post something in the same vein: imagine if people are free from worry about food clothing and shelter, and have their time free to direct where they choose. How would society evolve?
Here are a few examples of what retirees are doing, which is a somewhat similar situation. I work, as you know, in an establishment which operates under the ethos of academic culture. One of the perqs of this environment, at least for the "scientists" - the PhDs whose names appear in the author list of papers, either professors from associated institutions, or staff scientists - are designated as "emeriti" upon retirement, and retain pretty much all the priveleges they had while employed, except a salary. They keep their email addresses, physical mail boxes, and even office space, though not the big single occupancy offices used by employees who double an administrative post with their research activity. In a media interview with one local physicist approaching retirement a few years ago, he was asked about his retirement plans, and replied (more or less) that he intended to just keep on doing what he was doing. "Physicists don't retire, he said, "they just stop getting paid." We are currently experiencing a somewhat constrained budget situation, where much money has been committed to several major facility expansions and enhancements, coming from local and foreign governments, and philanthropical granting organizations, but our personnel support budget, coming from the national research administration, is restricted, as usually happens during recessionary periods (with about an 18 month delay due to the planning schedule). Thus we find ourselves trying to implement these large construction projects without the ability to even replace normal workplace attrition, let alone add extra personnel. In a recent conversation, a technician who had recently retired, had come back on a limited contract for a paid extension of a year, but that had expired, and the retiree was now finding himself a bit at loose ends. The physicist in charge of the particular facility project for which he had been working suggested that in such a case, the emeritus system ought to be extended to technicians, that they might be able to come back and work, according to a schedule they could be comfortable with, for the pleasure of it. It was mooted that the issue had not arisen before in that no technician we were aware of had ever asked for this, and we wondered what would happen if it were to be pursued. This led me to reflect on another recent item I'd read of in the community paper of my suburb, involving local retirees living in downsized digs. These guys had formed a club, and rented a warehouse space, where they assembled a richly appointed workshop, perhaps furnished in part with equipment donated from former home workshops, where they could freely putter in all the sorts of things that they would have been doing in basement workshops in the houses they had left - woodworking, metal working, machining, and whatnot. The group had a large and enthusiastic membership, and if I recall it correctly, they only made the news as their warehouse space was being sold out from under them, and they were seeking a new home. The point I'm making with this is that these guys are happiest when they are doing something. It doesn't have to be art, it can be a craft that wouldn't be regarded as at all "artsy", say using their skills just to do renovations and repairs for friends and relatives, but being free to do whatever they want, they will collaborate to do this sort of stuff rather than sit around and watch tv. I could readily see a proliferation of all sorts of colaborations among people "liberated" by a BAI, doing productive and useful things within the scope of their skills and abilities, just because they enjoy doing it. -Pete On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, Ray Harrell wrote: > What if governments would give thought to the type of culture and society > that fulfills their citizens and develops their connections to their > identity and who they are? Leave the private sector intact for those > gamblers and individual souls that prefer external to internal motivations. > At the same time provide opportunities for creative development by the > internally motivated. And pay them for it. Make both the internally, > and externally, motivated negotiate for the projects that bring them their > necessities. Negotiate for both since learning negotiation is peace > while force is war. We have a thousand years of war thinking. I once had > a counselor who sent me to the Army hoping that I would find myself by > killing people and proving myself. She was from Mississippi and was a > brilliant woman but she was a war counselor. War and Peace are two > different paths. War takes care of the poor through aggression, violence, > anger and revenge. The aesthetic of post traumatic stress syndrome. > Peace is more about virtuosity and the development of individual potential > using the group to extend one's awareness rather than dimming one's > awareness through the violent anesthetic and the fun from destruction. > Prior to 1492, the forest was considered the perfect classroom for learning > your purpose and vision in life. Forests were burned twice a year to keep > the wildness down and children were taught to develop their entire being > through interaction with the forest and its relationships. Life was about > purpose and personal growth. It could be again. > > > > REH > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:21 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gloomy America [1] > > > > Since, currently the fed's do not give away money but tax credits, there > would need to be much legislative change to the system. But, yes it could be > done through this route and if welfare, E.I., child tax credits, old age > security, HST rebates etc. were all eliminated through this BAI application, > then there would be even more people out of work and thus more need for some > form of guaranteed income. But that is only for us to cogitate on as most > Conservatives and Liberals believe that "giving" money for living is giving > money for nothing. And a lot of these same people think the minimum wage is > too high now as it really digs into their bottom line of profits. So long as > there are those who believe wealth and power are the only things of worth in > this realm of being, there will always be the poor, or underpaid, or > down-trodden, abused, raped, pillaged, conquered ... peoples of the world. > "Enlightened rulers" are a very few in the annals of history. > > D. > > On 22/06/2012 11:16 AM, Ed Weick wrote: > > Many people have given far more thought than I have, but I've given some > thought to how it might be implemented. Here in Canada, it could be done > through the federal income tax system. If family's members' combined income > tax returns indicated that its income falls below the poverty line, it would > be eligible for a refund plus compensation that would bring its income up to > the poverty level or some appropriate legislated level. Doing it via the > federal income tax process would eliminate the need for doing something > compensatory via the large number of provincial and municipal welfare > systems and bureaucracies that now exist. It would likely be more efficient > than the present plethora of systems and save the nation money. > > > > And yes indeed people should be encouraged to work, but what if nothing is > available? > > > > Ed > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ed Weick <mailto:[email protected]> > > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:06 AM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gloomy America [1] > > > > I agree, but I doubt that the Harpers of this world would. > > > > Ed > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Arthur Cordell <mailto:[email protected]> > > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' > <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'Keith Hudson' > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gloomy America [1] > > > > So now may be the time to consider some form of basic annual income. A BAI > may be cheaper in the long run than creating jobs that are really not > needed. > > > > arthur > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:38 AM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Keith Hudson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gloomy America [1] > > > > Since I was the guy who started the 'gloomy America' discussion, perhaps I'd > better say a little more. > > > > IMHO, it's not something at the demand end that promotes growth and > development, it happens at the supply or really technological end. Consider > the enormous impact that the development of steam power, electrical energy > power and the growth of the factory system have had. Consider the growth of > railroads, highways and air transport and their capacity to enable billions > of people to improve their lives. Consider the energy developments needed > to make such things possible. Even events that have not obviously been > growth promoting have had an impact -- yea, we've done it, we've landed on > the moon! I don't think the mobile phone has had much of an impact because > it's little more than an add on to what was already there. > > > > I would agree that we've reached something of a hiatus now and we seem to be > going in a reverse direction. When I began working in the Canadian public > service some fifty-odd years ago, there were no computers and there was no > internet, but there were plenty of young women to type memos and plenty of > young guys to take them to where they were supposed to go. All those girls > and guys are gone now. And you see technology being intruded into the lives > of the working class wherever you look. > > > > I'm not saying we're totally stuck, but we do seem to have reached a point > where redistribution, not growth, has become the primary interest of > business and government. Over the past few decades, I attended many meeting > in which the objective was not how to make things more abundant -- growth -- > but how particularly groups such as the oil industry might get a larger > share of the pie. If what Giroux is saying is that what's important now is > how to collude, press your case, and get more out of the system, I would > agree with him. The growth of the lobby industry demonstrates this. > > > > Ed > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Keith Hudson <mailto:[email protected]> > > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION > <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:14 AM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gloomy America [1] > > > > Mike, > > The paradox is that the most popular consumer product ever -- the mobile > phone -- and also spreading among the world's poor as well as the rich -- is > also turning out to be the most impenetrable by advertisers. If it was ever > true that ". . . centralized commercial institutions . . . tell most of the > stories that shape the lives of the American public", Henry Giroux > (Galbraith revisited) is no longer correct. But it was never true anyway. If > an economy looks as though it's demand-led it can only be so if there > happens to be something tempting at the supply end. No matter how much cash > and credit governments and banks throw at the general public, unless new > status-friendly products are in sight the economy stalls. The world may beat > a path to Emerson's better mouse-trap, but the thing has to be invented > first. > > Keith > > > At 18:45 21/06/2012, Mike wrote: > > > > > > Following up to my own post (mea culpa) where I quoted Henry Giroux > thus: > > For the first time in modern history, centralized commercial > institutions that extend from traditional broadcast culture to the > new interactive screen cultures - rather than parents, churches or > schools - tell most of the stories that shape the lives of the > American public. > > I commented > > mds> ...any corporation that's playing in [the $700 billion] price > mds> range will be prepared to spend a $100 million or so on salaries, > mds> bribes, support for favored educational or other institutions -- > mds> in general for subversion of the public interest wherever that > mds> kind of return can be anticipated (hoped for?) in the short- or > mds> medium-term future. > > Here's a piece on "stealth lobbying". > > http://truth-out.org/news/item/9889-exposed-the-other-alecs-corporate-playbo > ok > > Clearly, the corporate playbook in the statehouses extends far > beyond the tentacles of ALEC, which is but a small part of a vast, > complex network of nonprofits. > > The multilayered, dynamic system of corporate representatives > mingling with state legislators and public officials in a network > of quasi-governmental nonprofits, allows the small number of > people who are part of the interlocking directorate to wield a > huge amount of power in shaping public policy. Under the guise of > conducting educational activities, the stealth lobbyists of the > "other ALECs" reduce the choice of citizens to which version of > the corporate agenda to accept. > > Will citizens, then, continue to accept such a scheme? Time will > tell. > > Not precisely congruent with telling "most of the stories that shape > the lives of the American public" but parallel. The same arborization > of intentional, coordinated corporate/big-business agenda and > viewpoint, fed from the same financial wells and using the same > ingenuous techniques of persuasion (if not more aggressive ones) > permeates media, penetrates public and post-secondary education and > tilts the "the stories that shape [our] lives". > > In YADATROT [2], those ingenuous stories essentially mask out much of > what meaningful work, meaningful career or just availability of > adequately-paid and adequately-respected jobs and replace the > masked-out portions with a Disneyland version of reality to which we > are expected to aspire. Critical thinking, actually seeing "what is on > the end of your fork" is anathema to the Disney-fied version of your > life and aspirations. The above-cited article reflects the propagation > of the corporate Disneyland stage set into local and state products of > the legislative process. As the author writes: > > Will citizens, then, continue to accept such a scheme? Time will > tell. > > > - Mike > > > [1] Jeez, the "Gloomy America" subject is getting a lot of mileage. > > Are we having fun yet? > > [2] Yet Another Desperate Attempt To Remain On Topic > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [email protected] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ > <http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A > 0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> ^^-^^ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com > <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 > > _____ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
