Please forgive me for restating the too obvious and too basic, but if the following is true then shouldn't we try to keep it in mind?
Consider a simple example of the production of some item, produced at a constant rate, which will face a predictable consumption after some period of use. That item will accumulate until the predictable consumption begins. After that period, production will just provide the replacements needed to maintain the previous accumulation. The accumulation will grow until the � Goods in service = rate of production * life span of the goods To have more wealth we need to increase the goods in service, but it would be best if it could be done with a low rate of production. That is assuming that we ought to slow the rate of production when possible for sustainability. In many cases production can be cut without a loss of use-value by simply making items last longer. Why can't we take advantage of increased durability to conserve? Because our goal is not to have more wealth. Our goal is just to stay busy and consume more of everything. We have made income the enemy of wealth. The wrong goal is worse than the wrong method. Let's change our goal. How can we do that? So let's say that we have built an efficient, durable, sustainable economy. When we made our goal to have more goods in service we will be trying to satiate all markets, to create a condition of widespread wealth. But, if the economy actually delivers the goods it conflicts with the goal of producing however much might be needed to create full employment. If people have everything they want they would not bother to buy more. People need income. But, how can we make enough jobs without a high rate of production? If durability combines with automation production related jobs could virtually vanish. Could the service economy make enough jobs to replace the lost production jobs? Services within the economy can be automated, so they are unlikely to be an effective replacement. The service jobs outside of the economy are harder to automate, but they aren't a source of income. One idea is to put all kinds of work into the paid economy. Perhaps we could pay our parents for raising us. We could eliminate volunteer work. Maybe all kinds of personal caring should be paid. We could revive the oldest profession. I don't think we want to go very far in that direction. We need some way to increase the amount of unpaid work that gets done. In today's economy people are much more motivated to do paid work. Some people even wish mothers could gain the respect of a job. This bias toward paid work has hurt the parts of society which needs unpaid workers. The people in an low-production economy need some access to natural resources and the income related to production. Trading household labor with the neighbor will not give either party access to food from the production economy. Even if the parties trade money back and forth as they work that kind of work is not really part of the production economy. The service economy is too disconnected from the land and capital roots of wealth to provide the needed wage income flow. How many servants do a few rich people need? The service economy may keep us busy, but it will not provide the income lost due to conservation and automation. Where can we turn for some way to distribute income in an economy that has few paid jobs, too few to go around? Capitalism already has the answer. It is unearned income. If all work were automated there would be no wages. All income would be rents or profits. That is where increases in productivity will take us, at the limit no wages would be available. As technology improves wages can fall to very low levels. It's easy to see the progress that business has made in ridding itself of expensive workers. As that process cuts the need for human labor we need find a way to adjust gradually. If wages are going to be reduced by automation and conservation maybe we should provide a variable unearned income. The amount of unearned income people receive could be adjusted downward to motivate more work and keep wages from rising. The unearned income could be increased when wages fall. Your car has a throttle. Its purpose is to reduce the engine's output below the maximum possible so you don't go too fast. We need throttles when our cars have powerful engines and we are driving in town. Maybe the economy needs a throttle too. Isn't it possible to produce too much with today's technology and population? Barry Brooks
