Barry, I like it and Sally has often made the point about a guaranteed income. On the other hand I don't see why simple widgit jobs should be so important while jobs that involve the whole person are often forced to be done for free. It seems to me that the issue of value and compensation is an issue that is long overdue for reconsideration. The upside down of job value is only one of the truly ridiculous sides of modern economics. It finds its end in such things as the patent debate where the locals can't find a meaning to intellectual property and can only consider it free for grazing which then make intellectuals either hoard or abandon it according to economic external motivation for all work. "If you don't know what that green paper is for then you won't care if I take it from you." "If you never experienced the things that make you appreciate Monet or Brahms then you won't miss them if you never hear them. And you will never know what it means to have never wanted it." The things that a civilization values are the artifacts that are the stuff of history's judgments.
But, who is the one that pays for what one values? If it is done by the local yokels then you will always have the values of the local yokels. The one hope I see in all of this is what ruined Russia for the tyrants. Somewhere out there in the world there is some serious real work going on that raises human consciousness and expands human potential. Once the locals experience it, we will find if their ancestors were truly Homo Sapiens or Homo Simians. One will want it and the other will be annoyed. Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: We have made income the enemy of wealth, long version. > > 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 > > > > >
