10 years? 50 years? Never?

Economic activity is bad for the environment - so much of it is unnecessary (and unpleasant) already (eg. aggressive sales in all industries). I look forward to the day when people can be unemployed without stigma. A post scarcity economy (barring things like yachts and gold plated lamas) already exists in most developed economies - isn't it time to just give all citizens a guaranteed income, free from stigma? I know the green party in the UK have that in their manifesto but they're only a minor player in the UK political scene - any calls from major parties to put an end to unemployment stigma?

Keep It Real wrote:10 years? 50 years? Never?

Economic activity is bad for the environment - so much of it is unnecessary (and unpleasant) already (eg. aggressive sales in all industries). I look forward to the day when people can be unemployed without stigma. A post scarcity economy (barring things like yachts and gold plated lamas) already exists in most developed economies - isn't it time to just give all citizens a guaranteed income, free from stigma? I know the green party in the UK have that in their manifesto but they're only a minor player in the UK political scene - any calls from major parties to put an end to unemployment stigma?

I think the perennial demise of wealth re-distribution is the corruptibility of those we put in charge of the redistribution.

'Ah', you say, 'put me in charge.' Amen to that! Can I get an 'Amen'? No? No takers?

I don't know that the premise is true....there is a lot of work that needs to be done if we are to survive as a species....it's just not divvied up properly or assigned....

What I know is, that right now, there is far more work that needs doing, than there are people to do it. The real trouble is, that not enough people realize that people should be paid to do it.

An obvious example, which has been around forever, is raising children. Our "modern" economies assume that this is always to be an unpaid position, and that causes all sorts of follow on problems. There's plenty more similar work that needs doing, which again, our economies have declared must always be done without remuneration.

On top of that, is the problem that the ACTUAL values and costs of things have been distorted and denied by the people in power everywhere. Instead of basing pay on what is required to perform the task, it is based instead on how desperate the workers are. The same people who insist on this, contrarily insist that all non-human resources, be priced according to actual cost.

The reason why crude "redistribution" becomes necessary, is that this archaic and insane concept remains in force throughout capitalist nations.

Oh, and no, it is NOT true that "all economic activity is bad fir the environment." Again, it is only bad when it is so, because there are a lot of powerful people who insist (again) on ignoring the real cost of what they want to do.

Obvious example: we USED to think that mining should be done by digging until you find what you want, grab the thing, and then leave the area without cleaning up after yourself. Eventually, enough people lived downstream of the large mines, with enough political power, that regulations were put into place to force mine operators to at least act with minimal attention to the consequences of their methods, and to pay for some healing of the land from their profits. The same concept needs to be applied consistently across all disciplines, and then economic activity will NOT be detrimental to the environment.

Have you seen how many pot holes there are in the roads nowadays?

Our Victorian sewers and sea defences are crumbling, there's a housing shortage ... and there's not enough work to do? I don't think so.

Well, if we kid ourselves that work is simply distributing stuff from China, or banking, whilst our infrastructure disintegrates around us then ... yes, there's not enough work.

I think that there is a lot to be said for an impartial reassessment of the economic structures at work and their tacit acceptance by world governments and non-governmental organizations like the IMF and World Bank.

The overwhelming economic strategy for most world governments and NGOs is one of continued growth. Growth seemed a regular occurrence for most of the last hundred years (if you are willing to only consider the wealth of industrialized countries and ignore the regular incidents of recession, drought, etc.). The reality is that growth is not a constant, and the steady increase in growth was partially due to third-world and colonial exploitation. The expectation of world economies post-peak-oil (which, most likely, occurred globally 2005-2010) and with global water, food and energy crises calls for strategies of global cooperation and scarcity management. This would mean a vast paradigm shift that most economists are nowhere near making.

World Governments often make the assumption that economists are the best source for economic advice (obviously, some would say). The truth is, that economists generally; study the past, are regularly predisposed toward positivism (they think everything is great and that the market will "sort it out"), and are often quite guilty of ignoring information that go against their positivist standpoint (case in point, the complete refusal of most economic analysts to acknowledge and predict the 2008 economic collapse which began in the United States but had far reaching global implications).

The solution? In my opinion, world governments need to adopt a more broad awareness of global economic conditions, not simply the key markets and how they have done in the past. Further, global economic conditions are affected by global social conditions, ecological conditions and political conditions. This already sounds like an impossible task, but foundational work has been done by Arjun Appadurai http://auamii.com/jiir/Vol-01/issue-01/X9.Power.pdf and Ulrich Beck http://www.shi.or.th/upload/risk0002.pdf among others. If an economist believes that the solution to their specific countries issues is to increase gross domestic product, they do not understand what the future has in store for an increasingly interconnected and scarcity bound world.

igorfrankensteen wrote:An obvious example, which has been around forever, is raising children. Our "modern" economies assume that this is always to be an unpaid position, and that causes all sorts of follow on problems. There's plenty more similar work that needs doing, which again, our economies have declared must always be done without remuneration.

Don't people get child allowance, or doesn't that count?

Keep It Real wrote:... isn't it time to just give all citizens a guaranteed income, free from stigma?

Many Western countries are already on the verge of bankruptcy, so where is the money going to come from to allow most of the population to sit at home with their feet up?

jamest wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:... isn't it time to just give all citizens a guaranteed income, free from stigma?

Many Western countries are already on the verge of bankruptcy, so where is the money going to come from to allow most of the population to sit at home with their feet up?

Well the rich keep getting richer far faster than everyone else. Where does the money come from for that?

Yeah....Communism!!!!

Lookin' at it all wrong. There's no shortage of work, only an over-abundance of people.

Arnold Layne wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:An obvious example, which has been around forever, is raising children. Our "modern" economies assume that this is always to be an unpaid position, and that causes all sorts of follow on problems. There's plenty more similar work that needs doing, which again, our economies have declared must always be done without remuneration.

Don't people get child allowance, or doesn't that count?

They do, but I'm not sure how many people would find £80 a month for a 24 hour job an acceptable rate of pay.

Fallible wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:An obvious example, which has been around forever, is raising children. Our "modern" economies assume that this is always to be an unpaid position, and that causes all sorts of follow on problems. There's plenty more similar work that needs doing, which again, our economies have declared must always be done without remuneration.

Don't people get child allowance, or doesn't that count?

They do, but I'm not sure how many people would find £80 a month for a 24 hour job an acceptable rate of pay.

I went to have a look at the tax site to see how much it was but I couldn't make head nor tail of it. There are so many figures that I couldn't work it out. Do you get more if you are working?

Anyway, I'm sure those people who have children and are working would be generous enough to pay more taxes so as those who have children and are not working can have more. In the meantime, I'd suggest that those people who cannot, or have chosen not to, have children, pay less tax. That seems fair.

You get less if you're working if you earn over a certain amount. To be honest I don't really know how it works either, but I don't think even those on the most allowance get what would equal a living wage out of it.

Fallible wrote:You get less if you're working if you earn over a certain amount. To be honest I don't really know how it works either, but I don't think even those on the most allowance get what would equal a living wage out of it.

I think, to get a living wage out of it, you have to be single, unemployed, and young, then you get given a council house and all the money you need.

I only say that because it seems to be a career choice for young girls in a certain part of Manchester and, I suppose, loads of other places.

Maybe, I think your aspirations would have to be pretty low to see that as a career choice. Just thinking of some of the council estates I lived on as a kid, and my main aim was to get away from them as quickly as possible. I'm still not sure you'd get all that much money, unless you had like a house full of kids. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think I'd apply for that post if it was advertised.

Keep It Real wrote:10 years? 50 years? Never?

Economic activity is bad for the environment - so much of it is unnecessary (and unpleasant) already (eg. aggressive sales in all industries). I look forward to the day when people can be unemployed without stigma. A post scarcity economy (barring things like yachts and gold plated lamas) already exists in most developed economies - isn't it time to just give all citizens a guaranteed income, free from stigma? I know the green party in the UK have that in their manifesto but they're only a minor player in the UK political scene - any calls from major parties to put an end to unemployment stigma?

I suspect that the unemployment stigma is an evolved social response to an individual whose seen as not pulling their weight in society. Also being unemployed doesn't stop you from volunteering which again many unemployed individuals are reluctant to do despite the obvious benefit it has in regards to employability. The few times I've been unemployed in my lift I've filled these gaps in my employment history with by doing volunteer work.

There is a lot of work which could be done by the unemployed but which the state can't afford to fund. Forcing people to do volunteering work would diminish it's value to an employer so I'm not suggestion this but people should certainly be encourage in that direction.

Fallible wrote:Maybe, I think your aspirations would have to be pretty low to see that as a career choice. Just thinking of some of the council estates I lived on as a kid, and my main aim was to get away from them as quickly as possible. I'm still not sure you'd get all that much money, unless you had like a house full of kids. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think I'd apply for that post if it was advertised.

Maybe not you, but you'd have to have seen it with your own eyes. I'm talking over 10 years ago now as I left the UK, but aspirations for young girls in Wythenshawe are not high, and are often set by their single Mum who also lives the same way. Really, you only had to drive through Wythy during the day and you'd see loads of young girls pushing prams. Amazing to behold.

Anyway, do you think those girls should be paid a living wage for choosing a career like that? To be honest, they are first in the queue to be given a house, so they get more than most who work.