--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > #1 Women's work The world wouldn't turn without the > > > > work of raising children, and caring for family and > > > > community. But it's the work that is most often and > > > > quite literally taken for granted. If the work that > > > > women did were to be paid, how much would it cost? > > > > Researchers put it at $11 trillion in 1995, or half > > > > the world's total output. Movements demanding a basic > > > > income grant are laying the foundations for this new > > > > way of working and living. Valuing women's work would, > > > > more than any other single thing, transform the way > > > > we think about our economy and society. > > > > > > Obviously I'm in favor of valuing the work women do, > > > but I'm not real fond of the phrase "women's work." > > > By far the majority of the work to be done can be done > > > by either sex, so I'm wary of perpetuating the > > > traditional categorizations. That's an attitude that > > > needs to change before there can be real transformation. > > > > > > (Although maybe if women were paid well enough for > > > "women's work," men would stop feeling those kinds of > > > work were beneath them and want to get in on the > > > action.) > > > > How does this work? Who hires the domestic workers? Who pays > > them? Is there any limit? Any restrictions? If someone doesn't > > like their job, and they get paid by the state , say $20,000 > > year per kid ... this is a path is not going to end in a happy > > place. Bored with high school? Have 5 kids and score a cook 100 > > grand a year. If the kids turn out to be crackheads, can we go > > back and collect the parent pay? > > > > Can I get paid for doing "good things"? > > Heh. On Patel's Web site, he links in the quote above to > Wikipedia's page on Basic Income. The notion pretty much > avoids most of the problems you cite by giving a basic > income to everyone, the only condition being citizenship. > I think Bhairitu has mentioned something along these lines > here. Seems like a rather naive idea to me, but I haven't > really looked into it. Anyhow, that's the kind of approach > Patel has in mind.
Actual Milton Friedman (prominent economist) proposed a negative income tax, and Nixon seriously considered it. I think the idea was instead of giving food stamps, housing subsidies, welfare, health care, (perhaps education) to all, give them a guaranteed income so that they can exercise their consumer soverenty and make the best choices to maximize their particular satisfaction. (Personally I would guess from experience that meth might be the most satisfying education, food and health in some consumers' view). > > I was amused to find that I wasn't the only person to have > reacted negatively to the term "women's work." Here's a > comment from the Web site on that part of the post, and his > reply (which addresses your concerns as well): > > ----- > I am very much behind you in most of your "Cheaponomics" > statements, but find your statement concerning "womens' work" > beyond offensive. Oh, yes, please, just pay me for my life of > drudgery instead of requiring that husbands/companions and > fathers share in this work. Instead,shouldn't the suggestion be > to eradicate this scourge of the women of this world, the out- > dated patriarchal society that still thrives world-wide today, > even in such "enlightened" countries as my own U.S.? > > Patel responds: > > You're right, Victoria I think we need a three part > approach (and I learned this from Diane Elson, one of > the feminist economists whose ideas shaped The Value of > Nothing). When it comes to domestic labour, we need to > Recognise, Redistribute and Reduce. > > Recognise means to appreciate that the labour is > actually taking place, yes. > and is an ongoing subsidy to > capitalism. I think thats backwards, or sideways. > There's a bit of a debate around whether > paying for domestic labor >defeats the purpose but > that's why I think something like a basic income grant > is good it severs the link between work and income, > and moves us to a new way of thinking about how we > earn and pay for things. He hasn't made much of a case her, or yet. > > The second part is Redistribute: domestic labour needs, > actively, to be redistributed away from women so that > it is equitably shared. Yes. > And finally, the work needs to be reduced insofar as we > can come up with ways and technologies for reducing the > amount of work that has to be done in the first place. OK -- but he doesn't really make the case for the negative income tax / basic income idea (just thinking out loud, not arguing with you or any one). > I'll write about this more in the future, but I've got to > go make breakfast for my family! > ----- > > Boy, he's slick... > However, in a post industrial society -- we are not yet there but one can contemplate nano-engineering, vast cheap, energy cheap from algae etc, new building materials, Internet based tele-medicine, real time monitors of a huge array of bio status, etc that a basic standard of living could "cheap" and a case could be made to ensure such -- the benefits to society -- beyond compassion -- would be that such would make currently homeless and severely deprived able to make more of a social contribution -- with everyone benefiting. But I would like to see a link to life-long learning and life-long entrepreneurialship (along the lines of everyday small business creation.) Give domestic workers, male or female, micro loans to create small businesses -- and loans or grants to get more education and skill sets -- rather than income grants.
