--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > 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.
How so? (Not challenging you, just not sure what you mean.) > > 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. Nope. But this was just a response to a comment on his blog. I suspect he goes into it in greater detail in his book; and presumably the feminist economist he mentions has worked it out as well. > > 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 don't know enough about it to take an informed position either way. I'm intutively dubious about "severing the link between work and income," though. <snip> > 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 where's the incentive to make that contribution? Would it work if it didn't motivate everyone in that situation to do so? What percentage of people would have to run with it? What's the maximum percentage of folks who chose to just sit back and collect that the system could sustain without collapsing? Right-wingers always grouse that the economic safety net we have now destroys incentive, but they focus on the folks who sit back rather than those who use it properly to climb out of poverty. What's the proportion of the two that's necessary to ensure the system doesn't become self-defeating? > 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. Sounds good to me. But it also sounds rather Utopian, as does Patel's approach. Both are up against huge entrenched economic and social and power structures and ways of thinking. It's refreshing to hear about possible alternatives, and obviously being able to envision them in the first place is a prerequisite to implementing these kinds of changes, but are they even remotely feasible in light of what exists now? Does it make sense to get all involved in contemplating how something so revolutionary would work if it takes time and energy away from doing what's currently possible around the edges?
