Sorry I missed this one over the weekend. I think we are "on the same page."
The challenge is to "redefine profitablity" Who does it? How is it done? Where do the funds come from to pay for non-profitable "social" work? How are they distributed? arthur -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Arthur Cordell wrote: > Don't you think that at some point, at some time, there will be fewer > workers needed in a highly productive economy? What then? How do we get > income to those who are no longer employed? Shouldn't we begin to think > about the transition to a new, new economy. One where the production > problem is "solved." It is here where basic income can play an important > role. Even "in a highly productive economy", there is no shortage of work. There's a shortage of "profitable" work and an abundancy of "non-profitable" (but societally/environmentally necessary/beneficial) work. What's necessary to get the latter kinds of work done, is to re-define "profitability": From "producing consumerist junk" towards "improving society and environment" (such work includes both the blue-collar and white-collar level, e.g. environmental clean-up activities and R&D for cleaner technologies -- note that both kinds of jobs can't be automated). With a BI, however, you won't get that work done. On the contrary, you're wasting funds (mostly for consumerism) that would be needed to pay for the necessary but "non-profitable" work. The BI prospect is pretty hopeless, both from an individual and societal perspective. An example: Say, we have $1.2 billion and a county of 1 million people, with a destitute public transportation system. (a) You give a general BI of $100/month to everyone. Most people will spend that on gasoline for unnecessary car travel, or on consumerism junk. After 1 year, all the money is gone. (b) I spend $1 billion to upgrade the public transportation system (new railway wagons, high frequencies, hiring good personnel) and the other $200 million for welfare for the few who really need it. After 1 year (and much longer!), all people have a good transportation service (possibly for free), there's less pollution from car traffic, and many people have a useful job in PT. I think solution (b) is much better. In solution (a), you can guess what's the probability that some people will take the initiative and build up a good public transportation system with the $100 BI they got. In the best case, some will write a poem for Thomas Lunde. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
