Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 Tom
Thomas Lunde wrote: > > Tom Walker wrote: > > Consider that "those who are benefiting from the current system" are, > in a > sense, hostages of the current system. Consider that it is fear rather > than > privilege that is the problem and that it is *our* fear, not our > opponents' > that is the obstacle. > [snip] (1) Some of these "hostages" manage to escape: One reads in magazines stories of individuals who make a zillion dollars a year for a few years and then *split*. John and Suzie McBurgerflipper don't have this option. (2) Some of these "hostages" are having the time of their lives and have no wish to escape -- indeed, you'd probably kill them if you made them stop "working"! Also, isn't the excuse "I work so hard" a great cover for having the time of your life, while keeping others from trying to take it away from you (Who would want to cheat some guy out of a life of "all work and no play")? As Solzhenitsyn(sp?) wrote in The Gulag: If you find something, don't tell anybody. If you lose something don't tell anybody. (3) Given the choice between being a hostage under house arrest in a well provisioned castle (Watergate? Club Fed?), or being a free person in Dickinsean England (or non-union working class America), I think I'd choose the "prison", especially if it had at least a dial-up 14.4 internet connection so I could keep corresponding with all you good FurureWork folks, et al \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 Tom
Tom Walker wrote: Consider that "those who are benefiting from the current system" are, in asense, hostages of the current system. Consider that it is fear rather thanprivilege that is the problem and that it is *our* fear, not our opponents'that is the obstacle. Thomas What a beautiful insightful answer. I agree, that most of us are hostages to our current situation. I am to welfare, others are to their current employment, others to their resume and career path. I now leave you to develop an answer as to how we can address this generic fear. What phrase, what rationale, what benefit could we possibly devise that would allow others to see that this a gain for them - not a loss. And if there is to be a loss to that 5 or 10 percent who have the most - and their may not be - what argument could we make that would give us a positive response from the other 90 - 95%? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
At 08:43 AM 2/21/98 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: >We have the reasons, well documented. The hard question is do we have the will? I believe that we need not only the WILL but the MEANS. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that the MEANS may well be Direct Democracy: "a system of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws. " See www.npsnet.com/cdd/ for more details Colin Stark
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
In the "strongest" economy, even the cut-back benefit system creates enormous deficits for pubilic expenditure. So how do you envisage in our present economic structure a basic income? Eva > One practical reason for a basic income. Maintain effective demand in the > economy. Maintain purchasing power. Going to be hard to buy all that > output without access to purchasing power. > > arthur cordell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
We have the reasons, well documented. The hard question is do we have the will? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
Durant wrote: > > In the "strongest" economy, even the cut-back > benefit system creates enormous deficits for > pubilic expenditure. So how do you envisage > in our present economic structure a basic income? I wonder if we've seen any *strong economies* lately (except perhaps for Norway...). In the United States, I think the Vietnam War was the "straw that broke the camel's back", and that Lyndon Johnson might indeed have been able to implement his vision of a Great Society (with liberty and justice *and welfare* for all), *without* massive deficits, had not "Vietnam" defeated him. Also, someone can correct me on this: I seem to remember that *Richard Nixon* had some idea for implementing a guaranteed income > > > One practical reason for a basic income. Maintain effective demand in the > > economy. Maintain purchasing power. Going to be hard to buy all that > > output without access to purchasing power. > > > > arthur cordell This seems to me to be a serious issue, and the analogy that comes to mind is (obviously): feeding an addiction. Surely a large part of the reason why the work week has ceased to get shorter except for those who don't have steady work is that we are generating (I hesitate to say "producing", since it sounds like progress instead of just motion...) all sorts of things (like advertising, the automobile problematic, not to mention the arms race, etc.) that doesn't really contribute to satisfying human needs or autochthonous desires, but does provide a sink for labor and machine "output" (AKA source). What we have, in some ways, is a psycho-social "black hole". If part of the problem is separating income for work (which, as I said before, has long been solved for "the wealthy" -- all that is needed here is to treat welfare recipients like the spoiled brat kids of the rich get treated...), another part of the problem is separating production from return on investment --> to somehow break the addiction. When more profitable vices are discovered, the free market will promote them. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
At 01:29 PM 2/20/98 -1000, Jim Dator wrote: >The last series of interchanges have been the main reason I joined (and >have remained lurking) on Futurework. > >I just don't see that there are now enough needed jobs at sufficiently >high wages to give everyone (at least in the post-industrial world) a >living income. Many, perhaps most, people are currently kept employed not >for their labor, mental or manual, but for their purchasing power. But >easy and extensive consumer credit, with no expectation (or need) for pay >back is still necessary, but not enough. Maybe not, although since the world is more productive than it has ever been, my guess is that such a large proportion is going to the rich, the speculators, the drug dealers ... that may be the major reason for the phenomenon. The population increase certainly does not help and urgently needs attention, but the world's elite continue to press on regardless. >In my view, this is bad now, but will get much worse, and worldwide. I agree > >Separating "work" entirely from access to goods and services, and >permitting/enabling people to live meaningful, satisfied lives without >"working" seems one of the biggest challenges of the present, and >foreseable future. yes, at least in part >Trying to create more jobs is futile and degrading. yes -- and worse -- the more "jobs" we create the faster we degrade the earth's resources I muse that if all humans on earth were to "do nothing", simultaneously, for just 5 minutes, the earth would have a maximum chance to recover (all humans would die of asphyxiation). So perhaps, although we are literally incapable of "doing nothing", the optimum solution could yet lie in that direction ? Comments?? > >Is that what many of you have been saying in these last exchanges? Or >not? yes Colin Stark
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
At 03:34 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: >Tom Walker answered: > >If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern economy works." And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and produces more with less labour the costs to society increase. Therefore the current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income. Thank you for boiling it down > >I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system? Because! Because IT IS OBVIOUS! Just do it! Who cares about philosphical, hypothetical, theorizing? There are 3 answers -- plus a hypothetical question! Colin Stark
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Colin Stark wrote: > At 03:34 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: > >Tom Walker answered: > > > >If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change > because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern > economy works." And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is > borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and > produces more with less labour the costs to society increase. Therefore the > current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income. > > Thank you for boiling it down > > >I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what > philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to > the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system? > > Because! > > Because IT IS OBVIOUS! > > Just do it! > > Who cares about philosphical, hypothetical, theorizing? > > There are 3 answers -- plus a hypothetical question! > Colin-There are 17 registered political parties in B.C. As far as I know the Labour Welfare Party (PLWP96) is the only one which has the Robert Stanfield concept of the guaranteed annual income as part of its platform. Yet it considers itself as "left of left". You can contact LWP President William Kay, L.L.B. at 877-8051. William ran a slate of 9 candidates in the 1996 Vancouver election and did rather well. You might want him to be a guest speaker at your Canadians for Direct Democracy meetings. Let me know by private email how you fare with your call to LWP. FWP.
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
One practical reason for a basic income. Maintain effective demand in the economy. Maintain purchasing power. Going to be hard to buy all that output without access to purchasing power. arthur cordell On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Colin Stark wrote: > At 03:34 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: > >Tom Walker answered: > > > >If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change > because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern > economy works." And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is > borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and > produces more with less labour the costs to society increase. Therefore the > current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income. > > Thank you for boiling it down > > > > > >I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what > philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to > the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system? > > Because! > > Because IT IS OBVIOUS! > > Just do it! > > Who cares about philosphical, hypothetical, theorizing? > > > There are 3 answers -- plus a hypothetical question! > > > > Colin Stark > >
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
Tom Walker answered: I'd have a look at John Maurice Clark's writing on labour as an overheadcost (in his _Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs_). Thejustification is that a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way thata modern economy works. The wage system is a form of contract, not a fact ofnature. In the modern economy, the social costs of raising, sustaining, educatingand retiring the labour force far outweighs the marginal cost of each hourof work performed. Employers don't cut those social costs when they reducetheir workforce, they only shift the costs to the state, to other workersand other companies and to the unemployed themselves. When everyone tries toget in on the act of shifting costs, the entire burden falls on those leastable to shift *their* costs.A basic, guaranteed income is not a panacea and it won't solve all theproblems. But it is an important part of the solution (along with reducedstandard work time). As long as we don't see those parts of the solutionbeing seriously addressed by government, we can be sure that governments arenot even trying to solve the problem.Regards, Tom Walker Thomas If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern economy works." And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and produces more with less labour the costs to society increase. Therefore the current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income. I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system?
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
The last series of interchanges have been the main reason I joined (and have remained lurking) on Futurework. I just don't see that there are now enough needed jobs at sufficiently high wages to give everyone (at least in the post-industrial world) a living income. Many, perhaps most, people are currently kept employed not for their labor, mental or manual, but for their purchasing power. But easy and extensive consumer credit, with no expectation (or need) for pay back is still necessary, but not enough. In my view, this is bad now, but will get much worse, and worldwide. Separating "work" entirely from access to goods and services, and permitting/enabling people to live meaningful, satisfied lives without "working" seems one of the biggest challenges of the present, and foreseable future. Trying to create more jobs is futile and degrading. Is that what many of you have been saying in these last exchanges? Or not? On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Arthur Cordell wrote: > > > One practical reason for a basic income. Maintain effective demand in the > economy. Maintain purchasing power. Going to be hard to buy all that > output without access to purchasing power. > > arthur cordell > > > On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Colin Stark wrote: > > > At 03:34 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: > > >Tom Walker answered: > > > > > >If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change > > because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern > > economy works." And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is > > borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and > > produces more with less labour the costs to society increase. Therefore the > > current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income. > > > > Thank you for boiling it down > > > > > > > > > >I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what > > philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to > > the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system? > > > > Because! > > > > Because IT IS OBVIOUS! > > > > Just do it! > > > > Who cares about philosphical, hypothetical, theorizing? > > > > > > There are 3 answers -- plus a hypothetical question! > > > > > > > > Colin Stark > > > > > >
