JOBS,JOBS,WE NEED JOBS! IF THERE ISN`T ENOUGH JOBS,WHY NOT RECYCLE/SHARE THE JOBS THAT WE HAVE?

31 posts / 0 new

This thread is in respect to the progressive 1%. Progressive businesses why not work with Obama with tax breaks and unemployment benefits and start a rotating work schedule? Retate a time period for workers of on & off so all can work. This kind of cooperation should make for good feelings all around. Not to mention it would be more than good for the economy. A word for the "regressive 1%", wake up,you`re headed for a "cliff"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I'd add a guaranteed minimal income to that. First suggested by Dem. Presidential candidate McGovern many years ago...and later by the conservative economist Milton Friedman. It's the only thing Friedman ever proposed that made any sense.

However, the guaranteed minimal incomes proposed by both weren't high enough to maintain economic stability.

At a monastery, when everything is produced that is needed, we simply go on vacation until we need more stuff. Life goes on as before....with added leisure. In your world, that isn't so. You haven't learned how to do that.

Unemployment outside monastery walls is a time of hardship rather than one of joy. It needn't be that way.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You have roughly 6000 -10,000 people per day retiring starting in 2011, for the next 15-20 years. Put that strain on the SS and Medicade programs that Thom says are fully funded until 2037. Total B.S.

When the July monthly job numbers came out, and the Govt. was cheering 163,000 jobs created, you can quickly see how bad the Obama depression really is. The unemployment rate or that same period went UP.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

And the McCain and Romney jobs plans are what? With the entities that are sitting on money(rich and corporations) and not using it on jobs creation-the unemployment rate was going down how? Obama offered tax credits for hiring, but the monied want their home run-even lower taxes. Then maybe they would each hire an additional maid or driver. They are probably hoping for indentured servitude to come back. They don't care about the country-just their own personal gain at any expense.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:And the McCain and Romney jobs plans are what? With the entities that are sitting on money(rich and corporations) and not using it on jobs creation-the unemployment rate was going down how?

I could care less what McCain's plan is, and Romney is way too vague to know what his real plans are. So back to President Obama...

I am not rich, but I am incorporated. Yes, I am sitting on money. And yes, President Obama is the primary reason. I cannot spend money on new hires with so much uncertainty floating around. If President Obama is elected, I face his promised tax increase. If Obamacare is not repealed, I will have to stay under 50 employees and drop healthcare for the remainders. If Romney is elected, I still don't know what to expect because he is so vague about everything. Besides, Romney can't really do anything without a GOP Congress. In the mean time, there is no choice but to sit on the money and wait for stability.

Quote DynoDon:Obama offered tax credits for hiring, but the monied want their home run-even lower taxes. Then maybe they would each hire an additional maid or driver. They are probably hoping for indentured servitude to come back. They don't care about the country-just their own personal gain at any expense.

Seriously? A $5,000 one time credit for an employee that could cost hundreds of thousands over their tenure is hardly a carrot; it is just plain laughable. Excuse my ignoring the hyperbole while I go straight to the last point. What I do care about is this country. I care enough about this country to provide jobs for it. But I cannot provide jobs if I do not exist, and I cannot exist without personal gain. How many times have you been hired by someone with no money?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Pal,what do you think of the thread idea to put people to work?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The only viable grassroots 'industry' that can hire the poor, have them work for free, and then pay them in profit sharing is the Cannabis industry, where a little dirt and a little water can grow us food, building materials, clothing, medicince, Real Tea, and a Real Party at harvest time.

It's unfortunate that they keep arresting us. But then, if you can grow a million dollars, you sure don't need a bankster as a master.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote tayl44:

Pal,what do you think of the thread idea to put people to work?

It would accomplish the goal of putting more people to work, but it would have many undesirable consequences.

Instead of one person making a living wage, there would be two people in poverty.

The cost per 40 man hours would double, but the productivity would remain the same.

Profits would shrink, so taxes paid would shrink.

Poverty would grow, so Government outlays would grow.

In summary: Although the short term goal of increasing workers would be accomplished, the long term results would be lower tax revenues, higher deficits, and a diminished number of businesses to hire people. Therefore, the benefits of work sharing are limited.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, under current structures, that is so. However, with a guaranteed minimal income, it isn't.

The U.S. produces $160,000 per year for each family of 4...Working or not.$45,000 for each man, woman and baby.

It still produces that much "stuff"...it just doesn't have the means to distribute it.

Monasteries don't have that problem Everything produced gets distributed to those who require it. Youve never figured out a way to do that.

Ah...the joys of unemployment...a reward for a job well done (at least, in a monastery that's the case).

When we need ,more stuff...we go back to work, produce it and distribute it. Wearing a robe is the "money" ...the claim...to obtain it. One robe doesn't have a greater claim than any other. Of course, we don't have garages, storage sheds and rented storage space to store what we don't really need, . Our closets won't hold 50 pairs of shoes. Claims are minimal, yet very sufficient. If claims were higher, the joys of unemployment wouldn't be as frequent.

You use currency as money. Same thing, really...except some wear really large robes and others can barely cover themselves.

A successful economy is nothing more than the ability to produce what's required and the ability to distribute it to those requiring it. By that definiton, yours is an abysmal failure. It can produce what's required...and doesn't have the means to distribute what's required. That's going to become a rapidly increasing problem if you don't solve it.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

At the monastery what did you do if some one refused to work? Or when he did he was slower then everyone else?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

At the monastery what did you do if some one refused to work? Or when he did he was slower then everyone else?

Generally, one is assigned to what they do best and most enjoy doing...with each giving input as to their own personal skills and preferences. If someone works slower, they work slower. Not all have the same energy levels...the younger often having more than those who are older.

The problem isn't refusing to work. The problem is a person insisting on work when their health is no longer condusive to it. Retirement is encouraged...not demanded.

When there is a sense of community, a sense that we are all in this together, it seems that people want to participate in that. Contribute.

My primary assignment is to operate the greenhouse...grow seedling trees, shrubs, and edibles, etc. Something i've done since age ten. It's one of my greatest joys in life. It's done without interference. Ditto where they are planted.

Another prefers heavy physical activity and does extremely well at building things. He's in charge of construction/maintenance and thrives on it. No one interferes in his field of expertise. His buildings require no outside energy inputs for heating or cooling. Efficient use at the lowest original cost is the goal, not maxiumum profit. . Most of the material for the buildings comes from the dirt...from their foundations. The building inspector gives them a life expectancy of 1,500 years.

When he completes a new building...we throw a "party". Guess who has the twinkle of joy in their eyes.

Another established one of the nation's top corporations. Needless to say, he's in charge of our money-make ventures to generate funds for our "imports" from the outside. He thrives on it and beams from ear to ear when his successes are reported at our weekly meeting..

Another was a class 1 chef on the outside. Guess who the cook is...and who takes delight in serving up something particularly tasty and eye appealing.?

What happens under that system is that work isn't work...it's play. People usually enjoy playing.

Let the good times roll.

Currently I'm on an assignment I don't like....in mid-Missouri. I have a social interest in the assignment and the background most suited for it so I am somewhat enticed by it....and abhor the life-style that comes with it.

Poverty within a monastery is one thing. It isn't life-threatening. Poverty outside of it is quite another. It kills people. I've no doubt that a neighbor literally saved my life from a poverty induced problem. I have an interior conflict over this assignment.

The next assignment,., looking for a place to re-locate the monastery, I'll find fascinating.

Work some cringe at, others enjoy. I met a trash collector who loves collecting trash and getting rid of it! People who don't enjoy driving trash trucks and hauling stuff to the dump should probably do something else.

Most of the time, work at a monastery isn't work....it's play. Let the good times roll.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Paleo, if it is all this "uncertainty" about healthcare costs, Single Payer must sound like a great relief to the small businessman. Making the whole thing part of our social contract and general fund would mean that commerce could depend upon a healthy workforce without having to deal with all the paperwork or financial issues.

Second. The "uncertainty" is greater for those who fear losing access to affordable, such as it is, insurance than for you. Those wondering about paying their mortgages might have a higher anxiety issue going. If Conservatives want certainty for business, they could instruct the GOPimps in the House not to screw around with the Deficit Ceiling credit rating or cater to the Banksters instead of Real Business. Instead, blame Obama for being less than militant instead of blaming him for being too militant, or do both.

I don't think the answers to this economy come from within the "consensus." I think that is central to the problem, and the attempt to come to a bi-partisan compromise to resolve the uncertainty and agree on something is futile. Even if it results in something like Simpson-Bowles. Or the Sequestering club supposed to produce some agreement. All pure avoidance.

Most of the problems you state, Paleo, seem to come from the Right rather than the Left. David Korten has far more to offer you than Paul Ryan. Unless Obama stakes a far different economic course than the Summers, Rubin, Geitner disaster squad charted, you are likely to get a certainty with a conservative brand on it that you will come to despise. Unless you think Scrooge and Marley was doing fine until those liberal ghosts came around with their Tiny Tim Tears.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

If an able bodied individual did not want to work or spent most of his time loafing how is that handled?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

You would think business would like single payer since it would allow them to be more competitive with foreign companies who don't provide health insurance since their's is a national healthcare system. Detroit always used to complain that they had a $1500 per car cost disadvantage vs Japan because of health care costs.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Worker Bee, having read Poly's accounts of "vocation" in community and the delight and meaning people find in work that directly benefits others, how does that contrast with your own adopted handle of Labor Virtue as Worker Bee?

For most of us, this has an unfortunate "drone" image of dull labor in mindless devotion to the Queen or Boss. It is taken as a virtuous emblem of the "common man" against the "elite," and it does fulfill the required work to eat standard of self-sufficiency. But, at a cost to individuality and any sense of independent thought.

If you thought of a monastary as a hive, how would that change the Corporate Hive or the cog in the machine of "the State?" Poly puts a human face and heart on the work done by people who like using their skills and creating useful things for others. Seeing others find delight or utility is far more rewarding than the impersonal and transitional 'money' we value so highly.

Bees are quite happy in their nature and work together in utter loyalty and devotion. Human beings tend to have more individuality and a richer sense of relating than just doing our jobs. Poly says that it is not the work that is onerous if the "pay" is in those relationships. There is little jealousy when each is doing what comes from the heart and is fun to do for each. "Fun" may be too narrow, for there are those who are glad to do the chores in order to be human beings and recognized as such by those who would be stars in another world. A "worker bee" in such a community, it seems to me, would be invited into the Queen's court as a full being and not as a drone.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I understand what you are saying DRC but you are missing my point.

Do you believe that every single person in this country, without exception, takes "delight" and "meaning" from doing work that directly benefits others?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Of course they don't in this economy. Few get to. But, wherever I have seen people experience the value of their work, it has had a lot to do with why they care about doing the hard work that it takes to get that value experienced.

It is also the common thread of the successful small businesses and trades that I know. The people doing this work feel deeply about it. The shoe repair people know that mass marketing is making their trade rarer; but they also know that being able to repair a quality pair of shoes brings them into contact with artisanal quality instead of industrial trash. They point out the detail in the craftwork and admire the makers who care enough to do the best.

Same in musical shops where instruments are repaired. Or where people who love cooking enjoy seeing people get to eat what they cook. Food carts are popular with chefs because it allows people to afford to enjoy their work, even if the chef is making a lot less pay. The kind of vocational joy Poly is describing is possible in the real world, but it has to go up against the "economic man" reductionism where work is the drudgery curse one pays to eat. Even to eat caviar. It is still just slogging shitwork, not something one can believe in for itself. The justification becomes how much one is paid to do it. Even when one enters into the identity of long-distance slogger, or drone, it is still a joyless chore to win some vainglory satisfaction about conquest or effort expended to make the pain go away. I prefer the people who find joy in their work.

I do not prefer those who find joy in piracy or rape and pillage no matter how much they love their work.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

I understand what you are saying DRC but you are missing my point.

Do you believe that every single person in this country, without exception, takes "delight" and "meaning" from doing work that directly benefits others?

No, most of the banksters, and Wall Street crowd only derive delight and meaning from doing that which only benefits themselves, and actively work to defraud, and deceive.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote polycarp2:Well, under current structures, that is so. However, with a guaranteed minimal income, it isn't.

I guess it is fortunate for me that I only have to deal with what is real and not with what things could be if only...

We already know how guaranteed outcomes affect an economy. Greece, Spain, and Italy were nice enough to demonstrate it for us. You have a long standing habit of ignoring an important point about monastery life. It is voluntary and the members get to decide who can join. This can hardly be compared to the real world. Human nature would immediately make the minimal income framework collapse on itself.

Let us start with a plant that guarantees all its workers $45,000 a year. The workers that don't feel the need to work will immediately stop because they will be paid anyway. The workers that just work slowly will stop working when they see it as a viable option to working harder. The hard working productive employees will stop working out of resentment for the dead wood. Now enters the bribes and thugs needed to force a minimum quota to be filled for subpar useless product.

We have all seen this scenario play itself out in the USSR, Cambodia, China, and several European countries. So leaving what happens in a Monastery as an example of what happens in a private club, and not an open society, can you please reference a Government that has made guaranteed outcome a success? In the event no examples can be made, mayhap you would be so kind as to explain how the USA is different, and it would work here?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drc2:

Paleo, if it is all this "uncertainty" about healthcare costs, Single Payer must sound like a great relief to the small businessman. Making the whole thing part of our social contract and general fund would mean that commerce could depend upon a healthy workforce without having to deal with all the paperwork or financial issues.

No not really. Single payer just means the cost has been shifted from the individual to the tax payer. It does not mean healthcare becomes free. Whether I pay $2,000 a month per employee to an insurance company or the Government, I am still paying $2,000 a month per employee. There is no "relief"

Quote drc2:Most of the problems you state, Paleo, seem to come from the Right rather than the Left. David Korten has far more to offer you than Paul Ryan. Unless Obama stakes a far different economic course than the Summers, Rubin, Geitner disaster squad charted, you are likely to get a certainty with a conservative brand on it that you will come to despise. Unless you think Scrooge and Marley was doing fine until those liberal ghosts came around with their Tiny Tim Tears.

Well, DRC, I didn't mention any problems, I only stated results. "Results" means that something will happen; not something might happen. If you add 1+1 you get 2. If you cut yourself, you will bleed. If you stick your bare hand in a fire, you will get burned. I don't understand the mindset that transmutes results into left and right problems. Perhaps that old meme about every situation looking like a nail when all you have is a hammer is in play here. I would suggest that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and 1+1 just equals 2. There is no reason everything has to be made partisan.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Pal,you`re wrong,because you don`t see the concept behind the goal. The concept is "share",if you don`t want to share,stay on your express train to Judgement Day. If you want to share,a business can rotate a work crew every 6 months and the government can use unemployment benefits to cover the off work crew. Poly economic ideas is the adjustment all of humanity need to make. Pal,you and most capitalist owners are sitting on money created by the Fed in the taxpayers name,capitalism would be "HISTORY" without the bailouts! We really "OWN" you,it would be in your very "best interests" to adjust the system. P, remember the first law of nature,"self preservation"? When the self preservation of the rulers comes at the expense of the self preservation of the ruled,take a look at empire graveyard to who pay the price! "We die from greed" will be on the tombstone.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Worker, do you believe every single person in the world take delight and meaning in "working by themselfs and not benefiting others"?What point are you looking at?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote tayl44:Pal,you`re wrong,because you don`t see the concept behind the goal. The concept is "share",if you don`t want to share,stay on your express train to Judgement Day. If you want to share,a business can rotate a work crew every 6 months and the government can use unemployment benefits to cover the off work crew.

I do see the concept behind the goal. Putting more people to work is an admirable goal that I participate in every day. Sharing is a method, not a concept. Using sharing as a method for increasing employment comes with all the faults I mentioned. You even acknowledge one of them in your post. Take a look at this comment:"the government can use unemployment benefits to cover the off work crew." Where exactly do you think the government gets the money to cover the off work crew? Unemployment benefits are paid by the employer, not the government. The Government only distributes the money collected from the employer.

So thanks to your example, I hope you have a better understanding of how things work in the real world. Just like I said, the business would still be paying for two workers, but only getting productivity from one. In the long run, sharing a job only results in an out of business employer, lower tax revenues, and a higher deficit. This will happen regardless of how noble and "feel good" method is.

Having said that, I do have an example of work sharing that does seem to work. Id does not, however, follow your model. I have a contract position that is shared by a couple. Sometimes one of them works all week, sometimes the other works all week. They sometimes split a week and even a day. As long as the task get done, which they do, I could care less how they split the work load. Since this couple lives together and share living expenses, they live just fine from the single income. So as you can see, it is possible to accomplish the goal of job sharing without authoritarian methods.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Pal,you only read/understand part of the post. The people's government printed money to save capitalism,it can printed money to cover the rotate off time.Your idea is the same as mine but living expenses are shared(concept & method,what`s the difference?) Rotating workers doing the same work and same hours, how do that hurt business? I mention Poly economics of sustainablity,which is a good idea and the ultimate goal of replacing this bankrupt system. You see a man & wife sharing work and living expense,it shouldn`t be hard to imagine the "workforce" working the same. You might as well imagine the day when the workers will be the "owners". The slave was set free,sooner or later,the workers will be set free. Capitalists might as well start adjusting,the longer you wait,the more you have to lose. The people will not be rule by economic kings no more,they have prove their interests come first.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What we've found at the monastery is: it takes an average of two hours work a day to provide comfortable housing, suitable clothing, and a nutritious diet for everyone.

However, if we worked to support a few living in palaces, enough clothing to fill an averaged-sized home, and a collection of jewerly that would put a jewlery store to shame, it would probably take a lot more work than that. A few's share of what was produced wouldn't leave a whole lot left for those who actually produce the stuff.

Probably, with a better distribution system, most Americans could get by pretty well on a much-shortened work day. Afterall, the nation produces $160,000 worth of stuff annually for each family of 4. It's just a matter of getting the stuff to those actually requiring it in order to maintain a decent life. You've never figured out a way to do that.

A billion $ bonus translates into 50 million pairs of shoes, a billion loaves of bread, or 300 million gallons of milk. Probably slaughtering dairy cows because people can't afford the milk for their children is rather stupid. The national income can afford it...many people can't...working or not..

A successful economy is nothing more than producing what's required and distributing it to those requiring it. Monasteries can do that. You can't. What counter-productive thinking gets in the way of doing that?

Monks can have a decent life with 2 hours work a day. In your world, some can't have it with a 16 hour day. Do you know how absurd that seems to me?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote DynoDon:And the McCain and Romney jobs plans are what? With the entities that are sitting on money(rich and corporations) and not using it on jobs creation-the unemployment rate was going down how?

I could care less what McCain's plan is, and Romney is way too vague to know what his real plans are. So back to President Obama...

I am not rich, but I am incorporated. Yes, I am sitting on money. And yes, President Obama is the primary reason. I cannot spend money on new hires with so much uncertainty floating around. If President Obama is elected, I face his promised tax increase. If Obamacare is not repealed, I will have to stay under 50 employees and drop healthcare for the remainders. If Romney is elected, I still don't know what to expect because he is so vague about everything. Besides, Romney can't really do anything without a GOP Congress. In the mean time, there is no choice but to sit on the money and wait for stability.

Quote DynoDon:Obama offered tax credits for hiring, but the monied want their home run-even lower taxes. Then maybe they would each hire an additional maid or driver. They are probably hoping for indentured servitude to come back. They don't care about the country-just their own personal gain at any expense.

Seriously? A $5,000 one time credit for an employee that could cost hundreds of thousands over their tenure is hardly a carrot; it is just plain laughable. Excuse my ignoring the hyperbole while I go straight to the last point. What I do care about is this country. I care enough about this country to provide jobs for it. But I cannot provide jobs if I do not exist, and I cannot exist without personal gain. How many times have you been hired by someone with no money?

The old Phil Gramm tripe. The paradox in denying competition by keeping the competition without money, those job creators now without money that cannot any longer hire because they have no money cannot buy your own damn product, because they are without money.

Monopoly only has one winner, evryone else IS a loser-- without money. Monopoly ll would follow up on how the winner with tenants that can't afford rent, how does tthe winner survive. Hadn't thought of that, and why should you, winning is the only goal, the only purpose.

I forgot,, the winner owns community chest.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Poly and Doug, your posts were so good,it get no response from the opposition. They cannot respond because they use "logic from hell". They think they are God because of money,bellef in false idol's will corrupt logic.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Part of this discussion that interests me is the point/counterpoint about labor in a monastery. It is true that a monastery is self-selecting, but the point is deeper than that. It's not just that he wants to be there. A monk is working for and with people he knows. Very few Americans personally know who they are working for, except that they have a ruthlessly antagonistic relationship with whoever it is. Most Americans never see their coworkers except at the job. And most Americans have little or no reason to care about their employer's customers.

Then there was the challenge to name a country which successfully has a mandatory minimum income. The answer is the Netherlands. Where we have personal and dependent deductions, they have refundable credits equalling approximately $23,000 a year. Needless to say, if you want someone to work for you you have to pay more than $23,000 a year or you can turn off the lights. Surprise - employers pay rather than close shop. Actually, about 1/2 of European countries don't have minimum wage laws, they have mandatory collective bargaining. I can only assume that once the employees - rather than the employer - have the hammer they refrain from exorbitant demands, maybe because if they demand too much their neighbors and family members would not be able to afford the products they make? It's different when it's your brother-in-law and not some nameless "uh... people".

Small business conservatives are correct in knowing that a business is an organic structure - affect one part and you affect it all; throw it out of balance and it suffers and even dies. True, but it can also achieve a different equilibrium.

In the discussion there were two assumptions that I contest - 1, it is not a question of "paying an insurance company $2000 or paying the government $2000" it's paying the government $7000, paying an insurance company $12,000, or getting your lunch eaten by foreign competition because his workers are healthier, happier, and therefore more productive. and 2, you assume that the choice is between paying one person $x for 40 hours a week or paying 2 people $x a piece for only 20 hours a week each. For reasons you know better than I I suspect that you are probably correct that your total labor costs would rise, but double is not necessary or likely. Not only are businesses organic, societies are. The three causes of the present depression are housing costs, health insurance costs, and societal indoctrination to replace satisfaction with consumption. I'm 55 years old. From 10 to 35 I lived at roughly the poverty line - and saved money. I have never worked 250 days in a year in my life, and I could almost retire now without even needing Social Security. For a more meaningful example in the 1930's we went from a 60 to a 40 hour work week. Wages were cut proportionately, and everyone benefited. Apparently people thought that having a job and having supper before sundown were worth a little less pay.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

doh1304 wrote: Very few Americans personally know who they are working for, except that they have a ruthlessly antagonistic relationship with whoever it is. Most Americans never see their coworkers except at the job. And most Americans have little or no reason to care about their employer's customers.

poly replies: I agree with that. Most Americans have no stake in where they work...except for a paycheck. that can end at any time.

doh1304 wrote: For a more meaningful example in the 1930's we went from a 60 to a 40 hour work week. Wages were cut proportionately, and everyone benefited. Apparently people thought that having a job and having supper before sundown were worth a little less pay.

poly replies: The nation generates $160,000 per year for every family of four...working or not. You have a distribution problem, ....not a job problem.

You certainly don't have to further diminish individual shares out of that by sharing the work. The national production remains the same....$160,000 per year for every family of four even with reduced hours for work-sharing..

It's ideas on how things have to be, have to function, that get in the way of seeing the solutions.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Absolutely. We have allowed conservatives to pass free trade deals, eliminate unions and undo any efforts to democratize wealth or land. Now the system is crashing. Adopt German style labor laws, and expand the EITC to a monthly national dividend.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Doh,your post has a limited view of the forest,the forest being the capitalisted system. You say business is organic,what about people? A basic problem of using capitalism as a life style is its ignorance of the human condition.Another problem is the ruling class,but lets move forward. We have only one earth, everything is recycle to use again. We need an economic system that work like the earth,recycle everything that involve life sustainability. We fail to recycle,remember,we have only one earth! Poly, right on about the distribution problem. Phae, right on about adopting German labor laws and adding a safety net.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Rising Tide Only Lifts All Boats When Everyone Has a Boat.

President John F. Kennedy once said about economic development that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Kennedy was, of course, right, but he missed something really, really important: A rising tide lifts only lifts all boats when everyone has a boat.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system