Re: and when we're all rich, then what?

["Barry Brooks" <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Barry Brooks <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote,
> > on Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:26:56 -0500,
> >
> > The amount of work we do is a measure of how
> > primitive our society is.
>
> Dr. Bruce McFarling wrote,
>
> Not really, as if our society was truly
primitive,
> and occupying the prime real estate, not only
> would there be far fewer of us, but
>
> (a) each of us would be working fewer hours than
> the full time employed work and
>
> (b) each of us would have a better guarantee of
> the opportunity to engage in higher status
activity
> than is presently available to the unemployed
>
> Of course, there are far too many people on the
> face of the earth to survive in truly primitive
> conditions, but given that constraint,
addressing
> (a) by simply throwing people out of work and
> giving them a social dividend is failing to
> address (b).
>
> In a society in which the primary high status
> means for most people of increasing their income
> is to work for pay, it is a social
responsibility
> to provide all people with the *opportunity* to
> engage in socially recognized work for pay.
> Giving people the means to survive without
> working does not relieve that social
responsibility.
> Since the national government is, under our
> institutions, the only organization that can
> feasibly offer that guarantee, this is a
> responsibility of the national government.
>
>

I agree completely.

When I used "primitive" I was quoting my mother.
My version would not use the word primitive.  I
would say something like... Given two economies
equal except for a large difference in productive
technology, the group with the better technology
would work a lot less.  This assumes the
definition of better technology is a more labor
efficient technology. If we have a labor surplus
and a resource scarcity/limitation then a better
definition of better technology might be more
resource efficient.

I don't think it's possible or desirable to end
the work ethic, but wages aren't necessarily part
of that ethic.  What do you think about earn vs.
gift?  Perhaps our ethic should include an element
of both. We seem to forget the gift part when
talking about economics, even on Thanksgiving day.
Seeing our wealth as a gift could make unearned
income respectable, thus giving moral status to
the idle rich for the first time.  We could
properly justify the unearned income of capitalism
if we acknowledged that the free wealth of nature
(she can't be paid) and our inheritance are gifts.
Unearned income is more basic than wages.

The *opportunity* to work in socially recognized
work is highest among the idle rich who have the
highest rate of charity and volunteer work exactly
because they are not wage-slaves.  Lundberg has a
lot about this in his book, "The Rich and the
Super Rich."

"Women's work" comes to mind in this context. It
may be unpaid in wages, but it is a kind of work
that deserves equal or greater respect that we
give to "jobs."  Perhaps the men should go home to
help.  "Socially recognized" must not be confused
with work for pay.  Making jobs has justified
projects that are socially undesirable.  Just
because a job is paid work doesn't make it
worthwhile socially.

If wages are the only available income then yes
there is a responsibility to provide jobs.  But, I
propose ending that condition in order that we may
become resource efficient and sustainable.  I am
proposing an end to our wage dependence.  Do you
oppose the existence of the idle rich?  If not
perhaps you could be persuaded to support some
kind of variable unearned income for all citizens
with wages as a supplement.

The (adjustable) motivation for and status of work
will remain after the end of wage-slavery.  But,
must our ethic be completely utilitarian?  Is the
"good" just useful or productive?  Shouldn't we
respect and love the idle rich, the young, the
old, and the sick?  They don't "work."  Must
economics dominate ethics?  I would prefer to have
ethics dominate economics.

Barry