Re: Economic reform policy: Some views and proposals

["Barry Brooks" <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Davidson wrote:

> Full employment is DEFINED as all those people WILLING AND ABLE
> TO WORK AT THE GOING WAGE CAN FIND A JOB!
> It does not meean forcing people to work
> who want to stay home to be mothers, etc.-- or even forcing "the
> idle rich"!

I know about the standard definition.  I doesn't matter much since most
people are willing and able to work.  Full employment as we have known it
corresponds to a level of consumption that is unsustainable even without the
unwilling and the unable. (most services consume and pollute too)

Yes, we don't force people to work, but the reality is that most people are
wage dependent. And, as you know, the going wage is frequently so low that
mothers do have to work, even more than one job.  Maybe it's not forced
work, because there's always some desperate alternative.  Charity and
welfare are not much of a safety net for those who are unemployed. Partly
because of their belief in the need for full employment and the dignity of
work many people are basically against any safety net that would take the
pressure off of workers.



I'm not against putting pressure on people to work.  It's a question of how
much pressure.  I think that any form of GMI should be lowered when wages
rise.



One thing I was hoping you would respond to is why it is that welfare is so
bad when dividends are so good?  If democracy is so good why is economic
democracy so bad.  I know standard economics shies away from such questions,
but Keynes didn't shy away from deep questions, and you are post Keynes.  I
suspect that your interest includes a basic reconsideration of our economic
problems, but my poor presentation has distracted you.

> >If capitalism allows unearned income why can't that serve to distribute
> >wealth in an economy that has been automated?

> See the Woody Allen picture "Sleepers"..--)

Maybe I'll rent it.  I didn't get much from the reviews I read.  Maybe you
are saying that robots don't really work?  Machines, computers, and robots
do work, and they're getting better.  It's just a matter of how much human
labor, more or less, can be replaced, or how much we have to consume to keep
all the machines and all the human workers busy.


> >Isn't the "need" for full employment the reason we have
> plundered the world
> >for resources?
>
> NO!

With the ! in your reply I assume that you wouldn't even include the need
for full employment in a long list of reasons why we plundered the world.  I
find that odd.  You could persuade me that it's not the only reason, or that
it's not the main reason, but I will take more than your NO! to help me
understand what you think.  What's your theory?  Why did we plunder the
world?

> >Perhaps the 10 hour work week, or the 10 minute work week could be full
> >employment.
> As long as people want the products of industry -- then industry should
> produce these products under the entrepreneural system,


Forgetting about the artificially imposed consumer value system, and
assuming that peoples wants are reasonable, how much work would it take to
produce what people want if we reduced waste to low levels?  Don't you think
that a 40 hour week is a bit much with today's technology? (high labor
productivity)

> >Should we open cans all day to keep our can openers busy?
>
> That's why I suggest the employment be in the private sector as much as
> possible

That implies that the government waste is bad, but private waste is good.
Busy-work is a waste however it's structured.

Barry