Parenting and a Living Income Guaranteed

How does the lack of parental economic support affect our societies? How would Parenting change in a society where our basic needs are guaranteed as a Human Right? What effects will securing the livelihood of mothers and fathers bring to our society at large? What needs to change in society and economics to make parenting a successful and satisfying part of our lives and those of our children?

Join us in our discussion with Equal Life Foundation’s very own Leila Zamora Moreno & Gian Robberts, sharing their perspectives and experiences thus far in relation to parenting and how we can change the ways it is lived to build a world that is best for all.
You are welcome to place comments and questions for Leila & Gian in the comment section of this video.

Hosted by: Marlen Vargas Del Razo

Read More

Politics? Fun?? Have you Lost your Mind?!

One of the reasons it is so hard to push for substantial change is that – the way to do that is through politics – and trying to get people engaged and passionate about politics is not an easy feat. Just ask yourself – apart from the sentence I just wrote – when last did you hear the words ‘politics’ and ‘passionate’ in the same sentence together? It seems the two are each others' opposites. I imagine the following is actually how some people have defined politics in their minds’ dictionary:

“Politics: I don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s boring and I want nothing to do with it”

So – for those who ‘get’ that politics is probably quite important, but just can’t get themselves to read the newspapers for fear that you might die of boredom, I have good news. There is a show called ‘Last Week Tonight’ hosted by John Oliver, which may be just what you need. It’s a very funny show – sometimes bordering to, or just plainly grotesque, so breathe through those parts if it’s not your style. As with everything, you have to use your own common sense in relation to what is being presented. Yet, overall it’s really entertaining and while you’re being entertained, you’ll simultaneously be introduced to various different topics and problems on the world’s political agenda. You might actually learn more from watching this show than from reading the newspaper…

Seriously, watch it.



And if you have any suggestions for funny educational shows - share it with us in a comment!

Read More

Day 263: Campus Education vs. E-learning - My Verdict

With a rising amount of online tertiary courses being developed and made available, a debate has started about whether online education can guarantee the same quality tertiary education that a student would receive when attending a campus college. (See: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/can-online-courses-replace-campus-education/)

Anant Agarwal - the CEO of edX, a joint partnership between MIT and Harvard University that offers free online learning - sees the benefits of recording lectures and then making them available to a large amount of students. He says: "Of 155,000 students that took the course, about 5 percent passed the course and earned a certificate. So that was about 7,200. That is a big number. If I were to teach on campus twice a year, both in the spring and fall semesters, I would have to teach for about 40 years before I could teach 7,200 students."

On the other side of the table,  you have arguments such as the one formulated by Shyam Sharma from Stony Brook University: "In our discipline, the objective of students learning is not to basically learn the content of the discipline, but instead to use the content as a context to engage in intellectual discussions, to develop their positions, intellectual positions, to debate and argue and develop critical thinking skills. And that oftentimes requires the expertise and guidance and mentoring and close connection, one-on-one support to the students."

Having had the 'pleasure' of receiving tertiary education in a classroom on a campus as well as through online courses, with some subjects being the same, let me share my perspective.

Comparing the content-material of the subjects I took both at the campus college and through the online course - I can say it was largely the same. So, from that perspective, the 'quality' of the online course was no different than that of the campus college. Differences were mainly due to the fact that I attended the campus college in Europe and the online education in Africa, so case-studies and examples were local and therefore quite different. Considering that the core content was the same, which did I prefer? If I have to choose between sitting in a classroom with hundreds of other students where the professor is standing at the bottom with a microphone, or comfortably sitting at home and going through the material at my own pace, I have to say the latter is my preference. Video lectures can be paused and re-winded so a student can make sure he/she hears all the information. This luxury doesn't exist in a classroom, where one can get distracted by other students, or simply miss information as one is splitting one's concentration between hearing what the professor is sharing and writing it down simultaneously.

To attend classes I had to either travel from my home town to the campus each day, spending time and money to be able to sit in the class room, where most of the time I had to hear the professor repeat what was already explained in the textbooks - or I needed to rent a room on campus/close to the campus to not waste the time traveling between home and campus - but this obviously came at the extra cost of paying rent. It was the fact that 'the professor might share information that is not already covered in my books' that required me to attend, in order to make sure I had all the material necessary to prepare myself for assignments and exams. I didn't find that for the subjects that I took in both scenarios - which were largely theoretical - that I gained anything from sitting in the class room - the amount of students that attended the course were plentiful, not really allowing for any one-on-one support in any case. For some subjects I was sitting in a room with a thousand other students. Rather then, make one lecture that can be used by many universities - and professors can add their own insights, examples, exercises and notes to provide their personal touch. This was exactly the format that was used in my online education.

Now, there were subjects I attended on the campus college that were very different in nature from the ones I attended online, where the focus of the subjects was to develop practical skills such as working in teams, making presentations, going out in the field, interviewing people, etc. For such subjects where you require to produce and present a project through team-work, there are benefits to physically sitting in the same room and having a personal relationship with your co-students. It is in these instances that I would say it is worthwhile having an actual campus with professors assisting students to develop these skills.

When it comes to 'developing critical thinking skills' as an argument for class-attendance - I have to disagree. Critical thinking should be a focus in primary and secondary education. If a person is supported from an early age to develop a clear vocabulary and to develop common sense, then whether one is at home going through material or sitting in a class room - one can view the material in a critical manner either way. Online platforms such as forums can be utilized for students to exchange views on subject material as well. I personally engaged critically with all the material I was presented with throughout my online education, of which the Economist's Journey to Life blog is a clear testimony.

So, I believe that campus college education has been romanticized and been given more credit than it actually deserves. A large part of college and university courses can be provided online. This would reduce the cost of the education and make it accessible to a larger audience. Why have professors - experts in a certain field - spend their time every year giving the same lectures over and over again - when they could record it once and then make it available to students to watch at home? Surely, humanity would benefit if professors were able to dedicate a larger portion of their time on research and developing solutions to current problems? Reducing the cost of tertiary education, more students could afford it and avoid the trap of student loan debts. Some degrees can then be followed online entirely, whereas for others a mix would be optimal, to have some subjects/courses online and have classes in education centers/on campuses for practical skill development.

Read More

Day 261: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt2

I ended off the previous blog with the following:

"Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence"

Let's start with discussing the first problem.

Education

In principle, everyone seems to agree that the people should rule together - there is an undeniable sense of moral rightness within this - society should together lay down the laws by which it will organize itself and together give direction to their shared environment through public policy - simply because - we are all, individually yet together, a part of a certain society and there is no acceptable justification to exclude any free citizen from this process. In practice, however, Plato's argument still holds strong. "The people are too easily swayed by emotion"; "the people cannot see the bigger picture"; "the people don't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of politics, economics, ecology, law, you name it". There is of course truth in this argument - however, it is not one that cannot be overcome.

Plato lived in the 4th and 5th century BC - so that's about 25 centuries ago - and still, we have not seriously attempted to overcome this problem in order to uplift our political system to the principle it morally requires to ascribe to. What have we been doing for these 25 centuries? Is it so hard to find a way to empower individuals so that they may be capable of critical thinking that in the last 25 centuries we didn't manage to come up with one? Or is it just that we haven't actually tried and rather gave up before having started because it is more convenient that way, at least for those individuals that currently do have the capacity of influencing decision making.

So - let's create a profile of the 'type' of citizen that would have the intellectual capacity of participating in political life.

We can imagine such a person:
- Having a rich vocabulary that enables him/her to participate in discussions in the political arena; big and difficult words are not seen as big and difficult for this person, they are words with a meaning
- Being relatively emotionally stable in that emotions/feelings do not play a decisive role in this person's decision making process
- Being interested in and informed in terms of current affairs

The points listed above refer to a person having political capital. So - what makes one person have political capital and another person not? How can such capital be developed and how can we facilitate the development of political capital within individuals in order to eradicate the education-problem standing in the way of manifesting a real democracy?

Which is one of the main variables that determines the richness of one's vocabulary?

SES.

'SES' is something you'll often see in sociological and psychological scientific research, because it determines almost Everything about a person's development, and place in society. 'SES' stands for socioeconomic status and formally refers to the income, job and education level of the parents. "Fifty years of research has revealed the sad truth that the children of lower-income, less-educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts. By some measures, 5-year-old children of lower socioeconomic status score more than two years behind on standardized language development tests by the time they enter school."

Now - which is one of the main variables that determines emotional intelligence?

SES!

According to research: "High socioeconomic [students] are found to be more responsible, better able to make intelligent decisions using a healthy balance of emotions and reason, better able to focus on task at hand and pay attention. They have more control over their feelings as compared to low socioeconomic status students."

Starting to see a pattern here...

What makes a person interested in current affairs in such a way that they actually read the news and keep abreast of developments in the region/nation/world?

That question refers back to the first point of vocabulary; one of the main reason why people don't watch the news is because they don't understand the vocabulary involved, which brings us back to SES.
Secondly - many individuals do not understand the importance of watching the news in terms of how it affects them or do not see how them being informed about problems would increase the likelihood for the problem to be solved. This is a cultural point that is largely created through the very representative system of democracy we have today - where individual citizens simply do not see how their voice, how their views would make any difference. It is someone else's responsibility to come up with a solution, so why even bother getting informed? So - this particular problem that is preventing the development of political capital is the very political system in place today and can thus not be seen as a reason or argument for not changing it.

Political capital, like any form of capital, requires investment to grow and develop. Seeing that socioeconomic status is one of the main determining factors of the development of such political capital within individuals - and seeing that this political capital is a necessity to enable people to rule their country in terms of the principle of democracy we all seem to agree is best for everyone - it becomes clear that the 'problem' of education is not insurmountable - it only requires us to do a simple thing: Invest in the people!

And this is exactly what an implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed would do: ensure that each one has a dignified income, in other words - ensuring there are no more individuals with 'low' socioeconomic status in society. In seeing to what extent one's socioeconomic status affects one's abilities, one's opportunities, one's power to affect change, why would we allow anyone to have a 'low' socioeconomic status? We surely wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our own children - instead, we (would) want to give them the best possible nurturing grounds - and so - this courtesy, we should extend to all in society.

Anyone who calls themselves a Democrat but allows a representative system of democracy is a hypocrite, if they do not at the same time support a proposal such as the Living Income Guaranteed that would solve the conundrum of allowing the people to rule directly when currently individuals may not have sufficient political capital to do so. It is not acceptable to make such an assertion and then leave it at that - compromising for centuries on a principle that can be lived for real through a simple correction in how we value Life and substantiate it through real action.

To be continued.



Sources:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1103/017_16199ns1103_114_119.pdf

Read More

Day 260: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt1

Democracy - derived from the Greek words 'demos' (the people) and 'kratia' (power, rule) - refers in its most basic sense to 'rule by the people'. Currently the term holds a very positive connotation - it has been generally agreed upon in the Western/developed world that democracy is the only legitimate form of government.

There have been great efforts made by the West, through the IMF and the World Bank to 'encourage' other nations to adopt democratic practices. This was easy for especially the developing nations that called on the IMF and World Bank for financial support. All these institutions needed to do was: making 'democratization' a condition for the provision of financial support - and *woops* - we suddenly speak of 'waves of democratization' as though everyone has 'seen the light'.

Anyhow - most people will agree that democracy is the most legitimate way of ruling, because it allows for the highest degree of freedom for the individual.

In Ancient Greece it was a contested issue. The renowned philosopher, Plato, was against democracy and advocated rule by the wisest among society, the philosopher-kings (how convenient of you, Plato). He argued that most people have no business being part of the political process, because they don't have the required knowledge, insight or understanding for it.

Although not explicitly, we have been aligning to Plato's philosophy by no longer allowing each and every citizen to vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right, but instead working with a system of representative democracy, where we elect individuals that are seemingly more equipped to make such decisions on our behalf.

Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence

We'll continue this discussion in the next blog.

Read More

Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice

This blog post is a continuation to:

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Substantive Justice as part of Legal Justice has to do with the rules as laws are just or not. Here, what is specifically understood as 'just' is: are 'dues' specified in a just way. In other words - does the law specify who gets rewards and who gets punishment in a just way?

Obviously - this is again very concerning, because that would indicate that we have already as a society and as a humanity accepted that justice is maintained through handing out punishments and rewards. And where does this acceptance and allowance come from? From the time when we were children, where we were treated with this warped concept of 'Justice' by our parents. But why do parents punish and reward their children to, apparently, 'educate' them into becoming 'good people'? Do parents really try to assist the children in being the best and most honorable version of themselves - or are they actually just molding them in order to fit in in society and be able to survive in the current system? The current system where, if one has any actual consideration  for another, it will stand in your way of being successful - because to be successful requires of a person to not care of the consequences of one's actions in the current economic system.

Ultimately - why parents punish and reward is to encourage certain kinds of behavior and discourage other kinds of behavior. When a child throws a tantrum - the parent punishes to make the behavior stop. But does that assist the child? Does the child gain any understanding of the experience that they just went through? Obviously not and the reason why this is not happening is because parents themselves don't understand where they own anger comes from, where there own thoughts come from and how they accumulate energy within themselves until the culmination point reaches the point of no longer being able to suppress it and then it all just comes out. Parents cannot educate their children, because they have not done this research for themselves and have not assisted themselves to work through these experiences. And they never have because no-one ever assisted or educated them to be able to do this. And so the cycle has always continued - where children, generation after generation, are being controlled through manipulation as punishment and reward - learning to suppress what the parents have labelled as 'bad' and trying to present what the parents have labelled as 'good'. But no actual change takes place -the child is the same child, but has just learned how to blend in in order to avoid punishment and attract reward. So - the child is not a more honorable child because it has now been conditioned to act a certain way. Being an honorable person, a person with integrity, is not a consequence of conditioning, it is a consequence of consideration and understanding. So long as those points are not present, then we cannot speak of honor or integrity.

And the same principle is being applied in the Justice system - showing that the justice system still hasn't grasped the concept of Justice. A just society - is that a society in which human beings have been conditioned to tolerate each other to the highest degree possible - or is it a society in which each human has actual and real consideration for each other human? Those are two entirely different societies - so why are we settling for the one where Justice is but a mirage, an illusion, a projection and a farce?

For real justice to take place, any behavior that causes harm in a society should be addressed in the form of having the abuser go through a process of education and self-introspection, assisted by professional psychologists, to trace back the origin of their behaviors and being shown how this behavior can be corrected. I mean - how else are we expecting to change our society if we do not address the origin of the behavior that we see as problematic. Trying to 'keep a lid' on things is part of why outbursts take place - and so, our educational paradigm that forms the basis of our justice system is a very big part of the problem we face today, where crime is soaring, where people can barely tolerate each other, where hate speech runs rampant, where bickering is a daily sport, where wars of all kinds are so common that we've numbed ourselves to the news coverage images.

The very fact that the word 'Substantive' as in 'Substantive Justice' is used to denote the practice of punishing and rewarding as a means of managing and controlling human behavior already shows a contradictio in terminis.  Because nothing substantial is going on within it - in fact, it's all about upholding a make-belief idea of justice - a justice that does not actually care about creating the just society, a society of integrity and honor in each living being towards themselves and every other being - but a justice that protects the interests of the few - those who can afford them being protected.

To substantially change the fabric of society, we require to first pay attention to the substance of ourselves. To continue utilizing 'human nature' for the existence of system of control is unacceptable. We can change our nature, we can change our substance, and so - change our society to one that doesn't require us to use the carrot and the stick approach. We claim to be so great, to have created 'civilization', to push for scientific progress, to place a man on the moon - but when it comes to our own nature -the one thing that we are truly responsible for - we're suddenly incapable of changing it, too limited to put our own affairs in order? How can that be rationalized?

Related articles

• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 389: The Policeman in the Head that Raises our Children
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Dag 113: A Family Tree of Judgments
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• 347. How to Become the Change in this World? Equal Money
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money

Read More

Day 210: New Sin Tax on Sugar Introduced!

Yes - finally - after years of raising sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol - governments have started seeing that the most harmful substance was still rampantly being consumed, a substance that not only influences and damages the health of adults and teenagers - but of children too. Governments are finally raising a sin tax on any products that contain Sugar - and with Sugar is not meant Sucrose, but fructose specifically - as this is the harmful substance that acts like a poison inside the human body and causes a whole range of diseases.

Finally!!

In making sugar more expensive, we're creating incentive for people to look at what they eat and rather buy sugar-free products. So - that when you go to a fast food restaurant, a salad will not be the most expensive item on the menu, but the cheapest. And so will it be in any other restaurant and in any shop and in any market. This means that so much money will be saved on treating the consequences of excessive sugar consumption - in essence, preventing the disease before it manifests.

Finally...

Yeah...

Wouldn't that be great - to open up your newspaper and see something like this being printed? I suppose sugar and disease are both just too lucrative to be taken on and reigned in. What kind of economic system do we live in if we cannot make these kinds of obvious decisions, just because it would 'cost the economy too much' - what is the use of an economy if the people in it aren't supported by it? Where, now - people are obese and have chronic illnesses such as diabetes just because our diets are determined by what's affordable - and what's affordable is a cheeseburger. And a cheeseburger is full of high fructose corn syrup - and that will slowly kill you.

I suggest all governments implements a sin tax on Fructose to Prove that they Care about the well being of the citizens in the country. And I suggest that if such a sin tax would come at a great cost in terms of industries being hit and jobs being lost - that the economic system in itself is redesigned so that a decision that is made to support life on the one hand does not require a trade off where life is harmed on the other hand. That's just basic common sense. For suggestions on such economic systems, visit www.equalmoney.org and http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/p/emc.html.

Related articles

• Day 209: Health Care or Disease Care?
• Day 311: The Secret to Self-Realisation
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 321: Image and Likeness of God
• Day 198: Why are Parents feeding their babies Mashed CheeseBurgers?
• Day 183: Anorexia - Lifestyle or Disease?
• Day 186: The Invisible Hand is Invisible because it Doesn't Exist - Equal Money Capitalism and Providing Results that are Best for All
• Day 322: The Image and Likeness of Slaves
• Day 333: The Jesus Message is Not a Religious Message
• Day 203: Pupils Need to Instruct a Minister on How to do a Proper Job?

Read More

Day 203: The Mockery of Democracy Continues - Dead People Voting in Zimbabwe

"Two thirds of the six-million voters on the roll are dead," said Biti, discussing irregularities with the crucial list.

"But unfortunately those four million who are dead have had a tendency to resurrect on election day."



(Source: http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-09-mdc-two-thirds-of-voters-on-zim-voters-roll-are-dead)


LOL! And this is why democracy without equal economic power is absolutely meaningless. Economic power is the only power that counts, because if you have money, you can control and manipulate everything and everyone - to the point where you can be voted back into power by 4 million dead people.

A political system where each one is assumed to be equal is meaningless if that equality is not solidified through ensuring equal economic power. Allowing inequality in the economy makes democracy a true mockery - a play - a show - to keep up appearances of our apparent 'caring' nature. It is done to appease the masses and suppress guilt. Whose guilt? Of those in power? Not really - as it is unlikely they have a conscience. But of us - we who see the crimes being committed in the name of profit - and do nothing, say nothing and tell ourselves things may get better with the next vote.

And yet we know nothing will change with the next vote because no policy so far has proposed to equalize economic power. Equality has become a fancy word that is being thrown around as though that is what Jesus intended us to do with his message - to preach it but not live it.

There is a reason the Jesus message is being taught to children in school - because it is how we would want our children to be - to grow up to be honorable people, caring people - and yet, except from telling them stories, we do nothing to be honorable and caring ourselves - to lead them by example - to show them what the Jesus message means and how we organize our society in alignment with these honorable principles.

We have nothing to show for ourselves and so every parent must be prepared to disappoint their child when they ask one day why there are children that don't have food, or why some people don't have a house, or why some don't know how to read. Can you then look your child in the eye and say 'I'm doing everything I can to change that' - or will you just deflect your gaze, sigh and say 'it's complicated'.

The thing is, it's not that complicated - you can read up on the simple solutions of Equal Money Capitalism at http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/p/emc.html.

Related articles

• 323.Hegemony and Equal Money Capitalism
• 324. Democracy and Equal Money Capitalism
• 325. Public Good in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 178: Zuma says to benefactors: "Everything you touch will multiply" - EMC will End Corruption
• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 201: The Power of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 198: Why are Parents feeding their babies Mashed CheeseBurgers?

For the full article, please go to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285889/Cash-strapped-mum-pureed-CHEESEBURGERS-child-didnt-know-cook.html 

“A mother totally ill-equipped for parenthood has approached the authorities for help after admitting she feeds her baby pureed cheeseburgers because she cannot cook.”

“Significant numbers of youngsters also arrive at primary school not toilet trained and cannot even use a knife and fork, according the Child Poverty Commission.

Many of these households say they are too poor to buy items like fruit and vegetables as costs continue to rocket, but the truth is far too many cannot cook at all, family support groups say.“

“Independent child poverty expert Michelle Kennedy, who chairs the commission, admitted she 'gulped' out loud after hearing the claims.

Another woman who was given a carrot also admitted she had no idea what it was, she said“

It’s interesting how when we are faced with people/parents who are unable to feed their children properly either due to a lack of money or education (which is kind of the same since education and money are closely tied), that we have to *gasp* or *gulp* and are all shocked at this ‘inconceivable’ notion. We then go about judging the parents as being inadequate and evil for doing this to their children – but we never ask: how did this come about? After all, we are living in a society, as a group of people. When there are people who are unable to feed their children adequately due to insufficient funds, education and cooking skills – then this does not reflect badly only on the parents – but on society as a whole. In the end, we as a society are what shape and pattern human beings that come into this world, and if the end result of that shaping and patterning is a human with no education, no money and no cooking skills – then obviously there is a problem at the core as society.

When I went to school, we received zero attention with regards to cooking, nutrition or how to deal with children. Sure, maybe when I was 5 we once made French toast with sugar – but this is hardly something to base your cooking foundation on as a possible future parent.

There were some directions you could take within high school that had cooking and nutrition modules – but these were looked upon as ‘low’ and ‘last resort’ type of educational curriculum. I studied Latin at that time and this was considered to be the curriculum to take if you plan on going to university and become like a doctor or whatever else would be a ‘high status’ job with a big income stream. I mostly got taught theoretical subjects with zero relevance to the life I was living and had basically no use for it in my everyday life – all it was about was setting myself up in a job to make good money. In the meantime, those who were going for a direction that was practical in nature like cooking, like nutrition, like technology and handy-work type of things – things that are actually important and foundational to living life on Earth – were looked down upon like they were scum.

I mean, it’s all pretty much in reverse because you can only allow yourself to indulge in the theoretical once you’re practical has been established. We are looking down upon life essential skills because ‘there’s no money in it’ and have completely lost perspective of what is important in Life – yes that’s right LIFE is important in LIFE.

Within Equal Money Capitalism, the money point will immediately be sorted out – since employment is a basic right and thus income is a basic right and guaranteed. One would thus be able to purchase nutritious food for oneself and one’s children.

In terms of education as cooking skills and nutritional information – this will become part of a child’s and youngsters’ curriculum. Food and eating is something we do every day – without it we die, as such it should take in an essential position within one’s education.

As a result, people will be able to feed themselves and their children properly – where even within just the parents being prepared, the children will get acquainted with food, nutrition and cooking in the home environment from an early stage. Children will be well fed, which will support their physical and mental development which in turn assists in achieving their utmost potential in life – where manifestations such as malnutrition will be eliminated as a limitation in life.

Read More

Day 189: Will your Level of Education Determine your Income in EMC?

This blog post is in relation to a comment placed on one of our previous blog-posts - you can check out the full comment at http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/02/day-188-simple-solutions-in-equal-money.html

~ Since I am the one who made the comment, I will rebuttal your response also.
First you are comparing green apples to red and saying they are worth the same at the register, which I tend to agree with. But, my comment was based more on someone that had 4 yrs of college or previous experience to someone who dropped out of high school.

We can not dismiss the expense of a higher education, or the value of years of previous experience, by paying say a gas station attendant of fast food server the same as the doctor or technician you spoke of. Indeed a doctor or technician, and even a plumber, electrician, or carpenter are needed just as much in today’s society.

Understand that within Equal Money Capitalism – education will no longer be a point of ‘investment’ from which you are expecting ‘returns’. This is one’s approach currently as the result of our environment which promotes competition and profit for the sake of self-interest where it’s ‘each one on his own’ – and is in essence an approach based within survivalism. There’s not enough jobs for everyone to go around with, and so people chose an education and career according to the prospect of money linked to that education/career. This is not a real decision/choice made within the consideration of one’s passions and interest – but based on a fear of not making it within this world and ending up with nothing. People who’ve currently  gone through a process of education and spent a lot of money and work getting there experience a sense of entitlement towards ‘getting a good pay’ – but only because they have experienced the process they went through as being an unpleasant one. If it wasn’t for the reward as ‘a good pay’ – these people wouldn’t have made the same education and career choices. Studying and working for an extended period of time to do a job you love and care about will be the reward itself. Within that, you are not going to be comparing yourself with what other people are doing and what process they went through – because what you are doing and the decisions you have made are merely the common sense outflows/results of your passion and what it is you like to do within Life. So, you’re not going to receive extra compensation for your perceived suffering, because you will not be going through a process of suffering. One’s approach towards education and careers will thus change completely.

In terms of financial investment, education is a basic human right, and thus will be provided by the government through tax-monies. In other words – you won’t have to pay for it specifically, because it is part of the ‘package’ you receive as part of your basic rights within developing yourself to your utmost potential. So – here, again, you will not be spending more money on an education for a doctor or any other type of education – so, here, again – there will not be a sense of ‘deserving’ a higher pay because one spent more money on study fees or study loans.

But there again we can very well pay someone who just started in the trade and has little knowledge or skills, the same as someone who as invested several years into learning and refining their trade. There are different values to ones experience within their chosen specialty, A company cannot afford to pay the unskilled as much because they aren’t capable of doing the job themselves.

Within Equal Money Capitalism the only value worth valuing is Life. It’s not about who can do what job or who went through what process of Education – it’s merely a point of you are here, you are alive and thus you will be supported to remain Life. The idea that a company cannot afford to pay the unskilled is merely the outflow of having polarized wages. Where those who are considered having a ‘special position’ receive way larger sums of income than those who are considered to be within an ‘average’ work position. Once this polarization is out of the way – there will be enough money to go around to reach everyone. Realise also that within the context of an Equal Money Capitalistic System – there will be no such thing as ‘an unskilled worker’.  Once one has completed one’s primary education,  a person will be multi-skilled and capable of a multitude of tasks due to the broad spectrum of education that will be in place.

If you start demanding that all employees and people are paid the same, then what happens is the less experienced workers begin to loose there jobs and their job opportunities as employers begin to limit their hiring to only skilled and experienced candidates. This creating a less people with experience because they can’t get any, and higher demands on the fortunate few who are working. Not to mention higher costs and shorter supplies of said products.

This will not be the case because in terms of equalizing wages – you will still end up with the same amount of costs in terms of paying out wages (if not less) – and as such there should be no reason why one would hire someone whose “overqualified” so to speak to do a job that someone who is less skilled can do at the same level of effectiveness. In addition, the labour market will not operate according to supply and demand. Providing employment forms part of a company’s social corporate responsibility. And decision-making such as you’ve outlined above would be considered unethical. Whenever a person no longer requires to perform a particular job within a company, the company is responsible to provide it with a different task. For companies to just take away a person’s income, which is a person’s lifeline is unacceptable. With such principles in place, it will be in the company’s best interest to ensure that each worker is trained to the best of their ability and to make appropriate matches between a person’s skill-set and their role in the company.

Read More

Day 185: Students feel fee squeeze

“More matriculants than ever are seeking to enter the tertiary fold owing to an increasing matric pass rate. The pass rate has increased from 60.6% in 2009 to 73.9% for the class of 2012.
The percentage of students who quality for bachelor studies have also increased over the past five years, from 20.1% in 2008 to 26.6% in 2012.
But as university costs increase above inflation every year, students will need deep pockets before they can put on their graduation gowns.
At the University of Cape Town, the average bachelor of commerce degree has increased by about 40% over the past four years.”

“According to Gouws, if your child is born today, you will need to start saving R1 500 a months now for public schooling and a three-year degree and increase that annually to match inflation”.

- Mamello Masote, Money & Careers - Sunday Times, February 3, 2013

If you take into consideration median wage (not the average wage – which stands at about R 16 586 - since income is so unevenly distributed where the bottom 50% takes home less than 8% of the countries income, while the top 10% brings in 60% -- this number is not representative of what the ‘average’ person received as income) which is around R3000 a month – then how they hell is the bulk of the population supposed to support their children in receiving an education?

If 25% of the population is unemployed and where from the other 75% that is employed receive a median income of R3000 (which means 50% of that 75% receives less than R3000!) and you need R1500 per child to provide them with an education that might get them a job – that’s one bleak future for the children of South Africa.

Why are education costs so high for a country trying to battle unemployment? Are they deliberately setting up the market for labour to under produce skilled workers, because there’s simply not enough jobs anyway? So instead of acknowledging that the system doesn’t work, we can simply blame the uneducated population for not being skilled enough to fill in job positions. Because as long as people don’t get to that level of education, then the problem of there not being enough jobs can stay hidden.

In Equal Money Capitalism, Education will be part of one’s Basic Human Rights and thus guaranteed for all. The same goes for Employment as being one’s entry point to securing one’s well being through income. Currently there are not enough jobs because we are only focusing on jobs that will bring in profit. Within Equal Money Capitalism, jobs and job creation will no longer be tied to profit – but tied to Life – and in terms of supporting Life, there’s a lot of work to be done and so enough jobs will be available for all.

Imagine living a world where your Life and your Children’s lives are ensured. Where you do not have to slave away and deprive yourself just to be able to offer your children the slightest chance to a future. The implementation of Equal Money Capitalism will do exactly that.  With a system of Equal Money Capitalism, you can prepare yourself for a worry-free life of financial struggle and focus on what really matters, where more time and resources will be available to enjoy your family and participate in social events, while your children can enjoy high quality education.

For more blogs on Equal Money Capitalism, click here.

Related articles

• Day 182: No More Difficulty Finding a Job: Equal Money Capitalism ENDS Unemployment
• Education Will END Child Marriage in an Equal Money Capitalism - Day 289
• Day 253: Miss-Education of Humanity - Separated by Words
• 290. How to End Slave Servility? Equal Money
• SA Pupils Terrified - Bullying - Day 275
• Child labour in a System of Totalitarian control Will END in Equal Money Capitalism - Day 277

Read More