Have you Ever been Swept Off Your Feet?
In both cases – whether the bubble was inflated with positive or negative energy – the participants in the bubble are being swept away further and further away from actual physical reality and start to see everything either ‘extremely negatively’ or ‘extremely positively’ – neither experience is grounded in reality – because the physical is neither positive or negative – it just is what it is.
And Then You Crash – Meconomics
In this little series, we’ve been investigating the phenomenon of inflation, how we in our daily lives participate in ‘inflating our reality’ and so, how we are on a personal level participating in the same principles/dynamics that we see playing out on a bigger scale when it comes to inflation, speculative bubbles and financial market crashes.
Welcoming New Life with Living Income Guaranteed
Comfort, security and nurturing are all things we wish are present when a baby comes into this world. Yet, these conditions are not a reality for many babies, as parents themselves like these things in their lives. In Pietermaritzburg, the capital of KwaZulu Natal province in South Africa, 3 to 5 babies are…
Humanity Washed Ashore
This was an excerpt of just one of the stories about the boy. Over the last few days, dozens have been written and published on various major news sites. What is more striking than the content of the posts, is the comments that are left on these articles. What is humanity’s response to such images, to such news?
Voting Fun – What does it Feel Like to Have a Say?
Now – before such increased direct political participation is a reality – let’s do a little test to see what it feels like. So – here are some mock-questions where you’re asked to give your input. Imagine that this relates to your direct reality (eg. your town) – and your answer has a weight that influences the outcome of the decision. Of course, in reality…
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
02 September 2015
22 January 2015
Perspective on ‘A Basic Income for Everyone is Not Affordable’ – Part 2
This blog-post is a continuation to the postsTop Economist says: “Universal Basic Income is Not Affordable”
Perspective on ‘A Basic Income for Everyone is Not Affordable’ – Part 1
Read them first for context.
In this blog I’d like to conduct the thought experiment of playing out the assumption that a basic income can be provided to everyone unconditionally – to then see what possible problems might occur and assess: if it is affordable – is it do-able?
First point to consider here is that to organize such a money stream – you’ll quite likely have to use income taxes as a source of funding. And that’s where I foresee possible problems. Income taxes today are a touchy subject, because everyone feels they have earned their income. If part of it is let go of and allocated towards ‘the common good’ – that’s cool, so long as people feel that it is justified. Considering the basic income as one of the expenses, where a person will now receive this income regardless of how much they work – you’ll most probably run into resistance and if it were to be established – resentment towards those who choose to simply live off a basic income. Sure – everyone will receive it, so even if one works and part of one’s salary goes towards funding a universal income, one will equally be paid out a basic income. For some that may mean receiving back more than what one paid in taxes. But for others, it will square out or they’ll still pay more taxes than the basic income amount. Inevitably this will lead to resentment, because we’ve for decades lived within the paradigm that money is something you should earn. So – for some to pay for others’ income entirely – no strings attached – may be easier in theory than in practice. So – yes, the numbers may work out, but that doesn’t mean you’ll receive the approval of the majority and get a green light to manifest a universal basic income system.
When it comes to income taxes and resentment, consider the current state of the welfare state – the complicated rules, the intricate web of conditions to qualify – the conditions set to ensure a person ‘deserves’ the support given. This complexity didn’t come falling out of the sky – it exists because people demanded it to be so. Although the ideas of unconditionally giving money to everyone and of giving up a part of one’s income to realize such a situation are noble ones – it’s worth asking the question if we as a society live up to that nobility. Herein a follow-up question could be: and if we do provide an unconditional basic income funded through income taxes – what is to say we will not end up right where we started, with ever increasing demands placed on those who do not ‘contribute’ to society in the conventional way of taking up employment and in one way or another being part of the national economy?
Apart from resentment, we have to also consider the dimension of what effect funding an unconditional universal basic income will have on employment. Herein I’m not referring to what effect it will have to create a support structure within which anyone will be guaranteed an income regardless of work efforts and whether that will induce people to simply stop working. Rather – I’m looking at the ‘message’ that is sent out by taxing the incomes of those who work, from the perspective of it being interpreted or having the same effect as punitive measures. For instance, in basic income experiments, the effect on unemployment was negligible or only significant in relation to certain individuals, such as youngsters, students and mothers – where it can be argued that this is not such a bad thing – they will be able to focus on other activities, such as educating themselves or raising their children, which will have long term benefits for society and the economy as a whole. But within those experiments, only the ‘receiving’ aspect of a basic income was tested – the ‘giving’ aspect of a basic income was not. Within the experiments, money was made available by governments or organizations and the effects of receiving the income were observed. What didn’t happen, was taking a small village or town that was approximately representative of the national population and taxing incomes in that village in such a way as to generate enough funds to redistribute it equally among everyone, where the amount given to each one is sufficient to live off of. In that scenario, one might have observed a greater shift from employment to unemployment, simply to be on the side of those that ‘benefit’ rather than those who work and pay for others to benefit. It is this effect on unemployment that Paul De Grauwe was referring to in his article.
I’ll continue in my next post.
25 October 2014
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 - Sustainability vs Full employment
Example 1
‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’
At Naomi Klein’s launch for her new book ‘This changes everything’, Naomi presented the same dilemma to Estela Vasquez, Executive VP at SEIU (United Healthcare Workers East), asking her to comment on the tension that has been existing between climate change and labor union activists – her reply was as follows: “We actually can fight for good jobs, for jobs that deal with the question of having clean energy, renewable energy, to have transportation that is accessible to all, (…) jobs can be created in retro-feeding buildings, in creating new forms of energy, in creating transportation that is clean, in creating a new society, where the determining factor is not profit, but the determining factor is the well-being of every living thing on Earth, not just human beings.”
She further mentioned that the interests at stake with climate change and pollution are heartfelt by the same people whose jobs may be insecure – what does it matter, for instance, if one secures a good job with good working conditions, if one’s child develops asthma from playing in the garden, breathing compromised air? There shouldn’t be a choice between one or the other – because both factors are, in different ways, affecting individuals’ well-being.
With a Living Income Guaranteed in place, one will always have a security net available when it comes to job losses or threat of losing one’s job – where it can be recognized that loss of employment is not an infringement on basic human rights, because one’s rights are fundamentally guaranteed through the receiving of a Living Income. When fear of unemployment is removed – flexibility is created in making a transition towards creating different jobs, jobs that are more beneficial to the community at large. The most common excuse from corporations that have not been mitigating the social costs they have helped to create, has been that: ‘we provide employment, and if you don’t want us here, we will find cheaper employment elsewhere’. Such threats become void when jobs no longer stand equal to lifelines. Such threats have created a burden on society at large in having to compromise the future for the present – but now we are walking into that compromised future. When we are faced with points such as climate change – creativity and innovation play a key-role – it is a time that calls for human potential to freely move – a potential that remains shackled as long as human rights are linked to jobs, where eventually the employer and the availability of alternative employment, determine what one can and cannot do in life, what forms of society we can and cannot aspire to, what solutions we can or a cannot bring into manifestation. A Living Income Guaranteed allows us to stop the cycles of the past and allows us to, instead, start addressing the problems we’ve created as well as ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again.
Of course, it’s not sufficient for human creativity and inspiration to move freely – ideas must be able to become a reality and businesses concerned with sustainable and renewable energy sources, for instance, must be given a chance to establish themselves in the market. Here we’re looking at economic power-plays where companies engaged with power-production from fossil fuels have established themselves as pillars within an economy around which everything else turns. Having considerable economic influence, the practice of compromising the opportunity for firms based on renewable energy to establish themselves in that same market is common practice. Within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the citizens of a country become the owners of companies within that country that produce power – hence – allowing the activities of these companies to be directly accountable to every citizen – and as such – having to keep all citizens’ interests at heart. This changes the economic dynamic in such a way that the entire power producing industry and the role established companies play within it – can be considered within the context of what would be best for all the citizens involved.
http://livingincome.me/
http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/
18 September 2013
Day 248: Q&A on Living Income Guaranteed
Here follow questions and perspectives about the Living Income Guaranteed proposal - from the Discussion Forum at livingincome.me.
Yes, we’re working on exactly that. The information will soon be found on a page on this website.
“I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.”
The principle of universality in terms of ‘anyone gets a living income regardless of whether one is employed or not’: No – Living Income Guaranteed does not adhere to this principle. It is about making sure that everyone has a Guaranteed Living Income – meaning, an income that secures a dignified life. We suggest the minimum wage to be double a Living Income so that if one is employed – one can afford not only a dignified lifestyle, but one with ‘perks’. In general terms, then, LIG is for those who are unemployed.
In terms of your question on working part-time – labor will be equated at an hourly rate, where the particular rate will also be determined according to one’s skill/educational level. One may thus be able to be employed part-time without requiring a Living Income Guaranteed as one is self-sufficient due to the particular rate one receives as determined by one’s skill / level of education. For those working part time on a minimum wage would mean they would receive the same amount of income as they would being unemployed and receiving LIG. Herein – one can look at setting an absolute minimum of part-time wage at 3/2 of the Living Income Guaranteed in order to create incentive for part-time workers. Alternatively, one can simply accept that those who are currently working part-time to make ends meet, will instead stop working, receive a LIG and from there perhaps have more time to perform the tasks that makes it impossible for them to work full-time in the first place, which are often tasks such as caretaking or studying. Those part-time workers who like to work to keep themselves busy or because they would like to contribute but have no financial reason to do so – can still do this and receive a part-time minimum wage, or can volunteer and receive LIG.
Children – Ideally, yes, children should receive a LIG, which would be available to the parents up until a specified age, after which, the parents are locked out and the LIG is solely accessible by the child. A child’s LIG is not dependent on the parents’ income. However – one would require investigating the financial capabilities of a particular economy at the implementation stage. It is possible that one would require to continue with a basic child grant system until the economy expands sufficiently to allow for a LIG for every child.
Individual – yes – Living Income Guaranteed is not given to families but to individuals.
Unconditional – yes, but only insofar as discussed above. Meaning – anyone receiving a minimum wage is excluded from LIG. However, there are no other specified conditions such as having to actively search for a job.
High enough for a decent standard of living – yes.
“As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?”
The primary way of financing LIG would be through the nationalization of resources:
Nationalization of Resources and Social Dividends
One of the ways to fund a Living Income Guaranteed is through the Nationalization of Resources within a particular country. Within this, relevant resources are appropriated towards the public good, where those companies dealing with the production and manufacturing process of these resources will be nationalized. The citizenry would then effectively become shareholders of these companies. Economic profits or surplus value generated by publicly owned companies would partially (or wholly if possible) finance the Living Income Guaranteed.
Aside from the obvious funding function of such a step, the nationalization of resources and connected enterprises also provides an opportunity for the management of the country’s resources by the people of that country, and is thus in fact an extension of direct democracy.
On Taxation:
Taxation
Within the Living Income Guaranteed, Direct or Personal Tax methods will be discontinued. Only Indirect Tax methods will be facilitated in the form of inter alia Value Added Tax (VAT), Sales Tax and Import Duties. When a society and system is in place which effectively tends to all points of requirement within a country, one does not require an extensive government structure to tend to those points which the private sphere has not yet covered. As such, there is no longer a need for excessive taxation, as the role and functions the government will be required to execute and fund, will be minimal.
The amount of tax an individual takes on, will then be directly related to one’s activity and participation within a particular system or section of society (eg. Toll roads / Road pricing).
It would be very helpful if all the essential information on your LIG proposal were to be found in one place, preferably a single page or two, instead of being scattered all over numerous blogs and vlogs. What I mean by essential information is how exactly it is to be financed, who are entitled to it and on what conditions.“It would be very helpful if all the essential information on your LIG proposal were to be found in one place, preferably a single page or two, instead of being scattered all over numerous blogs and vlogs. What I mean by essential information is how exactly it is to be financed, who are entitled to it and on what conditions.”
I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.
What I have understood so far is that the LIG is means-tested, in other words conditioned on not having wealth or savings or a paid job for that matter, but not conditioned on the willingness to take a job (I only know the latter through correspondence, but have found no references). What this seems to imply is that if you are willing to live with few belongings no one can force you to work. This would make the proposal as a whole partly conditioned.
But what happens if you are not working full-time? Will you be entitled to a Living Income supplement? And if so, how would it be calculated considering the minimum wage is twice the amount of the LIG? Is the minimum wage the same for a part-time job for instance?
As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?
From what I can see, LIG is to be paid individually and not to households or families, so that settles, I guess, the question of individuality, but how about universality? It is not entirely clear to me whether every individual, including children, will receive it, and, if so, the full amount. Also, if children are included, will their LIG be dependent on what means the parents have, savings, job or otherwise?
It is stated in several places that LIG is to be high enough to secure a decent standard of living, so that would seem to satisfy the last criteria.
I would prefer having all replies here or with links to texts, not videos. Thanks.
Yes, we’re working on exactly that. The information will soon be found on a page on this website.
“I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.”
The principle of universality in terms of ‘anyone gets a living income regardless of whether one is employed or not’: No – Living Income Guaranteed does not adhere to this principle. It is about making sure that everyone has a Guaranteed Living Income – meaning, an income that secures a dignified life. We suggest the minimum wage to be double a Living Income so that if one is employed – one can afford not only a dignified lifestyle, but one with ‘perks’. In general terms, then, LIG is for those who are unemployed.
In terms of your question on working part-time – labor will be equated at an hourly rate, where the particular rate will also be determined according to one’s skill/educational level. One may thus be able to be employed part-time without requiring a Living Income Guaranteed as one is self-sufficient due to the particular rate one receives as determined by one’s skill / level of education. For those working part time on a minimum wage would mean they would receive the same amount of income as they would being unemployed and receiving LIG. Herein – one can look at setting an absolute minimum of part-time wage at 3/2 of the Living Income Guaranteed in order to create incentive for part-time workers. Alternatively, one can simply accept that those who are currently working part-time to make ends meet, will instead stop working, receive a LIG and from there perhaps have more time to perform the tasks that makes it impossible for them to work full-time in the first place, which are often tasks such as caretaking or studying. Those part-time workers who like to work to keep themselves busy or because they would like to contribute but have no financial reason to do so – can still do this and receive a part-time minimum wage, or can volunteer and receive LIG.
Children – Ideally, yes, children should receive a LIG, which would be available to the parents up until a specified age, after which, the parents are locked out and the LIG is solely accessible by the child. A child’s LIG is not dependent on the parents’ income. However – one would require investigating the financial capabilities of a particular economy at the implementation stage. It is possible that one would require to continue with a basic child grant system until the economy expands sufficiently to allow for a LIG for every child.
Individual – yes – Living Income Guaranteed is not given to families but to individuals.
Unconditional – yes, but only insofar as discussed above. Meaning – anyone receiving a minimum wage is excluded from LIG. However, there are no other specified conditions such as having to actively search for a job.
High enough for a decent standard of living – yes.
“As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?”
The primary way of financing LIG would be through the nationalization of resources:
Nationalization of Resources and Social Dividends
One of the ways to fund a Living Income Guaranteed is through the Nationalization of Resources within a particular country. Within this, relevant resources are appropriated towards the public good, where those companies dealing with the production and manufacturing process of these resources will be nationalized. The citizenry would then effectively become shareholders of these companies. Economic profits or surplus value generated by publicly owned companies would partially (or wholly if possible) finance the Living Income Guaranteed.
Aside from the obvious funding function of such a step, the nationalization of resources and connected enterprises also provides an opportunity for the management of the country’s resources by the people of that country, and is thus in fact an extension of direct democracy.
On Taxation:
Taxation
Within the Living Income Guaranteed, Direct or Personal Tax methods will be discontinued. Only Indirect Tax methods will be facilitated in the form of inter alia Value Added Tax (VAT), Sales Tax and Import Duties. When a society and system is in place which effectively tends to all points of requirement within a country, one does not require an extensive government structure to tend to those points which the private sphere has not yet covered. As such, there is no longer a need for excessive taxation, as the role and functions the government will be required to execute and fund, will be minimal.
The amount of tax an individual takes on, will then be directly related to one’s activity and participation within a particular system or section of society (eg. Toll roads / Road pricing).
24 June 2013
Day 236: Living Income Guaranteed will Reduce Suicide Rates
The American Association of Suicidology says:
"There is a clear and direct relationship between rates of unemployment and suicide. The peak rate of suicide in 1933 occurred one year after the total US unemployment rate reached 25% of the labor force. Similar findings have been documented internationally. At the individual level, unemployed individuals have between two and four times the suicide rate of those employed. As well, economic strain and personal financial crises have been well documented as precipitating events in individual deaths by suicide. Stressful life events, financial and others, have significant impact on those vulnerable to suicide where typical coping mechanisms are compromised by the effects of mental disorder, substance use, acute psychiatric symptoms, and a host of other risk factors associated with suicide.
Of current concern is the high rate of home foreclosures. More than a million people recently have lost their homes, about as many as did in the Great Depression when the population was about half what it is today. For most Americans, our homes are our primary investment and the locus of our identities and social support systems. When combined with the loss of job, home loss has been found to be one of the most common economic strains associated with suicides. In contrast to many other developed nations, the US provides little cushion to buffer these strains -- unemployment benefits are generally limited in duration and are considerably less than full pay levels, there is no national health insurance, etc."
Suicide rates can be brought to an extreme low once and for all through implementing a Living Income Guaranteed - where each one who is unemployed is unconditionally provided with an income that is sufficient to acquire what one needs to live a dignified life.
In many first world countries - as economic depression sets in, psychological depression follows suit right away - because security is taken away, because the future becomes uncertain, because if the economy does not start growing in time - every middle-class income household's livelihood is in jeopardy - never mind the lower class. When the depression persists and suicidal thoughts gain the upper hand, children lose fathers and mothers - families are torn apart. Such trauma can be prevented through ensuring a stable economic system. Providing a Living Income Guaranteed must therefore go hand in hand with the necessary changes in the economic and political systems so as to ensure lasting stability and sustainability - instead of being at the mercy of economic polarity-swings.
For more information - read up on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal on the Living Income Website: http://livingincome.me/wiki/The_Living_Income_Guaranteed_Proposal
Also check out the google hangout discussions on the Living Income Guaranteed YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BIGuaranteed?feature=watch
10 April 2013
Day 213: Equal Pay Day Every Day with Equal Money
• There are 27 million people in this day and age still living as slaves.
• There's 1.3 billion people living on less than 1.25 dollars a day.
• There's over 3 billion people (that’s almost half the world) living on less than 2.50 dollars a day
• There's at least 80% of the people living on less than 10 dollars a day
• There's 250 million child labourers
• There are 22,000 children dying each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in
• And so the list goes on...
What does a pay difference matter in the light of these atrocities? Where is these people's 'one day of the year' attention?
Instead of fretting about a few percentage difference between the wage of a male and a female in the industrialized part of the world – why not make a noise about all those people who don’t even get to have a wage? Wouldn’t you agree that this is of higher importance and thus more of a priority than this gender fringe issue? I mean, if you really care about Equality and Equal Pay – you first start with making sure everyone has a Pay! As long as not everyone has an income, a way to sustain themselves – you will not get anywhere near ‘Equal Pay’, even if all males and females who are employed and have an income receive the same wage.
That is why in Equal Money Capitalism, employment forms part of a person’s basic human rights. If you really want Equal Pay, everyone would receive a wage firstly, and secondly, everyone would receive an equal wage – based on each one’s equal value as being the Capital of Life.
Let’s get Equal Pay – let’s make Equal Money happen.
11 February 2013
Day 190: Fairness in the Work Place and Equal Money Capitalism
This blog post is in relation to a comment placed on one of our previous blog-posts.
How we deal with unemployment at the moment, is indeed to create unnecessary jobs. Here in South Africa, you'll find, for instance, that there are people in a shop who will place your groceries in bags and tie the bags for you - and that is their job. Or, in a gas station, you can just stay sitting in your car and the personnel of the gas station will do everything for you. In countries in Europe, such jobs do not exist. Each one bags their own groceries and fills up their own car at a gas station. It's often even uncomfortable for Europeans to have someone pack their groceries for them, because it really feels like you are treating this person as a slave - because you're very aware of how you can just do this simple task yourself.
What is not considered is that there are many important jobs to be done, which aren't being done at the moment. We can herein simply look at the environment and how little we actually interact with nature to identify where it requires support and to intervene where required. Environmental problems have escalated as companies have not taken responsibility for their polluting activities. Within EMC, each company will have an Environmental Department that ensures that what is taken from the Earth, either in the use of resources, or in terms of pollution, is given back or rectified as much as possible. These departments will create a large amount of meaningful jobs.
So - when we speak of Full Employment in EMC it is not to simply give a person a meaningless task or a job that barely requires any actual contribution, where the person is mostly spinning their thumbs - but to take on meaningful tasks, which the profit motive has not encouraged firms and individuals to address. The principles and regulations that will outline a company's responsibility within providing meaningful jobs will be aligned to the Equality Constitution where a company must perform these tasks within the consideration of what is best for all. Therefore, to create meaningless job and pay a person for not really contributing in any significant way, when there are meaningful jobs to be done - would be in conflict with the company's own principles and regulations as well as in conflict with the Constitution in general.
A company will thus be responsible to, indeed, regularly evaluate that all jobs are still meaningful and to restructure tasks where seen necessary. For instance, if two people in a firm doing two different tasks, no longer have much work to do and half the time sit around doing nothing, then one of the two can take on both tasks and the other can be given an entirely new job or can be assigned to a department that requires more assistance.
Herein - understand, that it will not be an option to simply no longer pay one's employees. A person's income is a person's lifeline and to simply take away a person's income is not acceptable, as it means to take away their access to everything they require to live a dignified life. So, where cases of 'paid idleness' are identified, it is the company's responsibility to employ labor in a meaningful way and to re-assign individuals where necessary. It is not the employees' 'fault' for which they now have to bear the consequences of not being paid.
Possibly, we'll have guidelines in terms of how long a person should preferably work. However, we cannot set these things in stone. The reason is that every person is different. Every person has different abilities and capabilities. Where possible, assistance will be given to enhance a person's skills, abilities and capabilities, however, certain points are genetically defined or are the result of behavioral or physical patterns that are not easy to break through. Consideration and understanding is required therefore, for each one's individual strengths and weaknesses. Every person's contribution will stand in relation to that persons' capabilities. Therefore, fairness doesn't stand in relation to everyone doing the same or doing the same amount of work - it stands in relation to everyone equally contributing what they can contribute.
"There must be a way to make sure that no job becomes one of paid idleness. Every job has to consist of activity or at least presence like working at reception desk which might be necessary even if there isn't much people coming and going at times, and this needs constant re-evaluation so that certain jobs don't become paid idleness because of variations like daily customer amount variation or something else.
Even if a company makes a lot of profit and there are partly or totally useless people employed at any given time, they must not be paid then."
How we deal with unemployment at the moment, is indeed to create unnecessary jobs. Here in South Africa, you'll find, for instance, that there are people in a shop who will place your groceries in bags and tie the bags for you - and that is their job. Or, in a gas station, you can just stay sitting in your car and the personnel of the gas station will do everything for you. In countries in Europe, such jobs do not exist. Each one bags their own groceries and fills up their own car at a gas station. It's often even uncomfortable for Europeans to have someone pack their groceries for them, because it really feels like you are treating this person as a slave - because you're very aware of how you can just do this simple task yourself.What is not considered is that there are many important jobs to be done, which aren't being done at the moment. We can herein simply look at the environment and how little we actually interact with nature to identify where it requires support and to intervene where required. Environmental problems have escalated as companies have not taken responsibility for their polluting activities. Within EMC, each company will have an Environmental Department that ensures that what is taken from the Earth, either in the use of resources, or in terms of pollution, is given back or rectified as much as possible. These departments will create a large amount of meaningful jobs.
So - when we speak of Full Employment in EMC it is not to simply give a person a meaningless task or a job that barely requires any actual contribution, where the person is mostly spinning their thumbs - but to take on meaningful tasks, which the profit motive has not encouraged firms and individuals to address. The principles and regulations that will outline a company's responsibility within providing meaningful jobs will be aligned to the Equality Constitution where a company must perform these tasks within the consideration of what is best for all. Therefore, to create meaningless job and pay a person for not really contributing in any significant way, when there are meaningful jobs to be done - would be in conflict with the company's own principles and regulations as well as in conflict with the Constitution in general.
A company will thus be responsible to, indeed, regularly evaluate that all jobs are still meaningful and to restructure tasks where seen necessary. For instance, if two people in a firm doing two different tasks, no longer have much work to do and half the time sit around doing nothing, then one of the two can take on both tasks and the other can be given an entirely new job or can be assigned to a department that requires more assistance.
Herein - understand, that it will not be an option to simply no longer pay one's employees. A person's income is a person's lifeline and to simply take away a person's income is not acceptable, as it means to take away their access to everything they require to live a dignified life. So, where cases of 'paid idleness' are identified, it is the company's responsibility to employ labor in a meaningful way and to re-assign individuals where necessary. It is not the employees' 'fault' for which they now have to bear the consequences of not being paid.
"A company may not have the isolated right to decide whether a person is active and productive enough - there must be global standards on defining a sufficient amount of activity per day or hour, and those change with the times (because of technology etc.) and with the types of jobs. For Equality."
Possibly, we'll have guidelines in terms of how long a person should preferably work. However, we cannot set these things in stone. The reason is that every person is different. Every person has different abilities and capabilities. Where possible, assistance will be given to enhance a person's skills, abilities and capabilities, however, certain points are genetically defined or are the result of behavioral or physical patterns that are not easy to break through. Consideration and understanding is required therefore, for each one's individual strengths and weaknesses. Every person's contribution will stand in relation to that persons' capabilities. Therefore, fairness doesn't stand in relation to everyone doing the same or doing the same amount of work - it stands in relation to everyone equally contributing what they can contribute.
09 February 2013
Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism
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-186-invisible-hand-is-invisible.html#.URaxbvJBnTo.
The problem within remunerating individuals based on their level of experience, skill and education is that we're judging certain levels of experience, skill and education as good and others as bad. Herein, take the example of paying a technician more than a doctor - both are equally valuable contributions to society, yet we'll pay the one more because of a higher education level. In creating such divisions, you're giving people incentives in terms of what jobs to do based on money - where people will become lawyers and doctors and engineers because there's money in it - and not necessarily because that's what they would really love to do. And obviously, when you're passionate about your job, you'll push yourself to be great at it - not because of someone else's expectation, but because of one's own self-integrity. And a doctor who actually cares about his patients will be a better doctor than one who did it because he could and it would give him a nice personal life.
Also consider that not everyone has the same capacities. Some are naturally skilled in managerial tasks, others are really good with their hands - but again, both are equally valuable - so we can't remunerate one person more than another based on skill either.
In terms of level of experience - each one requires the time to grow in their profession, but that doesn't mean that we don't require the same amount of financial support in the meantime.
For more perspective on this point - please read one of our previous posts: Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
What we suggest in terms of pricing is to have prices determined through only considering the people who were involved in the production process. From a previous blog:
"Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage.
So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.
So - understand - that within EMC - you only ever pay for added value - added value is the value you add to a resource through labour - that - and then of course your tax. So - you're not paying for your resources. When value is given by a person - the person receives in return through profit. When resources are used by companies - they must give back as much as they can. So if a company uses wood within their production process, there will be a department within the company that plants trees. The same with using water - if clean water is taken - the dirty water after the production process is complete, must be purified and go back to the Earth. So - resources won't be owned - it will be a matter of take what you need and give back as you received."
And:
"It makes no sense to claim that one can 'own' a part of nature or the Earth - as physical resources - outside of oneself. Why? Because the Earth and nature were here long before us and they will remain here after we are gone - so how can we say that any of it is 'ours' - it's not ours."
To pay for resources, would imply giving money to the owner of the resource. But with the Earth being the owner, it makes to sense to give money to the Earth, because it means nothing to the Earth - money is only relevant in a human society. So - rather - we 'pay back' the Earth through supporting it in a physical manner. Each company will have an Environmental Department that is in charge of giving back what was received from the Earth insofar as this is possible.
Prices will thus be determined only considering that with the sales of the product, each one involved in the production process, ends up with an equal wage and this wage must be adequate to be able to live a meaningful life- which is a mathematical equation that can be worked out for each product and for each company. On these prices, taxes will be raised as government will still play a role within providing each one with their basic rights.
One of these basic rights will be employment. As you say - with technology able to replace menial tasks, we'll be able to create jobs where they are necessary - tasks that require to be done but aren't. The environmental departments of companies is one example. When unemployment is seen to arise - government requires to identify where further jobs can be created - or, another option is to reduce working hours or lower the pension age.
And yes - the role and magnitude of the defense forces must be reconsidered. If an EMC were implemented world-wide, they will likely no more exist as most wars are waged over economic reasons. When everyone is equally taken care of - there is no need to traumatize another country with physical violence to get it to comply to one's wishes.
Totally agree. For politics, we suggest direct democracy where politicians are in essence merely administrators and not decision-makers and yes, where their wages are equal to those of everyone else. For more info on this, read: www.equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics
Yep, totally agree!
"We can’t have equal pay because of the variable levels of experience, skill, and education. People should earn what they deserve, based on their education and skills."
The problem within remunerating individuals based on their level of experience, skill and education is that we're judging certain levels of experience, skill and education as good and others as bad. Herein, take the example of paying a technician more than a doctor - both are equally valuable contributions to society, yet we'll pay the one more because of a higher education level. In creating such divisions, you're giving people incentives in terms of what jobs to do based on money - where people will become lawyers and doctors and engineers because there's money in it - and not necessarily because that's what they would really love to do. And obviously, when you're passionate about your job, you'll push yourself to be great at it - not because of someone else's expectation, but because of one's own self-integrity. And a doctor who actually cares about his patients will be a better doctor than one who did it because he could and it would give him a nice personal life.Also consider that not everyone has the same capacities. Some are naturally skilled in managerial tasks, others are really good with their hands - but again, both are equally valuable - so we can't remunerate one person more than another based on skill either.
In terms of level of experience - each one requires the time to grow in their profession, but that doesn't mean that we don't require the same amount of financial support in the meantime.
For more perspective on this point - please read one of our previous posts: Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
"However, if we reduced the over inflated costs of crappy products, removed the fees for electronic services that don’t need manual labor, and diverted 50% of our national defense budget back into improving our infrastructure and economy. We would see new jobs, more tax income for the cause, and a happier, more productive community and labor force."
What we suggest in terms of pricing is to have prices determined through only considering the people who were involved in the production process. From a previous blog:
"Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage.
So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.
So - understand - that within EMC - you only ever pay for added value - added value is the value you add to a resource through labour - that - and then of course your tax. So - you're not paying for your resources. When value is given by a person - the person receives in return through profit. When resources are used by companies - they must give back as much as they can. So if a company uses wood within their production process, there will be a department within the company that plants trees. The same with using water - if clean water is taken - the dirty water after the production process is complete, must be purified and go back to the Earth. So - resources won't be owned - it will be a matter of take what you need and give back as you received."
And:
"It makes no sense to claim that one can 'own' a part of nature or the Earth - as physical resources - outside of oneself. Why? Because the Earth and nature were here long before us and they will remain here after we are gone - so how can we say that any of it is 'ours' - it's not ours."
To pay for resources, would imply giving money to the owner of the resource. But with the Earth being the owner, it makes to sense to give money to the Earth, because it means nothing to the Earth - money is only relevant in a human society. So - rather - we 'pay back' the Earth through supporting it in a physical manner. Each company will have an Environmental Department that is in charge of giving back what was received from the Earth insofar as this is possible.
Prices will thus be determined only considering that with the sales of the product, each one involved in the production process, ends up with an equal wage and this wage must be adequate to be able to live a meaningful life- which is a mathematical equation that can be worked out for each product and for each company. On these prices, taxes will be raised as government will still play a role within providing each one with their basic rights.
One of these basic rights will be employment. As you say - with technology able to replace menial tasks, we'll be able to create jobs where they are necessary - tasks that require to be done but aren't. The environmental departments of companies is one example. When unemployment is seen to arise - government requires to identify where further jobs can be created - or, another option is to reduce working hours or lower the pension age.
And yes - the role and magnitude of the defense forces must be reconsidered. If an EMC were implemented world-wide, they will likely no more exist as most wars are waged over economic reasons. When everyone is equally taken care of - there is no need to traumatize another country with physical violence to get it to comply to one's wishes.
"Unfortunately because people are elected into government based on their popularity. The politicians and powers that be are paid more than the average home, even though they have no special skills or experience. This leads to commerce and community decisions being made based entirely on the personal expectations, desires, and motives of the elected and now privileged group. With hardly any control from the people who elected them. Once they get there, they play a game of give and take with the community so they can keep their positions as long as they can. Serving in congress or the senate should be thought of as a privilege, there pay should be limited to that of an average household, to insure that they remain concerned for the welfare and health of the majority which they are still part of. In humanities quest for material items, fame, and fortune."
Totally agree. For politics, we suggest direct democracy where politicians are in essence merely administrators and not decision-makers and yes, where their wages are equal to those of everyone else. For more info on this, read: www.equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics
"We seem to have forgotten about the value of checks and balances. Anytime a system is out of balance, it is doomed to eventually fall apart and fail. Thus the proper individual course, is always one that leads to beneficial results for the community. Which then logically leads us to the success of our entire society. As it sits now, life is great if your above or near the fulcrum of our economy. But it can be grand or desperate depending on where you are on the arms, and that in itself is a sign of inequality and unbalance."
Yep, totally agree!
19 January 2013
Day 177: Will there still be Retrenchment in Equal Money Capitalism?
For context, please read:
Amplats should cut costs rather than retrench, says Amcu
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-18-00-amplats-should-cut-costs-rather-than-retrench-says-amcu
Currently the economy and the businesses that run within it are set up to only care about the bottom-line. There is little to no consideration of what actually constitutes the corporation as all the various workers as contributors within producing a particular product. When looking at companies, we evaluate them according to their profit – we don’t look at the blood, sweat and tears that go into for instance platinum mining. Thus, when a company wants to review its profits (and thus also its losses) and decides to close down some shafts in the name of ‘preserving profit’ – life is not considered valuable and is omitted from the equation of the corporation’s wellbeing – leaving many in a position of unemployment.
Within an Equal Money Capitalism, Life is what is valued and supported – and a level of full employment must be maintained at all times. When a company requires to shut down particular departments/sites for whatever reason – the Capital as Life requires to be taken into consideration. Companies won’t be able to ‘fire’ people as this is in breach within Basic Human Rights, as firing someone without ensuring that they are able to continue contributing elsewhere - is severing their access line to income and thus severing their Basic Right to Life.
In cases where some job positions are to be eliminated, new job positions must be identified beforehand or be created within the companies’ Compassion Department.
Corporations will merely be structures of support – here to support Life and the Earth effectively. As such, companies will not be able to own natural resources such as mines, but will only be existent as facilitators – to ensure that all people receive the resources required while at the same time treating the resource with respect within managing it responsibly.
Unemployment will cease to exist. This will alleviate a lot of doom and gloom on the minds of youngsters who are no longer faced with a grim future where Life is a gamble. People won’t have to labour their way through college and take out loans without even knowing whether all this effort and debt will ensure them financial security as employment is not guaranteed.
Knowing that Capital as Life is valued, will give each person a sense of respect and integrity - resulting in human beings who care about who they are and what they do. This quality of Life will be reflected in the quality of products produced. Not having to worry about job security, allows for peace of mind resulting in a more efficient and pleasant work sphere.
Amplats should cut costs rather than retrench, says Amcu
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-18-00-amplats-should-cut-costs-rather-than-retrench-says-amcu
The Problem
“The Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union has called on government to intervene in Anglo Platinum's plans to retrench 14 000 employees.
It has also called for government to revoke the mining licences of the soon to be mothballed shafts in Rustenburg, possibly even nationalising them.
Amcu has a membership of 26 000 out of Anglo Platinum’s 60 000 employees across all its operations, according to Joseph Matunjwa, the union’s president. Speaking at a press conference in Woodmead on Thursday, Matunjwa said Amcu was not formerly notified of the retrenchments, and learnt about the mining company’s plans through the media.
“This is unacceptable,” Matunjwa said. Given the high rate of unemployment in South Africa, he said the multinational mining company had shown that it did not have the ¬country’s interests at heart.
He said no jobs should be lost and stakeholders should rather engage on a strategy of how to cut unnecessary costs. He also called for the intervention of Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu.
“We call on the minister of mineral resources, for those [mine shafts] on care and maintenance, to withdraw licences and allow interested businesses to mine there,” he said.
Matunjwa said the planned closures could also be an opportunity to see how nationalisation might work on a small scale. “If Anglo insists on closing these mines, it is a window for the government to nationalise the mine and save those jobs,” he said. “
Currently the economy and the businesses that run within it are set up to only care about the bottom-line. There is little to no consideration of what actually constitutes the corporation as all the various workers as contributors within producing a particular product. When looking at companies, we evaluate them according to their profit – we don’t look at the blood, sweat and tears that go into for instance platinum mining. Thus, when a company wants to review its profits (and thus also its losses) and decides to close down some shafts in the name of ‘preserving profit’ – life is not considered valuable and is omitted from the equation of the corporation’s wellbeing – leaving many in a position of unemployment.
The Solution
Within an Equal Money Capitalism, Life is what is valued and supported – and a level of full employment must be maintained at all times. When a company requires to shut down particular departments/sites for whatever reason – the Capital as Life requires to be taken into consideration. Companies won’t be able to ‘fire’ people as this is in breach within Basic Human Rights, as firing someone without ensuring that they are able to continue contributing elsewhere - is severing their access line to income and thus severing their Basic Right to Life.
In cases where some job positions are to be eliminated, new job positions must be identified beforehand or be created within the companies’ Compassion Department.
Corporations will merely be structures of support – here to support Life and the Earth effectively. As such, companies will not be able to own natural resources such as mines, but will only be existent as facilitators – to ensure that all people receive the resources required while at the same time treating the resource with respect within managing it responsibly.
Reward
Unemployment will cease to exist. This will alleviate a lot of doom and gloom on the minds of youngsters who are no longer faced with a grim future where Life is a gamble. People won’t have to labour their way through college and take out loans without even knowing whether all this effort and debt will ensure them financial security as employment is not guaranteed.
Knowing that Capital as Life is valued, will give each person a sense of respect and integrity - resulting in human beings who care about who they are and what they do. This quality of Life will be reflected in the quality of products produced. Not having to worry about job security, allows for peace of mind resulting in a more efficient and pleasant work sphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
