|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2011 : 11:42:35
|
A little controversial food for thought that I'm posting here in connection with various discussions/debates members have been having about the economy and how to deal with social ills. Not trying to start trouble (er, too much.  ) Just thought it might start an interesting conversation.
Are Jobs on Their Way to Becoming Obsolete? And Is That a Good Thing?
Do we have it backward when we call for job creation? Could we instead radically rethink our economy to benefit everyone?
...
It's an argument that recalls others being made today, as the economic crisis collides with the awareness of climate change, as people realize that developed-world lifestyles are unsustainable and perhaps there's a better way to do things. |
I remember thinking a lot of these ideas myself years ago when I was interested in reading speculation about man and machine merging in some future singularity (popularized by Transhumanists like Ray Kurtzweil.) Indeed, as technology advances and the human population grows or even stays as large as it currently is, there simply won't be enough jobs to go around, much less jobs that pay a living wage.
Found this quote interesting: | Sara Horowitz, founder and CEO of the Freelancers Union, points out in an interview that for many the jobless future has been here for years. “On the one hand what you see is it's happening across the economy, but you could argue that for poorer workers this is the way it's been anyway. It's not like the bottom quintile people had full-time jobs with benefits because then they wouldn't be poor.” |
The unemployment rate for young black men is over one third. This especially grabs my attention because I live in a working class black neighborhood. I see evidence of the high unemployment rate all around me. Guys in their 20's and early 30's hanging out on porches all day with each other casually selling pot. A young man a couple doors down who bakes cakes and then sells them cheap door to door, and guys running car washes and such out of their homes (all of course under the table since if they did it legitimately they've have to charge the locals too much to cover the city business taxes they'd have to pay.) And since I live on a street where all the houses are 5-6 bedroom, big extended families where maybe one or two adults work and provide for themselves, kids, and at least a couple unemployed relatives, living in cramped conditions. Thing is, there are no jobs for these guys.
My next door neighbor came over last week asking if my husband could help him fill out an online application to a McDonald's. My husband had to help him every step of the way because he had difficulty navigating the webpage and typing in coherent sentences. It took them 2 hours, after which the neighbor insisted on buying and splitting a bottle of cheap, grape vodka to thank him. I hope he gets the job, but my husband said he thinks it is unlikely, and that he had to re-word many of the answers on the application because the neighbor had little common sense. Doesn't matter that he's a really nice guy who works hard, keeps his yard clean, helps his cousins out with her kids and does odd jobs and gardening around the street for people. Given the huge number of poor people around here looking for those kind of $8/hr service industry jobs, he's pretty much unemployable.
What do we do with all these people who are decent, upstanding people, but basically unemployable? Leave the burden on the few in their communities and families who manage to get a good paying job to totally support them? Accept that many will resort to crime? Hell, I guess that's one way the USA deals with unemployment - we have a much higher percentage of our citizenry in prison than most other developed nations! Imagine what the unemployment rate would be if we counted all those Americans.
I tend to agree with Rushkoff that in America we do indeed have enough to go around. It's just that the structure of the world economy isn't very good at distributing resources fairly, and that problem of widening disparity and horrendous living conditions for those at the bottom is likely to get worse if we just stick with the way things are.
The stuff about the growing "freelance economy" in the USA is interesting to me since I am a freelancer. My freelancer friends have a nickname for freelancers: "underpaid". We have no employers to help out with the cost of health insurance and co-pays, and we also pay higher taxes. In fact, lots of us do in fact have employers, but those employers have managed to get around paying for our benefits by hiring us as freelancers. It's a pretty shitty practice.
I found the stuff about how artists are struggling in the new economy interesting since I thought about those issues years ago (y'know, being an artist and all) and I came to the radical conclusion that art shouldn't be a profession at all. It is simply impractical to think that in the current market economy that most artists (visual ones, actors, musicians, etc.) can actually make a living wage without government or other subsidies. So I've just concluded that we need a means of distribution where non-professional workers work much less hours but still have ALL basic necessities provided: health care, food, shelter, access to information and education. Then those workers could devote their greater free time to creative endeavors, volunteerism, homemaking, and political engagement. In this scenerio, being an artist is not a profession, but rather, it is something someone does. And honesty, that's already the reality for most artists. I mean, we run around saying we are professionals because we have degrees and work at our trade, but few of us get paid for it, and those who do get paid typically invest in it more than we are compensated. Then when we get audited, the tax man tells us this thing we do for 30 hours a week and have a degree in is really a hobby and we can't deduct all those art supplies and whatnot. *sigh*
In other words, I agree again with Rushkoff: | “We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights. The work we do -- the value we create -- is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful.” |
Although I'd add health care, access to information and educational opportunities, and freedom of mobility to basic human rights. I hope we are slowly, gently moving toward an socio-economic future that works this way. Just like I'm not a fan of poverty and extreme economic disparity, I am not a fan of violent revolutions. Perhaps we are moving in this direction. I tend to think that the overall movement of civilization over history has been progressive and increasingly humane. But some would disagree with that assessment. Only time will tell.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 12:49:54 [Permalink]
|
Why should we subsidize the ability for people to pursue fields of work that apparently don't have enough of a market? I'm not sure everyone who wants to be an artist can actually do it in a way that creates value. I don't mean to equate value with economic return, but given that some people can't seem to do it very well, how could we choose the ones who actually can?
How do we prevent increasing numbers of people filtering into such professions with such a system? I certainly wouldn't want to work in a factory if I had the option of being a musician.
How could we encourage the part-time freelancers to actually commit their extra time to volunteerism and the like?
I am essentially freelance at what I do, and I'd like to stay that way if I can get enough work, but if I can't, I'm not sure why it should be anyone else's responsibility to be sure I'm able to continue this. I think I should have to find another option, a more traditional sort of job. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 14:43:31 [Permalink]
|
| Why should we subsidize the ability for people to pursue fields of work that apparently don't have enough of a market? |
Because the reason it "doesn't have a market" is because the market forces many artists to charge more than their audience can afford to spend on their work. I'd like to attend a lot of performances that I don't because the tickets are too much. I also have a whole list of works of art I'd love to have my home but I can't afford them (I keep the list in case I ever can afford them.)I've met plenty of people who love my work but can't afford it - and my work is relatively cheap. Things are much worse for actors who often excel at their craft but have no way to share their talent with an audience because the production costs are so high relative to how much revenue they can pull in. Personally I find this damaging to the overall quality of our culture and to the quality of life for people who are talented artists. I envision a future where artists of all stripes can work, say, 20 hours a week and earn enough to make a living wage, and then can devote time to a full or part time career in the arts. If artists only have to charge enough to cover supplies, what they are selling will become accessible to many more people.
| I don't mean to equate value with economic return, |
Isn't that exactly what you are doing in this line of thought?
| but given that some people can't seem to do it very well, how could we choose the ones who actually can? |
The arts are subjective. They can only be objectively evaluated within the confines of an already established cultural construct. Those cultural constructs are constantly changing as society changes. New works which break the rules of the time are typically regarded as crap by critics, but a minority end up living in history as the pioneers in the development of an important new style or genre.
But perhaps more importantly, what I think a lot of people don't realize is that some people are just artists. I mean that some people need to make art to be happy, fully-functioning human beings. Doesn't mean they will be great at what they do or that they will ever be discovered or written about in history books. But is that all that we should consider? I mean, it makes sense to say "You can't be a doctor/engineer because you have no natural aptitude for the field, and you will do damage if you work in the field as a professional." But how do you judge whether an artist/musician/actor/dancer should enter the field? People make jokes about how awful the music of Yoko Ono is, but she still have an audience - like me. I find her music quite powerful and have been listening for years. How big of an audience does an artist have to have to qualify as producing value? I'm pretty sure more people in America today watch "The Jersey Shore" than check out Shakespeare Festivals, but are we really prepared to say that is any decent kind of measure of artistic value? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 14:52:47 [Permalink]
|
| I might also point out that if people could work many less hours and still make a living wage, people would have more time to attend art shows and performances. One thing that deeply saddens and frustrates me today is that lots of people don't seem to even understand the difference between art and entertainment. Not that there isn't tons of overlap - most art is at least a little entertaining. But entertainment is what we seek when we are tired and stressed out and want an escape. Art is what we seek when we want to have a unique and profound emotional or intellectual experience. When people are overworked, they do not seek out art because they are too tired. Often art is challenging and takes us out of our comfort zone, and who the hell wants to deal with that after a 10 hour day? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/15/2011 14:53:34 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 14:59:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| But perhaps more importantly, what I think a lot of people don't realize is that some people are just artists. I mean that some people need to make art to be happy, |
I agree with this sentiment. I know for me anyway the last two years that my band has been idle have been torture for me. Sitting around the house getting fat is no fun. The past couple of months of rehearsing and developing promotion has made me extremely happy. The orgasm comes tomorrow night when we finally hit the stage. I can't wait to get it over with though because I am a nervous wreck and I feel like I'm going to puke. Once we get the first show over things will smooth out.
That being said I most certainly would never expect to be subsidized because I happen to get my jollies in a different way than others do. You have to create a demand for your art. The demand is never just going to just automatically be there. Creating the demand is the most fun part for me.
It takes hard work and dedication. "NO" is never an appropriate answer. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 17:35:21 [Permalink]
|
| That being said I most certainly would never expect to be subsidized because I happen to get my jollies in a different way than others do. You have to create a demand for your art. The demand is never just going to just automatically be there. Creating the demand is the most fun part for me. |
Hoorah for missing the point, Ebone. The discussion wasn't about directly subsidizing anyone's art, and it certainly wasn't about society helping artists be successful at achieving an audience.
I'm arguing that we live in a world economy that isn't fairly distributing resources (poverty is far too prevalent to rationally argue otherwise.) The only way the Libertarian argument has any legs to stand on is if there actually are enough jobs that pay living wages out there to potentially pull every family out of poverty. If, instead, we in fact live in an economy where there aren't enough jobs and a certain segment of the population will inevitable live in poverty, where a certain segment of the population must spend all their waking hours devoted merely to basic subsistence, then we are perpetuating an unjust system, regardless of whether those victims of the system would become artists or just spend their leisure time laying in a hammock.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 17:48:30 [Permalink]
|
Suppose I just create things and call them art so that I don't have to work 40 hours a week? Since we've admitted whether something is art is utterly subjective, who's to say this isn't art in an official capacity? By this argument, I'm actually not equating income with value, I'm arguing against he dilution of any actual vision by people doing it simply for the opportunity to work fewer hours and still have their needs covered by others. If this requires someone to actually be in an official capacity to decide this, which as you said is quite arbitrary and linked to the cultural climate, it would certainly make little sense?
| But perhaps more importantly, what I think a lot of people don't realize is that some people are just artists. I mean that some people need to make art to be happy, fully-functioning human beings. |
I'm afraid this is the classic case that everyone just can't be what they want to be, at least full-time. Since anyone may self-identify themselves as artists, what happens if we have too many? We need people to do less desirable jobs, or rather jobs that need more people than would want them as a first choice.
Perhaps a better solution would be to have longer paid vacations for all workers in which they could pursue their private interests? I understand the US is easily last in this among modern nations. I'm not sure I understand why these people need to pursue these things full-time. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/15/2011 17:52:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 21:44:26 [Permalink]
|
From the article linked in the OP:| Here in the US, we've shifted from a manufacturing economy to the so-called “knowledge economy,” where most of our jobs are not making things but acquiring and transmitting information. |
That's the problem we face today. The US economy is doomed if it's a "knowledge economy," because "acquiring and transmitting information" can be done from anywhere. People skilled at this who can land a tele-work job can move overseas to places where the cost of living is cheaper and take their share of the U.S. economy with them. In other words, the knowledge economy is not geographically anchored: there is nothing about it which requires its jobs to be located in places where the U.S. government can tax.
So like the manufacturing economy, most of the knowledge economy will eventually become nothing more than a drain on attempts to get the U.S. economy back in good health. And because the service economy is mostly made up of low-paying jobs and requires higher-paid customers (who've moved overseas), the only thing left is a resource economy. Farming, mining and drilling. Kennecot's mine can't hire us all, and peak copper isn't that far away, anyway. We've got relatively little oil. But we still export wheat, yes?
What it all boils down to is that if we want the government to provide basic social services so that we can all do "stuff," then the things we do for jobs (to pay for the government services, like distributing resources fairly) need to be things that are cheapest when done here. Otherwise, people will figure out how to do them elsewhere.
What really needs to happen is the invention of a Star Trek-like replicator. Because they also work as disintegrators of matter, we need only pour the contents of the Sahara into one (or two or three) to make enough power to make all the solar panels we'll ever need to power all the rest of the replicators.
Once we're set up in a replicator economy, the only necessary jobs will be medical doctors, scientists and educators, miners for truly raw materials that aren't available in our air, water or dirt, plus whatever few jobs are needed for making and maintaining the replicators. Every damn thing will be recycled, so the "peak" problems for some of those resources will be pushed back hundreds or thousands of years, especially after we dump America's entire wad of pennies into the replicators to put their copper to better use.
Basically, billions of people in manufacturing and service will find themselves without jobs, but also with their needs fulfilled at the press of a button. Ditto the knowledge economy, as most of the information that's processed is about things or services which will no longer be valuable. And so these billions of people will find they'll have nothing better to do than to chase after their wildest desires.
In other words, there will be a shitload of new art and music, much of it pretty bad. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 06:26:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
| I'm afraid this is the classic case that everyone just can't be what they want to be, at least full-time. |
I am beginning to think that marf is under the impression that everyone should just be able to run around doing what they feel all the time while the government supports them somehow.
Sorry, but government is not there to make sure everyone feels fullfilled. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 07:03:16 [Permalink]
|
| Suppose I just create things and call them art so that I don't have to work 40 hours a week? |
What? Jesus, read what I friggin' wrote! Where the hell did I say that because someone declares themselves to be an artist that they don't have to work while other people do have to work?
I said that art-making should no longer be a profession (or even considered a type of "work" for that matter.) Rather, since the number of non-professional jobs are increasingly being taken over by technology and there aren't enough to go around, non-professional workers would be required to work less hours (significantly less than 40 - more like 20-25). It makes no sense to have one person working 40+ hours a week doing menial work (when much of their time could be better spent spending quality time with their kids or doing creative activities, or volunteering, or otherwise more deeply enjoying life) while others suffer incredible stress and financial hardship desperately seeking those same menial jobs. And if all basic necessities such as housing, food, and health care are provided for as a given, that would mean non-professional workers could afford to work significantly less hours, and what income they earn could be used for the things that actually make life meaningful and enjoyable. Some of these people would choose to spend their modest income on trivial luxuries, of course. But many others would spend them on developing or enjoying in the arts. Others would put their extra time and resources into volunteerism, political and social engagement. Those with young children would probably put most of it into time with and enrichment for their children.
And I keep saying "non-professional" workers because obviously there are many careers that require 40 or more hours of work a week, and plenty of people who desire such careers (many in such careers today in fact refuse to retire and continue working well into their 70's and 90's even though they have no financial need). Obviously such professionals would, in addition to enjoying greater status and personal fulfillment from their actual jobs, get greater compensation for their more time-consuming and sophisticated work. In other words, a doctor would still have a nicer house and more expensive vacations and stuff than the artist, but both would be happy, fulfilling individuals because they would be able to do what is best for them.
Not having to worry about basic necessities of life doesn't automatically guarantee that someone will live reach their unique potential and lead a happy and fulfilling life. But it dramatically increases those chances!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/16/2011 07:04:25 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 07:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: I am beginning to think that marf is under the impression that everyone should just be able to run around doing what they feel all the time while the government supports them somehow.
Sorry, but government is not there to make sure everyone feels fullfilled. |
Yeah, don't engage in the discussion in a deep or sophisticated way. Don't actually try to see things from a different socio-political point of view. Just stay stuck in the view of the status quo as if it were objective and permanent, and then be dismissive of different ideas and simplify what I'm saying into practically meaningless little straw men.
First of all, who the fuck said this discussion was about what "THE government" is supposed to do? This discussion is broader than that. It addresses the global economy, and last I checked, the world didn't have a supranational government running things.
Second of all, the world changes, the socio-economic structure specifically changes, technology is often a catalyst for major change, and technology is developing faster and more dramatically than at any other point in history. It makes sense to be thoughtful and serious and forward-thinking about ethical attitudes and ideal political goals. Once apon a time we had lords and serfs. Today we still have 1.7 billion people living in absolute poverty. That's 1.7 billion (out of less than 7 billion!!!) living in absolute poverty. Not to mention all those who live right on the edge, one bit of bad luck away from slipping under, and unable to get out of that danger zone.
If you or anyone else wants to take a hopeless stance, turn a blind eye to the injustices of entrenched poverty, and pretend that most people in this world get what they deserve based on their own efforts and merits, you go right ahead. But don't fucking paint me as some kind of Pollyanna dipshit because I have grander hopes and aspirations for humanity and its future. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/16/2011 12:13:16 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 07:37:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | What really needs to happen is the invention of a Star Trek-like replicator. |
Yes! The Transhumanists tend to be optimists and tend to think that technological developments like this will enter us into such a utopian future. I want to be that much of an optimist, but I fear that if we have the wrong values set in place, it is just as likely that advances will lead to a deepening rift between rich and poor, to the point where rich will be extremely long-lived, stronger, smarter, superhuman in comparison to those without access to the technologies, and instead of choosing to spread these advances around for all to enjoy, those at the top will be convinced that uplifting the downtrodden will pull them down, and they will choose to deliberately keep the poor in their place.
| In other words, there will be a shitload of new art and music, much of it pretty bad. |
Yay! After all, if we have more, we'll not only have more crap, but more good stuff too!
We must keep in mind that even if people are able to make their art because of more time and modest expendable resources, it doesn't mean they will attract an audience or achieve notoriety. Maybe they'll just make art for themselves, or their family or their little circle of friends.
I'm reminded of a guy I sat next to on a 14 hour plane ride once. We got to chatting, and eventually I told him about a SF novel I was writing. He got all excited and started telling me about a speculative novel he wanted to write. As he spoke, it became clear that his characters were flat stereotypes and predictable plot lines often found in the worst Hollywood action flicks, and he was way more interested in gratuitous scenes of violence for its own sake. Certainly this guy was no great creative mind. But so what? Hell, even bad art when thoughtfully analyzed tells us something about ourselves and our culture. We know so little about the daily lives and thoughts about so many people in history because they were part of the uneducated lower classes that were segregated from the aristocracy. How wonderful to have all segments of the human population at one time documented through their own creations - no matter how crappy!
I often wonder how many Shakespeares and Mozarts and Einsteins of the world never developed and emerged because those with such genetic potential wasted away in one of the world's destitute slums. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/16/2011 07:38:44 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 08:33:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Machi4velli
| I'm afraid this is the classic case that everyone just can't be what they want to be, at least full-time. |
I am beginning to think that marf is under the impression that everyone should just be able to run around doing what they feel all the time while the government supports them somehow.
Sorry, but government is not there to make sure everyone feels fullfilled.
|
I'm getting that impression as well.
Large government programs that allow them to foist the "unpleasant" parts of their lives of on government programs. Or the idea that everything should be fair.
I fear that her Utopia would find realization much like the Harrison Bergeron short story.
I wonder if they still present it in schools anymore.
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=825 |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 11:48:26 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: | I'm getting that impression as well. |
Yeah, because neither of you bother reading what I write. I fucking give up.
Edited to add: NOBODY (certainly not me) on this forum or in the article I linked to advocating anything even remotely close to the elimination of all disparity, and you have the fucking nerve to post that Harrison Bergeron story as a retort? Retort to who? To what arguments? Who here has advocated anything like the world of Bergeron's story? Meanwhile, here in the world of reality, not fiction, 1.7 billion people are living in absolute poverty (which I already mentioned, but you and Ebone have apparently dismissed). But I guess I'm just a bleeding heart whiner to be concerned that a solid quarter of the human beings on the face of the earth are "unable to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter." You're right, Val, life's just not fair, there's nothing we can do about it, so fuck those people. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/16/2011 11:59:37 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 12:10:08 [Permalink]
|
Makers of the film "The End of Poverty" created a petition with 10 so-called "Solutions" to poverty. While I found the film itself quite informative (and devastatingly depressing, though no more so than any serious reading about the state of poverty in the world today) I haven't signed the petition (and probably never will) because the stated solutions seem rather impractical. There is certainly no world-wide political will to pass them, and even if there were, I am unconvinced that they could be enforced, or even that they would necessarily work to solve most poverty in a meaningful way. I'm also not convinced they are bad ideas. I just don't know. When dealing with the whole world economy, we're dealing with a system that is so vastly complex with so many factors, I don't think anyone can know what the ultimate result of major actions such as these would be. Then again, the situation of the world is so incredibly dire for so many people today, it is perhaps just as irresponsible and reckless to do nothing. Thoughts on any of these 10 proposed solutions to world poverty? The only ones I am certain I agree with are #2, #5, and #10, although I have no idea how #2 and #10 could be enforced in the real world.
1. The full equality between men and women in public as well as private areas of life, a worldwide minimum wage of $20 per day and the end of child labor under the age of 16 with the creation of a subsidy for scholarship.
2. The guarantee of shelter, healthcare, education, food and drinking water as basic human rights that must be provided free to all.
3. A total redistribution of idle lands to landless farmers and the imposition of a 50% cap on arable land devoted to products for export per country, with the creation of a worldwide subsidy for organic agriculture.
4. An end to private monopoly ownership over natural resources, with a minimum of 51% local communal ownership in corporations, which control such resources as well as the termination of intellectual property rights on pharmaceutical drugs.
5. The cancellation of third world debt with no reciprocal obligations attached and the payment of compensation to Third World countries for historical as well as ecological debt.
6. An obligation of total transparency for any corporation with more than 100 employees and a 1% tax on all benefits distributed to shareholders of corporations to create unemployment funds.
7. The termination of tax havens around the world as well as free flow of capital in developing countries.
8. The cancellation of taxes on labor and basic consumption, the creation of a 2% worldwide tax on property ownership (expect basic habitation for the poor) and the implementation of a global 0.5% flat tax on all financial transactions with a total prohibition of speculation on food products.
9. An equal voting for developing countries in international organizations such as IMF, World Bank, WTO, and the termination of veto right for the permanent members of the UN Security Counsel.
10. A commitment by industrialized countries to decrease carbon emission by 50% over a ten-year period as well as reducing by 25% each developed country’s consumption of natural resources. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 13:07:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: | I'm getting that impression as well. |
Yeah, because neither of you bother reading what I write. I fucking give up.
Edited to add: NOBODY (certainly not me) on this forum or in the article I linked to advocating anything even remotely close to the elimination of all disparity, and you have the fucking nerve to post that Harrison Bergeron story as a retort? Retort to who? To what arguments? Who here has advocated anything like the world of Bergeron's story? Meanwhile, here in the world of reality, not fiction, 1.7 billion people are living in absolute poverty (which I already mentioned, but you and Ebone have apparently dismissed). But I guess I'm just a bleeding heart whiner to be concerned that a solid quarter of the human beings on the face of the earth are "unable to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter." You're right, Val, life's just not fair, there's nothing we can do about it, so fuck those people.
|
You can only save others when you aren't drowning.
This is the concept that has been offered as a retort.
We are drowning. 1.7 billion. How many are Americans? We can only impact Americans here. Other countries take the aid we proffer and spend it on the ruling classes. We cannot compel a foreign government to provide humanitarian aid to their own people.
Life isn't fair. There is nothing I can do about it. So why should I wring my hands over it?
I can fix the stuff I have power over.
You are complaining about a world economy that isn't fair. Since we can only influence the world economy as it relates to the US, how is this going to help the 1.7 billion have nots? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Are Jobs Becoming Obsolete? Is that Good?
