![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrThe current "economic crisis" has driven me to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I thought I would share one of them...
I believe that the idea of "everyone must work" is rapidly becoming obsolete. We have long since passed a point at which the majority of people [in developed countries] are employed basically making each other happier [supposedly], not actually producing anything. If half of those people became unemployed, our levels of production, for internal use and export, would not be hurt at all. There would still be just as much food as there is now, just as many cars being built, etc. But we [the American population in general] are stuck in a rut of thinking that if there isn't enough work for you then you deserve to starve. That cannot last forever, and economic slumps like the current one are only going to get worse as demand for the non-production portion of society waxes and wanes even more in the future.
I happen to think that people should not have to work to earn the necessities (food, shelter, clothing, education). This requires a very unpopular level of taxation of those who do work; unpopular but not impossible (see Sweden, New Zealand, etc). The alternative is a very unpleasant confrontation between the working class and the unemployed when unemployment reaches 50% or higher, and I think that is inevitable.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
I believe that the idea of "everyone must work" is rapidly becoming obsolete. We have long since passed a point at which the majority of people [in developed countries] are employed basically making each other happier [supposedly], not actually producing anything. If half of those people became unemployed, our levels of production, for internal use and export, would not be hurt at all. There would still be just as much food as there is now, just as many cars being built, etc. But we [the American population in general] are stuck in a rut of thinking that if there isn't enough work for you then you deserve to starve. That cannot last forever, and economic slumps like the current one are only going to get worse as demand for the non-production portion of society waxes and wanes even more in the future.
I happen to think that people should not have to work to earn the necessities (food, shelter, clothing, education). This requires a very unpopular level of taxation of those who do work; unpopular but not impossible (see Sweden, New Zealand, etc). The alternative is a very unpleasant confrontation between the working class and the unemployed when unemployment reaches 50% or higher, and I think that is inevitable.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 08:58 pm (UTC)The problem with your concept of luxury/service production is that when the 50% who are producing necessities (enough to supply everyone) stop buying luxuries (like, say, now), the other 50% start starving. They cannot produce their own necessities, all the available land is already farmed, all the accessible ore mined, etc, all by the first 50%. Most people who are opposed to socialism would be equally opposed to a communistic approach of taking land/mines/etc away from the producers and giving it to the non-producers who need it to live.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-17 10:55 am (UTC), perhaps in some dystopian future yes, there will be a time when service industry just cannot exist, but if we collapse that far most people will be dying from whatever trauma befell our world in the first place rather then from starvation because they couldn't sell anyone an ice cream.
have you ever taken macro or micro echonomics in college?
I have. there will always be epople who produce more then they consume, and they will generally trade their excess for some sort of favor or improvement to thier industry or thier living conditions. there will always be a market for secondary goods
you know I could say something awful like, we tried having only 50% of the population employed once but the feminist movement put a stop to that.