bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … .ms&pos=10
Warren Winning Means You Won’t Sell It If You Can’t Explain It
“I made a decision at the beginning that the experts wrecked this economy and the public has a right to know what’s going on,” she said. “It’s our economy on the line and the experts can’t be trusted. I want everyone to be part of the solution to how we want to change our economic world. If it’s risky or makes me look stupid to someone, so be it.”
I watched the speech EW gave (to I can’t remember who) about the whole 2 income trap. She poses lots of questions mainly regarding the allocation or division of wealth, wrt how a sole breadwinner was better able to support the famiy in 1970. Maybe I haven’t listened to enough of what she has said but I wish she had expounded on the reasons for this rather than just highlighting it. More income is being demanded to put roof over people’s heads and providing health care. Why? Are people employed today doing fluff jobs compard to their 1970’s counterparts? Is capital being excessively rewarded as well as the medical professionals? And maybe lawyers? Are workers being employed in really non-essential occupations, going around the monopoly board, and creaming off the wealth without really adding to it? Lots of questions.
I’d say yes to all of the above.
We’re stuck in a bit of a timewarp, society insists upon full employment and people’s self-worth is tied up with their job, but at current levels of technology does this even make sense? We will eventually, I think, have to move away from these 19th-century ways of organising society. I certainly think that huge numbers of jobs are ultimately utterly pointless and a complete waste of everyone’s time.
It’s heresy of course, but then this is me Only maybe, at a guess, 30% or so of all people employed in any advanced economy are actually doing anything useful, the rest is all non-jobs and make-work…and we all know that in any office there are always a few people employed that are so useless, so incompetent, or so disruptive that it would actually be cheaper and better for morale, productivity and efficiency if the company simply paid them to stay at home all day out of harms way.
I’d predict that society in 50 or so years time will have figured this out, and “unemployment” as we now consider it will be 50-60% of all people of working age at least. A small number of competent motivated people will do the necessary work because they want to. A sort of self-organising anarcho-syndicalism, perhaps.
We’ll have to find some mechanism by which the egomaniac parasite element can be kept busy doing something stupid but which satisfies their egos and lust for public adoration and shiny bling, while simultaneously not causing any harm - at the minute these types gravitate towards politics, religion and marketing, where they wreak untold harm.
Everyone else will sit at home with their basic needs catered for, watching the late 21st-century equivalent of Jeremy Kyle and X Factor all day long.
Nah, they’ll be diggin spuds
Exactly! Back in the 50’s we were promised a future where robots would do everything and we could put our feet up. It seems the less we have to work the more we have to work. It’s neurotic, the symptoms of which are burglar alarms on evey car and house, and insurance policies for this that and the other. And footballers being paid a couple of hundred thousand a week, while fans pay £40+ a ticket when back in 1973 it cost 25p to see the best teams, (about the price of 2 pints of beer). At least beer is cheaper (relatively).
It’s a fascinating question. In the current paradigm we do work to earn the right to a share of the wealth generated by the economy.
But, if the productivity of the economy is generated by automation and robots and other machines built by us, and there is not much work left to do by people, then the question arises as to what mechanism do we use to fairly distribute the wealth generated?
In other words, it is a question of wealth distribution.
Anyway, this obsession with ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ is actually destroying us in a way. Because (a) it requires more and more consumption to sustain these jobs (b) many essentially unproductive jobs get created as per the point made above, and as people like Buckminster Fuller have clearly shown © money that might be used for robots, automation, organisational science etc. is instead diverted into creating and sustaining essentially unproductive jobs - in areas ranging from the junk food industry all the way up to the so called knowledge and green industries which are currently driven more by political and business agendas than any real ideas about what really constitutes wealth creation.
Not quite sure if this answers your question but in an earlier video:
viewtopic.php?p=263165#p263165 - 44 mins in
she talks about families perceiving certain public schools as being more desirable and as a consequence bidding up prices on certain houses near them. This inflates their housing spend far greater than any inflation in their takehome pay which drives more of them out to work. More workers suppress wage inflation.
She refers to it in the video above as well. From the transcript:
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people … -con3.html
For America, I would postulate, it’s the shift in government spend from domestic services to military armaments and services that has driven this shift in quality of education supply. The increase in military budgets has absorbed the extra workforce.
So people are being enslaved, through housing and education, to the military industrial complex.
Video of A Day In The Life…
Starts slow but she’s in rattling good form by the end.