Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> Some thoughts on Aberattions
>
> I was trying to explain the other day, to my 9 year old daughter about
> wages, value, work and welfare. Quite a challenge. I found coming out of
> my mouth some interesting thoughts.
>
> Has it every occured that when you are on welfare, their seems to be a
> principle in which if you are single, you recieve one amount of money -
> while if you have dependants, you recieve more money.
>
> But, once you move into the waged economy, your income is based on the job,
> not on the number of dependants you have. Which creates and interesting
> anomaly.
Yes, doesn't it: Capitalism's "maw" needs ever new input of
new workers to replace those who exit the system for whatever reason
(death, retirement, etc.). But, like so many other "commons",
it doesn't pay for it, or at least it doesn't pay for it altogether.
My proposal: (1) Pay children to go to school, i.e., to become
usable labor power. But where will the money to do this
come from? Obviously, by lessening the income of workers, via
increased corporate taxes. The way it works now is inequitable
(I know -- there can't be much equity anywhere in a capitalist
system, but we're engaging in a process-of-thinking here...):
Let's take the paradigmatic Ozzie and Harriett family as our
example: Father earns all the money and thus exerts a coercive
force over mother and the kids, who each do work for which *he*
gets paid. Mother does unpaid housework and childrearing. The
kids do unpaid schoolwork. Parents would start to shape up if
kids could go buy their childrearing from competitive bidders!
> Take a job - truck driver - value of job $15 per hour. Now, if a
> single man does this job, he is allowed to keep the whole $15 for himself
> and spend it however he chooses. We accept that idea without a question -
> right. Now, what if his co-worker has 3 children and a wife and one of his
> children requires additional costs, let's say drugs.
(Prescription or the other kind?....)
> The system is set up
> so that he recieves the same $15, but is expected to spread that around to
> cover 5 dependants. Why would we chose to make the job the deciding factor
> rather than a persons needs in regards to dependants.
Oops, I think your logic is not so good here: The job may be the
deciding factor, but the decision may be between (1) not enough income
to
support the family, and (2) even less income.
> Especially when in
> other areas of income, we have accepted the thought that those with more
> dependants require more money, such as welfare?
>
> Well, it is the difference between two ways of thought - isn't it. One is
> the thought of socialism and the other is the thought of capitialism. Take
> for a point of interest housing. We often see two middle aged people living
> in suburban splendor - 20,000 sq ft of tastefully decorated, heated and
> convienced comfort while we look at people raising kids who find themselves
> in limited space, restricted furniture, living one on top of the other. How
> do we rationalize that? Well, we do it through the capitalistic model,
> which says as you gain experience, get older and have more responsibility in
> the work world, you get paid more
[snip]
My proposal for a more economically rational distribution of
costs / income would help a bit here....
And don't forget the idea put forth by some "anarchists" at the
beginning
of this now worn down century: That working / poor people should stop
having
children, to force the problems of labor back "up" the capitalist
power hierarchy. As all the poor / working people died off, the
rich would have to decide whether to send their own
children into the mines or figure out some other way to
live without anybody going down in the mines.
[snip]
> Of course, ruiminations like this come down to the hard fact, that those who
> benefit from the current situation, also hold the bureaucratic power,
> academic power, financial power and when in government the political power.
> Now the argument might be made that if this was truly wanted, then there
> would be a political movement towards this. But most who hold jobs, who
> have been brought up in the capitalistic way of thinking, cannot and will
> not engage in a discussions of this manner, nor provide the money or the
> structure which would allow an honest polling of the populace through a
> vote. Rather, the media, the academics, the rich, derail such thoughts and
> aspirations by sheer neglect - they won't talk about it, promote it, argue
> it or in any manner do anything but avoid it and riducule it. And so the
> world goes on, following a particular philosophy - without debate or
> experiment into other ideas.
It's far more pleasant to deceive oneself than to actually *lie* and
have to accept the fact that one is a *liar*. And being paid well to
promulgate the self-deceptions (well -- I'm calling them
self-deceptions,
whereas to the person so "self-deceived", they're "obvious" -- see
Edward Hall's _The Silent Language_...) -- being paid well to promulgate
self-deceptions, surely is powerful validation of the truth and social
value of what one's doing....
>
> After I had went through this with my 9 year old, she sat quietly for awhile
> and finally said, "I understand what you mean Dad and it sounds really good.
> How come people don't pay you to talk about this?
>
> To which I could only reply - they don't want to hear.
No -- you haven't figured out how to become a paid lecturer. (I'm
not being facetious here: Persons get paid to lecture just
about any point of view, including socially responsible and
even "radical" perspectives. Paolo Freire, e.g., makes out
pretty good -- at least well enough that the (Swiss?) tax
auditors got interested in him, if I remember correctly....)
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
> --
"Yours in discourse...."
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
