An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
But if markets don't provide us with an unbiased neutral value for everything, people can willy-nilly assign their own values using their concerns, biases and dreams.
The skies will fall, inefficiency will reign, and the earth will tremor as economists give booming sermons about slippery slopes and dangers flashing everywhere.
So one guy loves his job; what about the millions who hate their jobs but would love to be able to work instead?
What about the social value OF WORK? Or would that lead to too many embarrassing questions as to what happened to the commons, family farms, family businesses, etc.?
Man found 'fit to work' dies of heart attack: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-died-job-centre-fit-to-work-dwp-government-assessment-benefits-death-a7537111.html
This is the society Neil lives in. They have a SG, a shaming guarantee.
A Freedom of Information request in 2015 forced the disclosure that 2,380 (and possibly nearer 4,010) had died between 2011 and 2014. A further 7,200 claimants died after being awarded ESA and being placed in the separate work-related activity group. This category identifies claimants who are unfit to work but may be able to return to work in the future.
Key word overlooked: pensioner. The guy doesn't work out of necessity, he works out of desire. Yuuge difference. His ability to survive (economically) would not be effected by not working.
What this person's desire to work when he doesn’t have to is the social value of work. Having a job to go to is not just about the money.
Btw, unless the photos are photoshopped, he looks really great for his advanced age. Probably his lifestyle choices have something to do with it in addition to his genetic endowment.
The social value of leisure (non work, if you can swing it) is far superior to some mythical social value of work.
Agree. The 91 year old guy who choses to work has chosen it as a way to spend his leisure time owing to the social value he perceives there. He could have chosen many other ways to occupy his leisure years in retirement and he chose having a job.
This goes to show that there is social value in work, at least for some people.
CORRECTION! The 91 year old guy who choses to HAVE A JOB.
Let's please not conflate WORK (good) with HAVING A JOB (not necessarily good), i.e. people can and do work all the time without necessarily having a job.
Lets not conflate leisure with not being able to find a job (like economists). Searching in vain for a job is not leisure. Leisure is when you dont need a job to make ends meet or when you have paid time off form a job.
Life isnt just a leisure/or paid work dichotomy. If you are experiencing stress you arent experiencing leisure.
Tom Hickey: Having a job to go to is not just about the money.
Andrew Anderson: Far too often IT IS and you know it.
Far too often? Not often enough! It should be about the money, more money, much much more!
Malmo's Ghost:The social value of leisure (non work, if you can swing it) is far superior to some mythical social value of work.
The social value of work is mythical? Really? Nobody ever WORKED to prepare a meal for you, or did anything for you? Paid for with money, or by doing something - working for - them? Do you live with perfect self-sufficiency on an asteroid? The "social value" of the leisure of the man of leisure - while others work for the man of leisure - is far superior? This is exactly what apologists and proponents of slavery said. I don't mean to be offensive and would phrase the above less personally if I could figure out how.
Andrew Anderson:Let's please not conflate WORK (good) with HAVING A JOB (not necessarily good), i.e. people can and do work all the time without necessarily having a job.
Again, utterly unreal. The opposite of sanity. They need to be conflated more more more. WORK is always good? SO saith the slavemasters: YOUR work is always good - for US. "Work" without "job", without reciprocity, a genuine division of labor and its fruits - boils down to "slavery". According to moral sanity - A job - meaning work for pay - work with reciprocity, mutually agreed on, mutually acceptable IS necessarily good. What on earth is wrong with a number of people cooperating for their common and separate good and aims?
The usual move now is to avoid the issue of social cooperation by daydreaming that everyone can just work for themselves (I guess there won't even be families or social groupings in this "utopia"?) But can respect for individual freedom and a better society win over thoughtless "utopian" (actually dystopian) daydreams?
The 91 year old guy works at a job because there is personal value in it for him - (probably) the work and the pay. The "social value" is what he contributes and what is received by his employer and society at large. Thinking that the social value of work-for-hire is not important, dispensable is lunacy. Most of the bright ideas to change this - to fix what ain't broken e.g. UBI, AA's everybody just go back to family farms etc is lunacy in action.
If this is a responsible adult, ready, willing and able to work - who the hell is anyone to say no? Who elected the naysayer, the job-hater, the JG-hater der Fuhrer?
That the 91 year-old is a pensioner who doesn't need to work (according to whom?) may be true, but that is a reflection of the wealth of modern societies. Conceivably, (though very very rarely in reality) a society may be so poor, so desperate, living so close to the edge that even the (healthy) 91 year olds need to work. That is not a defect of social organization, of "jobs", of money - but a (rare) reality.
But there is no society ever that is improved by refusing, preventing people from working. If it uses money, this means by not having a job guarantee. The idea is lunacy- people need to read & understand Keynes & Wigforss as many times as necessary until they understand how strange, unnatural and crazy the way of thinking that disagrees with this is.
For the umpteenth time - a Job Guarantee is a job offer - it is pro-freedom of society and the individual. Idiocies like a UBI are rigid, top-down, dictatorial, tyrannical, useless ideas.
18 comments:
But if markets don't provide us with an unbiased neutral value for everything, people can willy-nilly assign their own values using their concerns, biases and dreams.
The skies will fall, inefficiency will reign, and the earth will tremor as economists give booming sermons about slippery slopes and dangers flashing everywhere.
The "social value" of being a wage slave.
So one guy loves his job; what about the millions who hate their jobs but would love to be able to work instead?
What about the social value OF WORK? Or would that lead to too many embarrassing questions as to what happened to the commons, family farms, family businesses, etc.?
Hardy Tom Brogan spends three mornings a week ...
So do I - voluntarily at a local laundry - helping a wage slave mother I like.
Bu, bu, but I don't have a job! How can that be!
Go figure, you would be tyrants like Neil Wilson.
Man found 'fit to work' dies of heart attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-died-job-centre-fit-to-work-dwp-government-assessment-benefits-death-a7537111.html
This is the society Neil lives in. They have a SG, a shaming guarantee.
Strangely, Neil makes no provision for the idle rich. Why's that Neil?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/02/07/camd-f07.html
A Freedom of Information request in 2015 forced the disclosure that 2,380 (and possibly nearer 4,010) had died between 2011 and 2014. A further 7,200 claimants died after being awarded ESA and being placed in the separate work-related activity group. This category identifies claimants who are unfit to work but may be able to return to work in the future.
No one asks the idle rich to do anything because they are considered to be living on their own dime.
Wrongly considered in many cases since either they or some ancestor or both have used what is, in essence, the PUBLIC'S CREDIT but for private gain.
Key word overlooked: pensioner. The guy doesn't work out of necessity, he works out of desire. Yuuge difference. His ability to survive (economically) would not be effected by not working.
he works out of desire. Noah Way
Don't you mean "he has A JOB out of desire"?
There are pensioners in Canada who work to make ends meet. If they're lucky, they enjoy their work as this man does.
What this person's desire to work when he doesn’t have to is the social value of work. Having a job to go to is not just about the money.
Btw, unless the photos are photoshopped, he looks really great for his advanced age. Probably his lifestyle choices have something to do with it in addition to his genetic endowment.
Having a job to go to is not just about the money. Tom Hickey
Far too often IT IS and you know it.
The social value of leisure (non work, if you can swing it) is far superior to some mythical social value of work.
The social value of leisure (non work, if you can swing it) is far superior to some mythical social value of work.
Agree. The 91 year old guy who choses to work has chosen it as a way to spend his leisure time owing to the social value he perceives there. He could have chosen many other ways to occupy his leisure years in retirement and he chose having a job.
This goes to show that there is social value in work, at least for some people.
The 91 year old guy who choses to work Tom Hickey
CORRECTION! The 91 year old guy who choses to HAVE A JOB.
Let's please not conflate WORK (good) with HAVING A JOB (not necessarily good), i.e. people can and do work all the time without necessarily having a job.
Lets not conflate leisure with not being able to find a job (like economists). Searching in vain for a job is not leisure. Leisure is when you dont need a job to make ends meet or when you have paid time off form a job.
Life isnt just a leisure/or paid work dichotomy. If you are experiencing stress you arent experiencing leisure.
Tom Hickey: Having a job to go to is not just about the money.
Andrew Anderson: Far too often IT IS and you know it.
Far too often? Not often enough! It should be about the money, more money, much much more!
Malmo's Ghost:The social value of leisure (non work, if you can swing it) is far superior to some mythical social value of work.
The social value of work is mythical? Really? Nobody ever WORKED to prepare a meal for you, or did anything for you? Paid for with money, or by doing something - working for - them? Do you live with perfect self-sufficiency on an asteroid? The "social value" of the leisure of the man of leisure - while others work for the man of leisure - is far superior? This is exactly what apologists and proponents of slavery said. I don't mean to be offensive and would phrase the above less personally if I could figure out how.
Andrew Anderson:Let's please not conflate WORK (good) with HAVING A JOB (not necessarily good), i.e. people can and do work all the time without necessarily having a job.
Again, utterly unreal. The opposite of sanity. They need to be conflated more more more. WORK is always good? SO saith the slavemasters: YOUR work is always good - for US. "Work" without "job", without reciprocity, a genuine division of labor and its fruits - boils down to "slavery". According to moral sanity - A job - meaning work for pay - work with reciprocity, mutually agreed on, mutually acceptable IS necessarily good. What on earth is wrong with a number of people cooperating for their common and separate good and aims?
The usual move now is to avoid the issue of social cooperation by daydreaming that everyone can just work for themselves (I guess there won't even be families or social groupings in this "utopia"?) But can respect for individual freedom and a better society win over thoughtless "utopian" (actually dystopian) daydreams?
The 91 year old guy works at a job because there is personal value in it for him - (probably) the work and the pay. The "social value" is what he contributes and what is received by his employer and society at large. Thinking that the social value of work-for-hire is not important, dispensable is lunacy. Most of the bright ideas to change this - to fix what ain't broken e.g. UBI, AA's everybody just go back to family farms etc is lunacy in action.
If this is a responsible adult, ready, willing and able to work - who the hell is anyone to say no? Who elected the naysayer, the job-hater, the JG-hater der Fuhrer?
That the 91 year-old is a pensioner who doesn't need to work (according to whom?) may be true, but that is a reflection of the wealth of modern societies. Conceivably, (though very very rarely in reality) a society may be so poor, so desperate, living so close to the edge that even the (healthy) 91 year olds need to work. That is not a defect of social organization, of "jobs", of money - but a (rare) reality.
But there is no society ever that is improved by refusing, preventing people from working. If it uses money, this means by not having a job guarantee. The idea is lunacy- people need to read & understand Keynes & Wigforss as many times as necessary until they understand how strange, unnatural and crazy the way of thinking that disagrees with this is.
For the umpteenth time - a Job Guarantee is a job offer - it is pro-freedom of society and the individual. Idiocies like a UBI are rigid, top-down, dictatorial, tyrannical, useless ideas.
Post a Comment