Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
By distributing existing income more fairly we can improve human welfare and accomplish social objectives without growth–and therefore without additional material and energy throughput. A shorter working week plus a job guarantee and a living wage policy, as described above, are central mechanisms for accomplishing this. So too is investment in public services. By expanding access to high-quality, generous public healthcare, education, affordable housing, transportation, utilities and recreation facilities, it is possible to enable people to access the goods they need to live well without needing high levels of income to do so."
|
I've already given a sufficient critique of the previous parts, but this quoted part has a ton of stuff wrong with it.
I'll start with the fact that fairness is not equalness. The words are not interchangeable. If someone works and that labor produces something valuable to society, and another person does not work and produces nothing of value to society, it would be unfair for them to receive equal compensation.
General welfare is in proportion to how efficiently labor and wealth is allocated. We don't just randomly select who will become a brain surgeon. The people most interested and naturally inclined to certain disciplines rise through the ranks of hierarchy to achieve their positions. Any system that disregards hierarchy is also lowering the welfare of all people. If we all lived in caves, we'd be equal, but none would be well.
Welfare and growth go hand in hand. The more material resources available, the better off people tend to be.
Perhaps people would be happier to work less hours, but that would require them to also be happy with less material wealth since everyone working less equates to there being less stuff available.
What motivation does one have to do anything at all if their job is guaranteed along with their wage? That's not how contracts work. They fall apart when 1 party agrees to give regardless of performance, and the other agrees to nothing.
Living wages are a stupid idea. It implies there are dying wages. Not only that, but certain jobs like working at fast food isn't meant to be a career; it's meant to be an introduction to the workforce by young people, people who already have support from their family.
This whole talk of climate change is a talk about the tragedy of the commons. Expanding social services is expanding the commons, which as we already know, is susceptible to tragedy because when something is owned by everyone, it's owned by nobody. Why would we expand the amount of things owned by nobody if we can help it? It's the #1 reason I come across when I see failure in work or practically every aspect of life; failure to own something means it gets neglected. Ownership means being responsible for the well-being of something.