The Mutualist Philosophy

[Michael Hardner]

I don't really care if the rich get richer but the marginally poor are affected by higher government fees...

Yes, I know that you think that government makes life harder for the poor. I have never understood your point, and have said so. I'm still waiting for an example that makes sense to me. Libertarianism is a utopian dream to its adherents, much like Communism is to its adherents.

[Michael Hardner]

Then I guess the poor are getting bigger annual wage increases than I am. Mine have not matched the increase in cost of living due to inflation for many years now.

Overall, we're about level from what I have seen. Some areas are doing worse than others - such as manufacturing, large systems IT... things that are sensitive to foreign competition especially.

[Sir Bandelot]

Overall, we're about level from what I have seen. Some areas are doing worse than others - such as manufacturing, large systems IT... things that are sensitive to foreign competition especially.

The same level as what? The former generation didn't require two jobs in a household, just to barely make ends meet. A mother could stay home and raise the young children, not send them to an institution where they get raised by people who are wholly indifferent to their individual needs. And pay vast sums for it. In the previous generation some of them even had a house, AND a cottage by a lake.

We are clearly in a condition of economic decline but most people don't realize it, apparently judging themselves as on par with status-quo, but only compared to others around them who are in the same predicament.

[Bonam]

The same level as what? The former generation didn't require two jobs in a household, just to barely make ends meet.

That was a result of social change, not economic change. Women entered the workforce. In the beginning, women began entering the workforce because they wanted to, gender equality and all that. But as it became the norm, it also became economic necessity for most families. Now we have twice as many people looking for jobs. Boom, double the supply, while the demand for labor continued to grow at only roughly the same historical rate it always has. Naturally, the price of labor went down. It's the simplest of all economics, basic supply and demand.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Bonam

[August1991]

Cripes, what a thread.

That was a result of social change, not economic change. Women entered the workforce. In the beginning, women began entering the workforce because they wanted to, gender equality and all that. But as it became the norm, it also became economic necessity for most families. Now we have twice as many people looking for jobs. Boom, double the supply, while the demand for labor continued to grow at only roughly the same historical rate it always has. Naturally, the price of labor went down. It's the simplest of all economics, basic supply and demand.

Women entered the workforce because technology changed. Specifically, their skills in paid labour were worth more than their unpaid skills in housework.

Bonam, think of a household in, say, 1925. Now, think of the same household in, say, 1975. What changes do you see? (Hint: Electric fridges, washing machines, dryers, vacuum cleaners.)

And let me push a little bit further here. Is that bad? That is, if women enter the paid labour force because machines make housework easier, is that bad?

IOW, is it bad if technology lowers the price of something? Or as you put it, "double the supply".

----

In 1925, people died of pneumonia because penicillin didn't exist. In 1950, people died in airplane crashes because the black box didn't exist. In 1975, people died in car crashes because air bags didn't exist.

Cell phones amaze me. I remember a world where people missed dates/appointments because they had no simple way to communicate. The premise of the movie An Affair To Remember is meaningless now.

Edited June 4, 2011 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

That was a result of social change, not economic change. Women entered the workforce. In the beginning, women began entering the workforce because they wanted to, gender equality and all that. But as it became the norm, it also became economic necessity for most families. Now we have twice as many people looking for jobs. Boom, double the supply, while the demand for labor continued to grow at only roughly the same historical rate it always has. Naturally, the price of labor went down. It's the simplest of all economics, basic supply and demand.

Women actually began to enter the workforce because the men were at war. That and the fact that they could be paid less, to do the same job a man did is what made it happen. Gender equality came much later, if it even has come yet since there are still inequalities that various feminist groups are working to overcome. Whether you like it or not, there are chavinists out there. I know, I work for one.

But the actual mechanism of why, matters not. What matters is, the price of labour went down, the price of goods went up. The disparity between those who have and those who have not, increaseth.

But the question Michael raised more specifically is, is the bottom coming up, despite the fact that rich have gotten richer. That is a bit hard to measure... one needs to look at buying power. Certainly my example of a single income family having the same or perhaps even more buying power in the 'good old days', vs. todays dual income family is one important point to look at. I know a number of young families where the mother returned to work after raising the child for a mere 10 months. They just automatically assume, because of our culture that both parents must work, to make the income and baby in a daycare. I believe the negative effect this has on our children as they grow up in an institutionalized environment is under-rated.

Second thing is leisure time, or more importantly, family time. I'm aware that growing numbers of people spend more time taking care of their jobs, than they do taking care of their families. So even when at home, they are still absent from the picture. Like those who have to take their work home on weekends, being overburdened and expected to complete their tasks on strict deadlines, since their employers are not hiring enough people to do the job during regular hours. Especially these days.

[Bonam]

Cripes, what a thread.

Women entered the workforce because technology changed. Specifically, their skills in paid labour were worth more than their unpaid skills in housework.

Bonam, think of a household in, say, 1925. Now, think of the same household in, say, 1975. What changes do you see? (Hint: Electric fridges, washing machines, dryers, vacuum cleaners.)

And let me push a little bit further here. Is that bad? That is, if women enter the paid labour force because machines make housework easier, is that bad?

IOW, is it bad if technology lowers the price of something? Or as you put it, "double the supply".

Technology is certainly a driver of social change. That is an argument I have made more often on this board than probably any other. And no, it's certainly not a bad thing. But when people wonder why wages have stagnated over the last few decades and try to blame it on evil corporations, they need to remember that their have been two very real downward pressures on worker's wagers: the almost doubling of the labour supply in western nations, and the access to global labour markets where wages are even lower.

[Bonam]

Women actually began to enter the workforce because the men were at war. That and the fact that they could be paid less, to do the same job a man did is what made it happen. Gender equality came much later, if it even has come yet since there are still inequalities that various feminist groups are working to overcome. Whether you like it or not, there are chavinists out there. I know, I work for one.

Well that's a whole other debate, and this isn't the thread for it, but we are certainly much closer to equality now than we were several decades ago, whether or not complete equality has been achieved.

But the actual mechanism of why, matters not. What matters is, the price of labour went down, the price of goods went up. The disparity between those who have and those who have not, increaseth.

The why certainly matters when people try to assign "blame" for the why. Some blame evil corporations, or union busting, or the greedy rich, etc.

But the question Michael raised more specifically is, is the bottom coming up, despite the fact that rich have gotten richer. That is a bit hard to measure... one needs to look at buying power. Certainly my example of a single income family having the same or perhaps even more buying power in the 'good old days', vs. todays dual income family is one important point to look at. I know a number of young families where the mother returned to work after raising the child for a mere 10 months. They just automatically assume, because of our culture that both parents must work, to make the income and baby in a daycare. I believe the negative effect this has on our children as they grow up in an institutionalized environment is under-rated.

I totally agree with you there, and think children raised by a stay at home parent benefit from a much better environment than those raised in institutionalized daycare (though many other people argued fiercely against this claim in a recent thread). But many women have no interest in staying at home to raise children even if it is a financial possibility. Most of my female friends are just as driven and career oriented as my male friends and none seem inclined at all to be stay at home moms. There is a lot more going on here than financial necessity, it is a cultural shift.

[Michael Hardner]

The same level as what? The former generation didn't require two jobs in a household, just to barely make ends meet. A mother could stay home and raise the young children, not send them to an institution where they get raised by people who are wholly indifferent to their individual needs. And pay vast sums for it. In the previous generation some of them even had a house, AND a cottage by a lake.

Well, I don't know how many childcare institutions are as you describe.

I would like to see a comparison of double-income (both parents working) salaries over time, in constant-year dollars.

We are clearly in a condition of economic decline but most people don't realize it, apparently judging themselves as on par with status-quo, but only compared to others around them who are in the same predicament.

Let's cite it then. Wikipedia

Sorry to use a US example, but see the 3rd graph down on the right.

[Michael Hardner]

Just to tie it back to the OP, would a centrally managed economy like Mutualism be able to adapt to social change as our economy has ? Just asking.

[Pliny]

Just to tie it back to the OP, would a centrally managed economy like Mutualism be able to adapt to social change as our economy has ? Just asking.

What would you have in place of a mutualist society? It's centrally managed so it attempts to keep society static making corrections here and there. The governing body doesn't change and change in society could pose a threat to it, therefore it resists change and will see the necessity for corrections to maintain stability in government over stability in society.

Our economy suffers from these corrections in the form of economic bubbles, bailouts, subsidies, welfare, graduated income taxes and other forms of wealth redistribution - which the centrally managed body feels it must be involved in.

According to Bonam's Wikipedia citation It appears that the rich are indeed getting richer and the poor are pretty much staying put.

[Oleg Bach]

My dad was a mutualist. He suffered a revolution - a war - famine - internal displacement within his own nation - and last but not least forced immigration because of unsafe and hopeless circumstance - If there was money in the drawer - or a ton of good food on the table - and someone in the family was in need - he would say one thing...in regards to mutual survival - if someone was greedy...."There are others" - we on the other hand believe that all others should perish so we can live well and better - this is the basis of imperialistic drivel.....everybody wants domination and control over others - The cure for this is not in the control of others but in the control of ones self!

[Pliny]

Yes, I know that you think that government makes life harder for the poor. I have never understood your point, and have said so. I'm still waiting for an example that makes sense to me. Libertarianism is a utopian dream to its adherents, much like Communism is to its adherents.

Communism is dead, Michael - it was a Utopian dream. There is no Utopia envisioned with Libertarianism. There is only the constant and vibrant cycle of life that is allowed to evolve through time. The State is simply a body of men that are brutal and seditious enough to try and enforce their visions of Utopia upon society. They have no idea how to humanely achieve that Utopia, but will use force when others fail to understand their vision and in social democracies they tend to use "help" as the reason for their existence.

[Oleg Bach]

Communism like all socialism is forced charity through taxing. To take away the free will of the benefactor and force him to give his wealth to his lessers destroys the enomomy. Charity does not exist any more - which is sad..It was a good sytem. To grant favour to others through your own private and personal decisions. Any nation that extorts funds from the wealthy in hope of getting rid of poverty only creates more poverty.....Communism consists of 80% bureacracy and the rest the real wealth creators - Labour! Those that actually create something with their hands...Russia fell flat on it's face because it was top heavey with governmental parasites.

I will give to the poor if I have it to give - But I like most others resent being forced to finance hopeless and unsavory endeavors.

Remember also - Communism killed millions of good people - I knew an old man of about 90 who sufferred though Sovietism - He said one thing on this topic..."The punished those that were intelligent and who worked hard" - Plus _ I personally resent communism - My grand father was executed by the Reds....it took about six years to get a so-called conviction - When you read the documents you see that he was executed first and then three days later found guilty by a tribunal. Go figure.

[Michael Hardner]

What would you have in place of a mutualist society? It's centrally managed so it attempts to keep society static making corrections here and there. The governing body doesn't change and change in society could pose a threat to it, therefore it resists change and will see the necessity for corrections to maintain stability in government over stability in society.

In place of a mutualist society ? Our current setup is better, IMO.

Our economy suffers from these corrections in the form of economic bubbles, bailouts, subsidies, welfare, graduated income taxes and other forms of wealth redistribution - which the centrally managed body feels it must be involved in.

We have some central management but nothing like what is proposed for mutualism.

According to Bonam's Wikipedia citation It appears that the rich are indeed getting richer and the poor are pretty much staying put.

I concur.

[Michael Hardner]

Communism is dead, Michael - it was a Utopian dream. There is no Utopia envisioned with Libertarianism. There is only the constant and vibrant cycle of life that is allowed to evolve through time.

Sounds pretty good to me... maybe even IDEAL.

The State is simply a body of men that are brutal and seditious enough to try and enforce their visions of Utopia upon society. They have no idea how to humanely achieve that Utopia, but will use force when others fail to understand their vision and in social democracies they tend to use "help" as the reason for their existence.

As I have already pointed out, state involvement in our affairs came in response to the misery that happened from laissez-faire. If you can explain why those problems wouldn't happen again, it would be helpful.

Employers wield more power than the employed, money and power accumulate and the average person doesn't have the resources or the foresight to plan for future hardships so they will be taken advantage of again and again.

[Pliny]

As I have already pointed out, state involvement in our affairs came in response to the misery that happened from laissez-faire. If you can explain why those problems wouldn't happen again, it would be helpful.

As I have pointed out, state involvement could only occur if there were wealth created to economically support it. I believe you are putting the cart before the horse.

Misery existed prior to the creation of surplus wealth. Would that be a possible concept? Obviously, laissez-faire created some wealth - some misery still remained. The State decided it could live off the wealth created and, besides defence and security, philanthropy became it's raison d'etre and justification to extract more from the fat of the land. Of course if there were no fat of the land the State would have had nothing to redistribute and would remain a simple agency of insurance, either that or tyranny, exacting it's pound of flesh.

So rather than State involvement in our affairs being a response to the misery you say laissez faire brought about the State was enabled to grow off the fat of the land itself using what misery was left as a reason and justification for it to extract more of the surplus wealth. Governments cannot live off of anything but surplus wealth.

Employers wield more power than the employed, money and power accumulate and the average person doesn't have the resources or the foresight to plan for future hardships so they will be taken advantage of again and again.

That's the story. Everyone works too hard for too little and if it weren't for government, and unions (can't forget unions) we would still be working 12 hour days, six days a week for pennies. Working less hours for dollars instead of pennies means the dollars must be more plentiful and the time more productive. It's the only way that could happen. It is just people kept in ignorance that will be taken advantage of again and again. That is, in my view, the important factor and the only problem that needs resolution when it comes to the distribution of wealth. People must eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge to open their eyes, not just vilify employers as greedy. They should and can be vilified for keeping people ignorant and under their thumb. Governments and Unions have not proven to be better educators than employers. They have only positioned themselves differently or in opposition.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

In place of a mutualist society ? Our current setup is better, IMO.

of course it is. we are only "progressing" toward a mutualist or similar society.

We have some central management but nothing like what is proposed for mutualism.

Right. But we have to think progressively in order to arrive at any conept of mutualism.

[Michael Hardner]

As I have pointed out, state involvement could only occur if there were wealth created to economically support it. I believe you are putting the cart before the horse.

Ok. Does that make any kind of case against state involvement though ? I don't see how it does.

Misery existed prior to the creation of surplus wealth. Would that be a possible concept? Obviously, laissez-faire created some wealth - some misery still remained. The State decided it could live off the wealth created and, besides defence and security, philanthropy became it's raison d'etre and justification to extract more from the fat of the land. Of course if there were no fat of the land the State would have had nothing to redistribute and would remain a simple agency of insurance, either that or tyranny, exacting it's pound of flesh.

Some misery remained and some new misery came up.

So rather than State involvement in our affairs being a response to the misery you say laissez faire brought about the State was enabled to grow off the fat of the land itself using what misery was left as a reason and justification for it to extract more of the surplus wealth. Governments cannot live off of anything but surplus wealth.

Administration always grows with complexity.

That's the story. Everyone works too hard for too little and if it weren't for government, and unions (can't forget unions) we would still be working 12 hour days, six days a week for pennies. Working less hours for dollars instead of pennies means the dollars must be more plentiful and the time more productive. It's the only way that could happen. It is just people kept in ignorance that will be taken advantage of again and again. That is, in my view, the important factor and the only problem that needs resolution when it comes to the distribution of wealth. People must eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge to open their eyes, not just vilify employers as greedy. They should and can be vilified for keeping people ignorant and under their thumb. Governments and Unions have not proven to be better educators than employers. They have only positioned themselves differently or in opposition.

You still haven't shown why that's not true. People demanded laws to shift the balance towards workers. How are they taken advantage of if most of them are doing better than they would without such reforms?

[Michael Hardner]

of course it is. we are only "progressing" toward a mutualist or similar society.

Right. But we have to think progressively in order to arrive at any conept of mutualism.

Mutualism isn't going to happen. Like Libertarianism, it's a philosophically pure concept that doesn't work in reality.

[August1991]

What a thread!

Women actually began to enter the workforce because the men were at war.

In the 1940s. And how does the Left portray the 1950s? Women at home and men at work.

Here's the issue, SB: This whole "raising social awareness" mantra of the Left is wasted effort. Most people make decisions when the numbers add up. If it matters, they don't need to have their awareness raised.

What woman in the world needs to have her "awareness raised" to know that a washing machine makes life easier? (In fact, it's not so simple and the Left is generally wrong in adopting change.)

That and the fact that they could be paid less, to do the same job a man did is what made it happen. Gender equality came much later, if it even has come yet since there are still inequalities that various feminist groups are working to overcome. Whether you like it or not, there are chavinists out there. I know, I work for one.

Paid less? Illiterate people are paid less too.

The question is why literate women were paid less, or were they?

Sir Bandelot, in the long stream of history - as Chou en-Lai said about the French Revolution - why do some people earn more now than 200 years ago?

Edited June 9, 2011 by August1991

[Pliny]

Ok. Does that make any kind of case against state involvement though ? I don't see how it does.

Does that "Ok" mean you agree that there has to be excess wealth to support a government?

We can't all be living in a state of poverty, arrive at this great idea that having a government will take us out of our misery, and all we have to do is pay some taxes. If we had something to pay our taxes with, of course.

If we, the people think someone is hogging all the wealth we could decide that we will take it away from them and distribute it among ourselves. That's been tried several times by revolutionary means or invading another country for their resources. It usually winds up being fairly destructive - perhaps the better idea is to have a third party prevent the accumulation of wealth in the first place and redistribute it as necessary. Then how do we prevent, people in the third party from being corrupted by that power to take another man's wealth and accumulating it for himself? Perhaps a democracy? The people by a vote replace the people in government every...say...four years. It seems to work in the US and has made monarchies kind of redundant - who needs a monarchy anyway. That's rule by a King or Queen, a really stupid idea. There's no guarantee one person, crowned by the right of herditary blood, is smart enough to look after all of us. We have to chose who we think will best represent us and the nation - that's smart. Long live democracy! We can spread it around the world to all nations and then we could have a democracy of nations, a league, or an association of United Nations. Wow! Ok, now how do we get the people behind this great idea? Somebody has to steward it - because if the people are electing and replacing their representation they may think they are best represented by their government and might not co-operate with other national governments to reach this ideal. Aha! No worries - we just continue to do what we are doing with individuals and apply it to nations - redistribute the wealth. By the time we get to that point individuals will have accepted the idea as necessary. It's just a normal activity of government for the common good.

The people should have the idea that affluence is a disease - call it "affluenza". I think there is a book called "Affluenza" if you google it. Above all though it must be taught in schools and ingrained in people's minds that government must do this wealth redistribution thing. The bureacracy - the structure and that power alone will be self-guiding once everyone has that common purpose of "equality". Of course, there has to be a few people watching over the process at all times, who really understand the importance of not spreading the disease of "affluenza" around, or a "regression" may occur. Now, like a forest fire, it is sometimes necessary in order to control it, to create fire breaks by using fire. So a little bit of "affluenza" can be used to control an outbreak of the disease. Some positions must be considered very important in ensuring affluenza does not occur and when it does the disease must be stopped. The people who stop it will have to have a little bit of "affluenza" - sort of like a vaccine to inject. It enables them the wherewithal to stop the spread of the disease. It's a sort of homeopathic approach.

This is where we sit today - and all is well. But we are not at the end yet. Leaders in government must all have this idea of "affluenza" for the common good. Most people already understand the problem of affluenza and the greed it breeds - the selfish and arrogant behavior that is so destructive, one need only loook to the United States of America to see how greed and selfishness is destroying it. Even among nations it's arrogant and imperialistic attitude spreads poison to other nations. Mr. Obama sees that and is doing something about it - we must work towards all nations being equal. It is only fair.

Some misery remained and some new misery came up.

I'll tell ya, if we don't contain this affluenza there will be some misery!

Administration always grows with complexity.

That complexity only occurs when that common purpose of the collective good is lost - only where greed and selfishness raises it's head do we have problems - those individuals thinking only of themselves, and even those nations that arrogantly believe simply because of their wealth they are superior, not realizing for a second they are actually stealing the wealth from other nations.

You still haven't shown why that's not true. People demanded laws to shift the balance towards workers. How are they taken advantage of if most of them are doing better than they would without such reforms?

Actually, laws were made to cut down competition. Unions helped to create the monopolies and cartels by pricing labour too high for smaller companies. Regulations and licensing made it too expensive and complex for starting competing businesses. It was all justified of course. I mean, the workers, the ones that could find work, benefitted. Ones that couldn't cut the mustard, the truly needy, the less advantaged, the uneducated, the unskilled labourer, now didn't have a chance to find work. Those few who couldn't rise above their circumstance, through education or gaining skills or whatever they lacked, now had no opportunity to contribute to society and became our welfare class. No jobs can be given out of charity when they are too costly - some can and do provide those jobs if people care about others at all, but today that option is all but gone - it just cannot be afforded anymore so we are building a permanent welfare class while the marginal worker clamors to keep and grow his entitlements.

Unhappy with his work of course. It would be better done by someone of lesser ability - he is left with the feeling his time is more important than his job and is being wasted, a raise or days off with pay might assuage those feelings of being "exploited".

This is pretty much how I view things and I just keep saying it over and over in different ways and as I learn more I find different ways to say the same thing. The individual - you - are important.

[August1991]

If we, the people think someone is hogging all the wealth we could decide that we will take it away from them and distribute it among ourselves. That's been tried several times by revolutionary means or invading another country for their resources. It usually winds up being fairly destructive - perhaps the better idea is to have a third party prevent the accumulation of wealth in the first place and redistribute it as necessary. Then how do we prevent, people in the third party from being corrupted by that power to take another man's wealth and accumulating it for himself? Perhaps a democracy? The people by a vote....

Pliny, your post is wise.

You examine the practical consequences of various actions. IOW, you consider incentives, unintended consequences and their role in social organization.

Leftists typically see signals as a light to awareness. People on the right see signals as how people may drive a car.

[Michael Hardner]

Does that "Ok" mean you agree that there has to be excess wealth to support a government?

Generally, I would say so, although I prefer to call it administration.

It's important to note that big economic improvements also produced big social changes that needed to be managed.

We can't all be living in a state of poverty, arrive at this great idea that having a government will take us out of our misery, and all we have to do is pay some taxes. If we had something to pay our taxes with, of course.

If we, the people think someone is hogging all the wealth we could decide that we will take it away from them and distribute it among ourselves. That's been tried several times by revolutionary means or invading another country for their resources. It usually winds up being fairly destructive - perhaps the better idea is to have a third party prevent the accumulation of wealth in the first place and redistribute it as necessary. Then how do we prevent, people in association.

The people should have the idea that affluence is a disease - call it "affluenza". I think there is a book called "Affluenza" if you google it. Above all though it must be taught in schools and ingrained in people's minds that government must do this wealth redistribution thing. The bureacracy - the structure and that power alone will be self-guiding once everyone has that common purpose of "equality". Of course, there has to be a few people watching over the process at all times, who really understand the importance of not spreading the disease of "affluenza" around, or a "regression" may occur. Now, like a forest fire, it is sometimes necessary in order to control it, to create fire breaks by using fire. So a little bit of "affluenza" can be used to control an outbreak of the disease. Some positions must be considered very important in ensuring affluenza does not occur and when it does the disease must be stopped. The people who stop it will have to have a little bit of "affluenza" - sort of like a vaccine to inject. It enables them the wherewithal to stop the spread of the disease. It's a sort of homeopathic approach.

This is where we sit today - and all is well. But we are not at the end yet. Leaders in government must all have this idea of "affluenza" for the common good. Most people already understand the problem of affluenza and the greed it breeds - the selfish and arrogant behavior that is so destructive, one need only loook to the United States of America to see how greed and selfishness is destroying it. Even among nations it's arrogant and imperialistic attitude spreads poison to other nations. Mr. Obama sees that and is doing something about it - we must work towards all nations being equal. It is only fair.

I'll tell ya, if we don't contain this affluenza there will be some misery!

It's hard to tell, with your tone in this post, where the sarcasm end and begins.

That complexity only occurs when that common purpose of the collective good is lost - only where greed and selfishness raises it's head do we have problems - those individuals thinking only of themselves, and even those nations that arrogantly believe simply because of their wealth they are superior, not realizing for a second they are actually stealing the wealth from other nations.

Sarcastic or not ?

Actually, laws were made to cut down competition. Unions helped to create the monopolies and cartels by pricing labour too high for smaller companies. Regulations and licensing made it too expensive and complex for starting competing businesses. It was all justified of course. I mean, the workers, the ones that could find work, benefitted. Ones that couldn't cut the mustard, the truly needy, the less advantaged, the uneducated, the unskilled labourer, now didn't have a chance to find work. Those few who couldn't rise above their circumstance, through education or gaining skills or whatever they lacked, now had no opportunity to contribute to society and became our welfare class. No jobs can be given out of charity when they are too costly - some can and do provide those jobs if people care about others at all, but today that option is all but gone - it just cannot be afforded anymore so we are building a permanent welfare class while the marginal worker clamors to keep and grow his entitlements.

Unhappy with his work of course. It would be better done by someone of lesser ability - he is left with the feeling his time is more important than his job and is being wasted, a raise or days off with pay might assuage those feelings of being "exploited".

This is pretty much how I view things and I just keep saying it over and over in different ways and as I learn more I find different ways to say the same thing. The individual - you - are important.

Well, historically the   factories with expensive machines drove down wages and required workers to form combines to get a better deal.  People on welfare do work (called Ontario Works here) so your example doesn't seem correct.

[Pliny]

Generally, I would say so, although I prefer to call it administration.

It's important to note that big economic improvements also produced big social changes that needed to be managed.

Oh...What to do with the King's ransom?

It's hard to tell, with your tone in this post, where the sarcasm end and begins.

Unimportant signal turn right here?

Sarcastic or not ?

When I speak in lefty progressivist concepts it sounds like I'm being sarcastic?

Were Jack Layton to say the same thing it would not be sarcasm, would it? How do you tell if he is not being sarcastic?

Well, historically the   factories with expensive machines drove down wages and required workers to form combines to get a better deal.

I see. Curse those factories with expensive machines driving wages down and forcing workers to get a better deal.

 People on welfare do work (called Ontario Works here) so your example doesn't seem correct.

I dunno....Sounds exploitive. Does the civil liberties union know of this?