The author offers some reasons for thinking that a BI would increase the bargaining power of unions:

* A BI would reduce the costs to workers of going on strike.
* Workers would have a credible exit option.

So the first question should be: do unions oppose a BI? The article discusses union attitudes in Belgium, Canada and in the Netherlands; I'll limit myself to the Canadian case here:

quote:

---

According to political scientist Rodney S. Haddow, "the [Canadian] union movement has always treated the GAI with considerable caution and viewed it as potentially antithetical to its social policy goals"... But it did not always take coherent positions on the topic, Haddow argues: "Organized labor's early response to the GAI was muted and confused... it was slow to form a coherent assessment of the implications of a negative income tax for its program... However, the publication in 1985 of a bulky and influential report by the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada (the so-called Macdonald Commission"), which included a scenario for the introduction of a partial basic income, triggered harsh reactions. In 1986, the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), Canada's largest union confederation, expressed serious doubts about the desirability of such a reform and denounced its "neo-liberal character". A BI, the CLC argued, was going to undermine the minimum wage legislation...

...

The story is quite different, though, in the province of Québec... Recent interviews with Québécois union officials have shown that they have mixed feelings about the possible introduction of a BI in Canada or Québec... Most of them actually endorse the proposal on ethical grounds, but reject it for pragmatic reasons.

---

[emphasis in the original]

This would an understandable position on the part of the Quebec unions if they were the only players interested in implementing a BI, and decided to focus their energies on more short-term, attainable goals. But that's not the case in Quebec. The Pour un Québec lucide manifesto - signed by prominent members of both the PQ and the Liberals - calls for a BI. Pretty much the only thing missing from a virtually unanimous consensus on the matter is union support.

The author offers some reasons for the lack of enthusiasm for a BI, such as

quote:

---

... wage labor would lose its central role in society. Presumably, unions might see this development as a threat to their own position...

---

which hardly reflects well on union leaders' motives.

It may be that the author - who lives in Belgium - is out to lunch. Are Canadian unions really opposed to the GAI? If so, why?

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

1. How much is the Guaranteed Annual Income (ballpark)?

1.) I'm not an expert, so I don't really know. The current welfare limits would be a lower bound, certainly - but without the strings that are attached to the current welfare system.

2.) The GAI would render quite a few of those programs superfluous (eg: social assistance), and that money could be used to fund the BI. Existing programs are already insanely complicated, so it'd be a big job sorting out the ones that we'd need to keep, modify or eliminate. But the guiding principle would be that no-one would be actually worse off.

But I don't get the impression that proposals had even gotten to that level of detail. My reading was that the objections were about a BI per se, not about the specific numbers. If the disagreement were mainly about numbers, then we could thrash those details out by looking at the data, experiences elsewhere, and (inevitably) by trial-and-error.

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

- Everyone gets a cheque, but upper income households would get it clawed back in the form of higher income taxes.

- A negative income tax: anyone below the GAI gets a cheque. People above a certain level get nothing. (There may be a grey area where people get partial payments).

- Some combination.

Would able-bodied people be required to work (or diligently seek work) to qualify, or could they just sit home and earn?

Would it be per person, per family, what function of family size?

Exactly which of the so-called "complicated" programs would it replace, Stephen? Would CPP/QPP and OAS be among them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Would this replace minimum wage laws, so that low-wage employers would get subsidized by the state (i.e. taxpayers)?

---

Yes. Since the raison d'être of minimum wage laws - i.e., to ensure a minumim standard of living - would be taken over by the BI.

quote:

---

Would able-bodied people be required to work (or diligently seek work) to qualify, or could they just sit home and earn?

---

The classic BI is completely unconditional. If you want to lead an ascetic life of contemplation, you could.

quote:

---

Would it be per person, per family, what function of family size?

---

quote:

---

Exactly which of the so-called "complicated" programs would it replace, Stephen? Would CPP/QPP and OAS be among them?

---

quote:

---

I have lots of questions, and they aren't "details". They go to whether the concept is feasible and equitable. I'll be honest, it sounds very suspect to me without lots of elaboration.

---

I won't have all the answers, but I did find this site, which seems to be a resource for those interested in the question. I'm going to spend some time rootling about in there.

eta: They even have a FAQ page!

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

What happens to inflation control and NAIRU ?.

I would think BI would create more incentive for people to work rather than not, or at least the number of people who can't work shouldn't change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
That's interesting - BI having no significant effect on inflation. Is that the evidence from Europe and, I think, South Africa ?.

Who is against BI in Canada, and what's the holdup?.

---

Based on what I've heard so far - and especially (but not solely) because it would replace hard-fought and hard-won social programs, while appearing to effect some kind of income redistribution which allows people to sit around and not work while allowing employers to pay next-to-nothing while getting my tax money to do so...

I'm against it.

I have a different idea. Call it a modest proposal. How about legislating a maximum income from all sources?

Society would collapse if no one could earn more than (say) $300,000 per year, right? They'd all run away to the States? Our brightest brains?

In a summary of a recent publication of the CLC, the following comment appears on the CLC website:

quote:

---

The idea of addressing poverty through some kind of wage supplementation program has been around for some time, but has only recently moved to the centre stage of Canadian social policy. Unlike the more visionary concept of a Guaranteed Annual Income for all citizens, wage supplements are intended to promote and support employment in low-paid jobs. They have been seen as more “work-friendly” than traditional welfare programs (Myles and Pierson, 1997). One widely cited model is the US Earned Income Tax Credit or EITC, which provides a (low) annual income supplement to working poor families i.e. to families which have low incomes and also participate in the paid job market. A similar plan in the UK has been expanded under “New Labour,” and one is now planned for Canada at the national level. Saskatchewan and Quebec already offer modest wage supplement programs.

---

This quote seems to suggest that the CLC is friendly towards the idea of a GAI, certainly in comparison to a wage supplement program.

**********************************

On the other hand, .... I would, however, be wary of the premises and the conclusions of someone who writes, "At Federal level they benefit from the fact that the electoral system, contrary to the US, allows for the existence of a third party between the liberals and the conservative". Perhaps a poor choice of words? Hmm ...

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
If you want to lead an ascetic life of contemplation, you could.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/jobs__economy

This quote seems to suggest that the CLC is friendly towards the idea of a GAI, certainly in comparison to a wage supplement program.

---

You know, I read that excerpt a couple of times and I honestly can't see any negativity toward wage supplement policies at all. How did you deduce that? If it was only from the descriptor "more visionary" applied to GAI, I think you may be misreading the intent. "More visionary" can just as easily mean "Utopian". Anyway, wage supplements (as long as they do not detract from minimum wage standards) in any form appear more equitable to me than GAI or BI as I have seen it expounded to date.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Unless, of course, everyone wanted to "lead an ascetic life of contemplation"!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Actually, I have a problem with society financing anyone who is unquestionably fit, has no other justifiable constraints, and refuses all job and training offers. Why would we want to do that?

---

I can't imagine anyone not looking for work across Canada actually being offered a job. It just doesn't happen like yesteryear when Joe came round to his friends to announce that the mill would be hiring a hundred and ninety guys. And when it does happen the odd time nowadays, the lineups to apply for the handful of jobs usually turns into a campout, a sit-in for the chance to contribute to society and become tax-paying citizens.

And as far as job training in Canada goes, even Dalton McGuilty has admitted to there being a serious lack of it in Ontario.

Ascetic subsistence?. You guys need to quit reading The Globe and Mail and sit down to a long Henry Fonda movie entitled, The Grapes of Wrath.

The old theory of work said that people needed to be prodded into doing a days work, and that people are basically lazy. FForward to modern times ...

The new theory of work says that people do not have to be prodded into working if they can put food on the table and roofs over their heads with a paycheque.

And when asked about it, most people would rather work a 35 hour work week with plenty of time off for family and life in general if they knew it meant more people could be employed full-time with benefit coverage. I knew a guy who pulled every OT shift he could at the mill because he liked money. His kids ended up disliking him, and he suffered a heart attack before retiring.

Does any of us here know someone who does not desire meaningful work - to live the good life with their own family - own a home and to be able to put food on the table?. I can't imagine anyone like that.

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

unionist: does the "left" in general have a reason to support or oppose GAI or BI? I understand Stephen's interest in the thesis presented by the Belgian paper, but it appears to carry a subtext that unions see GAI as a threat to their turf, which seems very silly to me.

---

Problem is, if some "version" of GAI is introduced as part of an overall program to dismantle the welfare state, then is GAI only worthy of support "in general" but not in this particular case? That's a scenario which would see possible opponents of new social atrocities divided. The author quotes the following in his introduction:

quote:

---

The introduction of such an unconditional income is to be viewed not as the dismantling but as the culmination of the welfare state.

---

Uh huh. "is to be viewed" always gets my bullshit detector going. The author spends more time anticipating criticism than in marshalling evidence. At least, where Canada is concerned.

There's more:

quote:

---

For the sake of the argument, I shall here assume without discussion that a generous BI scheme would replace existing means-tested minimum income schemes, the bulk of tax credits and exemptions, and be integrated with family allowances and, when it exists, basic pension schemes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/jobs__economy

In a summary of a recent publication of the CLC, the following comment appears on the CLC website:

This quote seems to suggest that the CLC is friendly towards the idea of a GAI, certainly in comparison to a wage supplement program.

---

quote:

---

Does Basic Income make work pay? The other aspect of the unemployment trap generated by means-tested guaranteed minimum schemes is the one most commonly stressed by economists. It consists in the lack of a significant positive income differential between no work and low-paid work. At the bottom end of the earnings distribution, if each Euro of earnings is offset, or practically offset, or more than offset, by a loss of one Euro in benefits, one does not need to be particularly lazy to turn down a job that would yield such earnings, or to actively look for such jobs. Given the additional costs, travelling time or child care problems involved, one may not be able to afford to work under such circumstances. Moreover, it would generally not make much sense for employers to design and offer such jobs, as people who would be grateful for being sacked are unlikely to constitute a conscientious and reliable work force. A minimum wage legislation may anyway prevent full-time jobs from being offered a wage lower than the income guarantee, in which case the latter consideration only applies to part-time jobs. The replacement of a means-tested guaranteed income by a universal basic income is often presented as a way of tackling this second aspect of the unemployment trap too. If one gave everyone a universal basic income but taxed at 100% the portion of everyone's earnings that does not exceed the minimum guarantee (see for example Salverda 1984), the unemployment trap would be the same, in this respect, as under a means-tested guaranteed minimum income. [Fig.1 and Fig.3] But if one makes the mild assumption that the explicit tax rate applying to the lowest income brackets must remain noticeably lower than 100%, then the following statement holds. Since you can keep the full amount of your basic income, whether working or not, whether rich or poor, you are bound to be better off when working than out of work. [Fig. 2]

---

Many wonder that if there was such a thing as a GAI, who would flip the burgers, clean the houses, do the laundry, stay married to Joe Asshole, etc? The answer, as I see it, is nobody unless those 'jobs' changed somewhat. Money isn't the only reason people decide on certain careers, and with a GAI it would be an even less important reason. However, employers could make almost any job attractive in the labour 'marketplace' by treating workers with dignity and respect, and actually giving a crap about their workers.

Those who lead a nation, act in the best interests of the citizens of that nation. Those who lead a union act in the best interests of those who are members of that union. That is how they stay in power.

A GI will increase taxes. There is no question.

Given that many people in unions are middle to high income - a GI will not help them at all. It will however increase their taxes. Therefore, it stands to reason that a GI will not be in the best interest of union members as it will decrease their take home pay.

quote:

---

Pearson: Those who lead a nation, act in the best interests of the citizens of that nation.

---

Yawn. So if the Liberals win an election then THEY act in the best interests of Canada, if the Conservatives win an election then THEY act in the best interests of Canada, and, miracles aside, if the NDP win an election then THEY act in the best interests of Canada? What magical transformation takes place that changes these parties from partisan organizations overnight into organizations that "act in the best interests", etc.?

They have the illusion of acting in the best interests of Canadians, just as union leaders have the illusion of acting in the best interest of their members.

I thought this to be so blitheringly obvious, as to not need mention.

My point is that the leaders of Canada, are not going to make it their core mandate to fix all the problems of the world, unless Canadians indicate that it is something very important to them - more so, than fixing the problems encountered by Canadians - thus we remain well under 0.7%.

Union leaders are no different. If their members indicate that they don't want to pay higher taxes to pay for a GAI, then they will not support one.

Because left wing groups have tended to support organized labour, and stood up to corporations there has been a strong link between organized labour and helping the poor - the commonality being that they are both standing up to rich elites and to business.

Basically, identify a minimum standard of living. Healthy food, decent shelter, transportation options, some modicum of community participation and recreation.

In BC it's about $1233/month for a single adult (according to local research).

Set the basic income for various family sizes and configurations, then index it to inflation. Doublecheck the basic living costs every five years - do people still eat the foods in the basket? Have the costs gone up or down?

Every adult gets it, whether they are disabled, employed, unemployed, poor or rich, a student or a plumber. Some variations would be appropriate for people with dependents, obviously (though couples should be dealt with individually, for a lot of reasons).

That is THE social program, the one that obviates the need for most others. No more welfare, EI, disability benefits etc. No need for the CCTB or the many complex and absurd provincial systems.

Obviously Worker's Comp would remain - it's a separate issue, and would relate to the income above the allowance. Ditto CPP - it would be all about what else you did.

Obviously other programs would still have fees. Tuition for university or vocational school, for example.

Calculate the savings on administration and disbursement of all of the social benefits programs that are eliminated. Then figure out a fair but steep progressive taxation system.

So in BC, an adult would get an allowance of $1233 a month, or about $14800/year. As a point of interest, the fact that most taxation doesn't start until around this level is an implicit acceptance by our governments that it reflects the basic cost of living.

The next 5-10K are at a low tax rate. By the time they get up to $200K they are paying about 80%. (note - I am pulling the rates out of thin air - I'd be interested to know what it would actually cost, and what the progressive rates would actually have to be).

Of course, we'd also have to increase capital gains tax and corporate taxes, re-introduce the inheritance tax and eliminate all the loopholes that allow our wealthy to make out like bandits. But we need to do that anyways.

People who see this as losing the hard-won social programs are missing the point. All of those programs are, for the most part, inadequate, poorly managed and punitive. They need to be replaced with an equitable system that actually helps people rather than bullying them and further marginalizing them.

Sure, some people would fall off the edge of the system and sit in their apartments doing nothing for awhile. So what - the overwhelming majority of us are keen to find and do valuable work. I'm tired of the insulting and inaccurate 'welfare slacker' myth, and it gets even more depressing when I see it coming from the left.

Good reasons in favour:
1. Reduce administrative overhead, which with 10 competing and contradictory provincial systems, combined with an equally complex and distorted federal system results in administrative chaos and waste. A cheque to every citizen, every month, bar none would be much simpler and cheaper to manage.
2. Ensure that all Canadians have an adequate standard of living.
3. Ensure that low-quality workplaces would have to raise their standards to keep employees. Right now they have staff because people can't afford to leave. We need to change that. Ditto unsafe jobs.
4. Increase the power of working people to determine their destinies - meaning increased ability to strike, leave for other jobs or otherwise take chances that many don't feel they can take right now.
5. Increased opportunity for entepreneurialism and innovation. Where people cannot afford to take risks now, there would be increased latitude with a guaranteed income. Risky new ideas could get through the first few months or years on a shoestring, for example.

I actually think the potential for a positive impact on our economy is stronger than most of us assume. Economic growth tends to come from new ideas and new developments, which would be more possible in such a social system.

Sure, so the taxation of people higher up the food chain would go up, but they are already pretty comfortable. Maybe they would have to buy the Hummer 3 instead of the big one, or perhaps a smaller estate, but that's just too bad. I'm more interested in the majority of us who are down at the bottom.

Is this what social democracy has come to?

I have seen other arguments for GAI that have been less strong, but yours is a good one, although there are a lot of things that I don't agree with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
Arborman,

I have seen other arguments for GAI that have been less strong, but yours is a good one, although there are a lot of things that I don't agree with.

For starters, the amount $1233 for a single person. How is that calculated, what is included in that?

---

The report I linked to above goes into great detail to outline their calculations. I sometimes work with those folks, so I can give a thumbnail - though I recommend reading the report. I just realized the link doesn't work - go
to SPARC BC and search their publications for 'Left Behind'.

They use the annual "cost of eating" report to determine how much it costs to eat a healthy diet ($197.68). They account for transit ($95), Personal care costs ($23.04), clothing costs ($71.94), basic rent ($580), utilities ($22.60), basic telephone ($31.53), 'other costs' ($196.22).*

*other costs include basic community participation costs - buying a book, going out for coffee, recreation, non-prescription medicines, admission fees for occasional events etc.

quote:

---

Redistributing the wealth from higher paid to lower paid workers. Leaving the richest in control of all the basic means of production. Legislating a uniform level of poverty.

Is this what social democracy has come to?

I am totally opposed to this notion as it has been described so far.

---

I did mention that some significant capital taxes should be created, as well as inheritance taxes and a steep progressive taxation system. Tax everyone to ensure the health and well-being of everyone.

And I'd much prefer the bottom line to be a decent standard of living, rather than the current situation.

This is in reply to those who have said this magic bullet of giving everyone the same monthly cheque would replace a whole raft of existing "complex" social and economic programs (and it also arose from wondering why the advocates of this scheme were not among our more "left-wing" posters):

The essence of my comment was that, stripped of its charitable and "fair to all" clothing, this scheme, at least as described by Stephen Gordon and his Belgian sources, appeared designed to let the state off the hook from legislating minimum standards and actually creating infrastructure for all kinds of social programs by giving every citizen a poverty-level cheque (more than welfare) and saying: "Now go spend it any way you like!"

quote:

---

in 1985 .... (the so-called Macdonald Commission"), which included a scenario for the introduction of a partial basic income, triggered harsh reactions. In 1986, the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), Canada's largest union confederation, expressed serious doubts about the desirability of such a reform and denounced its "neo-liberal character".

---

The reason unions were so opposed to the idea was that it was only meant to be an advantage to employers. Under the Mulroney government at the time, a GI would not have been universal, the poor and disadvantaged would not be eligible for it unless they took a minimum wage job and the unemployable would get no benefit at all.

The Mulroney government simply wanted to further the corporate welfare system. The impetus for this initiative came from the business community, in particular, the service and franchise industry. Their support for a GI was wholly self-interested. The premise was that there a lot of employees who cannot survive on minimum wage. So the employers were expecting government to top up the minimum wage with a GI and, thereby, allow the employers to maintain their obscene salaries and to increase their profit margins with no further thought to the employee needs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:

But the GLI concept that is gaining so much popluarity today is targeted at society as a whole and seeks to provide a decent standard of living for ALL disadvantaged and marginalized groups.

---

Just read what you said. "All disadvantaged and marginalized groups" will be given a "decent standard of living" - i.e., some poverty-line subsistence whose quantum is currently being debated by armchair experts. Having done that, and eliminated all other income-support programs (because that's what the whole idea is) - you have now entrenched "disadvantaged and marginalized groups" in the society at a GLI poverty level of subsistence.

This is not economic justice. It is Harper's child-care bonus instead of actually providing the service, only extended to the entire range of government programs.

quote:

---

At its June 2001 congress, the Rassemblement pour l'Alternative progressiste (RAP), the most significant party to the left of the two main parties (Parti libéral and Bloc québecois) adopted the proposal of a universal "citizenship income" at the level of the official poverty line. At the next elections for Québec's provincial Parliament, the RAP will be part of a broader front (Union des Forces progressistes), which will also campaign in favour of proportional representation. For further information, contact Jean Lambert ([email protected]).

According to "Workfare-Fight, the list for fighting workfare internationally", the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear, probably in the Autumn of 2001, a claim by Quebec welfare claimant Louise Gosselin to a right to an adequate level of social assistance for those in need. Quebec is the only jurisdiction in North America to include social and economic rights in its human rights legislation. This will be the first case in which the Supreme Court considers this provision in the Quebec Charter. More significantly, it will also be the first case in which the Court will consider whether the right to "security of the person" in the Canadian Charter prohibits cuts to welfare which deny recipients basic necessities and whether the guarantee of equality includes substantive obligations to provide adequately for disadvantaged groups relying on social assistance. For more information: http://www.icomm.ca/workfare/.

On December 9th 2000, just after the ruling Liberal Party won a decisive victory in the Canadian Parliamentary election, the idea of a guaranteed income suddenly and surprisingly appeared on the front pages of Canadian Newspapers. Under a banner headline, the National Post (one of the most conservative national dailies in Canada) reported that Prime Minister "Jean Chretien assembled a top-level committee in hopes of creating a cradle-to-grave guaranteed annual income program that he hopes will be his political legacy". Over the following four days, the National Post followed with more front-page articles including one with the headline, "Foes slam 'Socialistic Experiment.'" The harshest criticism came from Stockwell Day, the leader of Canada's Alliance Party, known for being more-conservative-than-the-Conservative Party. He accused the Liberals of misleading the Canadians during the election and said that Chretien should name a mountain after himself if he wants to leave a lasting legacy rather than spend billions to fund a cradle-to-grave welfare program. On December 13th, however, the Globe and Mail reported that Chretien denied any part in suggesting the idea. Chretien said, "I don't know where that idea comes from. I haven't said a word about it."

---

quote:

---

The reason unions were so opposed to the idea was that it was only meant to be an advantage to employers. Under the Mulroney government at the time, a GI would not have been universal, the poor and disadvantaged would not be eligible for it unless they took a minimum wage job and the unemployable would get no benefit at all.

---

And another group that lobbies for a GLI is DAWN
link

Besides which, there are the 151 million google hits on the subject

[ 02 September 2006: Message edited by: otter ]

First of all, I commend Beltov for setting the record straight on the CLC position on the GAI.

The fact is the CLC has no problem with GAI plans in principle. However it did have grave concerns, most of which I share, with the MacDonald proposal in the 1980 (which did have a "neo-liberal" character).

The fact is, talking about whether you support GAI or not is kind of like talking about whether you support gun control or not: it's a matter of what is exactly meant by the term, and also what other reforms have to take place in order to make it work as intended.

GAI plans, on the one hand, are honest attempts to raise the incomes of lower-end wage earners and the unemployed (including the disabled, seniors relying solely on public pensions, stay-at-home single moms, etc.). These are usually fine in principle (you need to see if they actually work in practice, depending on how they are set up and what guidelines they use).

However, GAI plans have also been used to try to coercively lower wages and working people's incomes by legislating broad wage tiers, while restricting what unions can negotiate collectively. These are crap.

I think arborman raises some interesting ideas around this as well, although GAI plans can get problematic when trying to replace specific programs with direct case-to-solution provisions, like workers' compensation (that is, when anti-worker governments don't screw with it), or industry- or workforce-specific public pensions.

Also, I take serious exception to using taxpayers' (who are mostly workers) dollars to subsidize low-wage employers so their wage rates aren't as low. Obviously, this can be sold to the public as helping out cash-strapped small single-outlet businesses pay better wages.

But the big beneficiaries, as usual, will be the Wal-Marts, McDonald's, and similar tyrannical empires that will such more cash from the public trough, in addition to all the money they suck directly out of the economy off of tax-paying workers' backs, while still paying crappy wages while accumulating even more wealth and causing more wide-spread poverty.

Finally, I think the Unionist makes a good fundamental observation that people should really consider more often: these types of reforms, no matter how well intentioned and even beneficial compared to what was done before, will still be very limited we just let our economy stay under the dictatorial thumb of various wealthy profiteering clubs.

One thing that gets forgotten way too much is that social democracy isn't just about reforms that improve things for people--as important and essential as that is. Rather, it's about the reforms improving things and empowering people with greater rights and freedom, higher living standards and more resources and opportunities in order to democratize our economy over time by putting workers and their communities in control of business and make it more sustainable.

quote:

---

it's about the reforms improving things and empowering people with greater rights and freedom, higher living standards and more resources and opportunities in order to democratize our economy over time by putting workers and their communities in control of business and make it more sustainable.

---

Which is why a GLI is so important. It would give a tremendous to the idea of empowerment and freedom of choice by finally freeing citizens from having to constantly compete and struggle to obtain enough cash to get by. Work is NOT the only the only way to contribute to one's community. Nor should it be. Volunterism, for example,is the lifeblood of grassroots activities. I have already posted many other examples of how a GLI promotes personal freedom, empowerment and opportunities. NOt to mention the invaluable resources these recipients become to their communities.

The unions that opposed the Mulroney GI knew this and spoke out in support of the WHOLE of the community, rather than operating from their own interests.

"Finally, I think the Unionist makes a good fundamental observation that people should really consider more often: these types of reforms, no matter how well intentioned and even beneficial compared to what was done before, will still be very limited we just let our economy stay under the dictatorial thumb of various wealthy profiteering clubs."

Besides, health studies show that apart from having to suffer the wrath of religious moralists, those who sleep longer live longer. We're social animals and lazy by design. At one time we were in harmony with nature. We likely hunted for three or four hours and slept/socialized the rest of the day. I'm for a reduced work week myself and getting rid of daylight savings time, which was designed to save capitalists the cost of electrical power to light up their widget factories. But then organized labour had to go an explain shift work to the bastards.

I'm for paying people to stay home in a similar way that the Republican Party pays wealthy farmers not to grow anything. That is, until we have a socialist society at some point after this monetary system based on comparative wealth is scrapped. And global resource depletion by the industrialized economies is bringing us closer to the choosing either socialism or barbarism. Our playing along with capitalism based on oil consumption is getting to be murder on whole nations of people. We're observing the barbarism side of that famous proposition more and more now.

[ 02 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I've listened to people in high tech say things like they love it and that they'v never done the same thing twice. That's a line of bull, because they basically do the same things over and over like Charlie Chaplin's silent movie character. Work has become so monotonous in the name of efficiency that people don't realize they are bored out of their skulls for the sake and only say things like that because their choices are limited. And some people actually would choose to do the same things over and over making a career out of doctoring or sales and marketing. That's fine too.

Remember the Soviet system?. Scientists and physicians at one time were happy to get a free apartment and some lesser rewards. The guy cleaning the same windows all week long in 1970's Moscow might have been viewed as a wasting his time and effort, but I believe there was some dignity had in getting up every morning to do it as you say we need and desire. I hate to have to say it but I think something like this is workable and realistic for the future. How about paying people to visit the sick and dying in hospitals?. Or paying people to organize a family reunion or birthday party?. I don't know, but there are people with more imagination than i have - i know that for a fact.

[ 02 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:

But does unionist acknowledge that reform comes through the system? Even voting for a party that isn't quite pure enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
Fidel, who decides who is lazy? If I want to take my recreation, am I to just respect that the rink keeper couldn't come in the day I want to skate? Example: what really pissed me off is those I knew who wanted to do their own thing expected the doctor to be there and the metro to run on time when needed.

---

Ah yes, the monetary reward system as an incentive to get the heck out of bed in the morning and go to work. It's not very complimentary of humanity to believe we can't trust one another to be punctual. And yet our system already depends on volunteerism to varying degrees. People show up because they have volunteered to do certain things already over and above their day jobs. Imagine how productive people could be if they were doing things they enjoyed doing. As it is in Cuba, people attend free universities to become physicians and not for the monetary reward. They become doctors because of the dignity and respect it commands. And mainly because they want to help other people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
As it is in Cuba, people attend free universities to become physicians and not for the monetary reward. They become doctors because of the dignity and respect it commands. And mainly because they want to help other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

The trick is to get people to show up to work at low-status jobs.

---

In fact, some of our Steel mills in Ontario do something along the lines of task sharing now, or at least Algoma did a few years back. Broom pushers and clerks were given the chance to go back to school a few weeks at a time and learn some of the higher end automation processes. There were pushers out in the yards scaling steel and getting to know everyone. Look at Algoma's share values now. They've come a long way since Bob Rae signed loan guarantees for them in the 90's.

[ 03 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I've lost track. Are you arguing for or against the GAI?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I've lost track. Are you arguing for or against the GAI?

---

quote:

---

The trick is to get people to show up to work at low-status jobs.

---

And we are relatively well off and able to afford coffee and bananas because poor, non-unionized workers break their backs under the tropical sun in Latin America for too little reward. Let's eliminate trading companies living off the sweat, blood and tears of real people who have no choice in the matter.

[ 04 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]