Do you *want* a simple life?

[JohnB]

I could do it quite easily. Reading, writing, listening to music, practising the violin. Then, I'm single and childless

But you need to feed yourself, do housework etc as well, and that's work just as much as sitting in an office or working in a factory

[SunnyJim]

Over the last century or more, there has been a shift in activity away from the domestic economy where work was done, unpaid and unrecognised by the GDP numbers, in the home, towards more paid work and more activity coming under the section of the economy that involves financial transactions.

It might be nice to reverse that trend.

Yes, that is what I was refering to. I meant work as in the provision of labour and/or skills in order to further your employers gains in reward for a guaranteed wage.

Currently we need the wage (guaraneed so you can get a mortgage against it), so that we can buy a house. If we worked less, we would still be able to afford a house as house prices would come down.

The more we work for others, the more taxable revenue is generated, but the less time we have to do work improving our own estates, i.e. collecting wood, growing your own food etc etc. But we are trapped by debt in the form of mortgages which makes it hard to do all that and earn enough to service a mortgage debt.

[biffvernon]

In a recession or a slump, there's no reduction in the amount of money in the economy, it's just that those who have money aren't sharing it because they can't make a profit from doing so.

Umm...but we've just seen the biggest reduction in money ever. (The big measure of money includes loans and debts.)

[emordnilap]

In a recession or a slump, there's no reduction in the amount of money in the economy, it's just that those who have money aren't sharing it because they can't make a profit from doing so.

Umm...but we've just seen the biggest reduction in money ever. (The big measure of money includes loans and debts.)

But isn't there also a factor in that people have money but are not spending it? Is that part of what's going on?

On the topic of work, I've never quite understood why 'full employment' is such an ideological ideal; why, indeed, having a job is held to be such a great thing.

[Ludwig]

On the topic of work, I've never quite understood why 'full employment' is such an ideological ideal; why, indeed, having a job is held to be such a great thing.

Because without a job you have to live on baked beans.

JK Galbraith, 50 years ago, agreed that full unemployment was a spurious ideal.

There is the unfortunate obstacle of human nature, which is such that people who work don't want to feed people who don't; and such that people would rather work 5 days a week than - as would make perfect sense in my view - share their job with someone else and work a 3-day week for less money.

Greed and selfishness are the essence of human nature and they have destroyed us.

[rushdy]

To take just one example, on the labour bed, if your name began "Miss" you got no painkillers. Nice, no?

That doesn't sound very nice, no. But thinking about it a little deeper, just why is it that we need painkillers to give birth? Aside from domesticated animals of one sort or another, other creatures seem to have little difficulty reproducing. Things may not be perfect, but I'm not aware of rabbits needing modern healthcare or supervision and there seems plenty of 'em!

Now don't think I'm on some misogynist's soapbox here, I'm not. When you read about Native Americans in the past giving birth by themselves, quickly and easily, long before any white doctor could arrive, and having families of 15 or more children it does make you think. All isn't well here. It is true that women today very often do need painkillers and modern medicine to give birth, and that's not considering those men and women who cannot conceive in the first place for one reason or another, but that was not the case amongst healthy tribes living without our civilisation.

That's why I would have to say I strongly favour a simple life. All is not well with "our" soil, "our" environment, "our" climate, and all is not well with our very selves. I don't think fixing these problems is compatible with our current way of life, because it is our very way of life that has caused these problems in the first place.

[emordnilap]

On the topic of work, I've never quite understood why 'full employment' is such an ideological ideal; why, indeed, having a job is held to be such a great thing.

Because without a job you have to live on baked beans.

That's true - but it doesn't explain why it's true, why it has to be that way. I'll try to think about it a bit more.

There is the unfortunate obstacle of human nature, which is such that people who work don't want to feed people who don't; and such that people would rather work 5 days a week than - as would make perfect sense in my view - share their job with someone else and work a 3-day week for less money.

And that is getting there, though I can't think straight at the moment; I'm feeling sorry for myself following a traumatic (albeit comparatively minor) outpatient procedure.

I need a cuddle.

[kenneal - lagger]

Over the last century or more, there has been a shift in activity away from the domestic economy where work was done, unpaid and unrecognised by the GDP numbers, in the home, towards more paid work and more activity coming under the section of the economy that involves financial transactions.

It might be nice to reverse that trend.

This is what globalisation is about. Getting people out of a peasant economy into a wage economy so that those with most of the money can get more out of the rest of us. It's a return to slavery, but wage slavery.

[Andy Hunt]

I need a cuddle.

[rushdy]

On the topic of work, I've never quite understood why 'full employment' is such an ideological ideal; why, indeed, having a job is held to be such a great thing.

Because without a job you have to live on baked beans.

That's true - but it doesn't explain why it's true, why it has to be that way. I'll try to think about it a bit more.

If I might offer my own opinion on this...

It is true because most people cannot provide for themselves. They rely upon other people to make the food they need, and must convince them (pay money) to give it to them. As it currently stands, even with the land and the knowledge the government will tax you and so prevent you from 'taking your ball and going home' by opting out of having a job. Tax on trade also means that you work harder overall than if you did it yourself (on average).

This is what globalisation is about. Getting people out of a peasant economy into a wage economy so that those with most of the money can get more out of the rest of us. It's a return to slavery, but wage slavery.

Of course, there are many shades of grey and doing more for yourself means less work (or more benefit) and more freedom.

[biffvernon]

I wasn't really thinking about globalization and leaving the peasant economy. More about home cooking instead of buying ready meals and dining out, doing your own washing by hand instead of buying a washing machine, making and mending your clothes instead of buying new, carrying the shopping home instead of having it delivered y Tescopoly, having a sing-song down the Dog n Duck instead of downloading tunes to your MP3 player.

[kenneal - lagger]

To take just one example, on the labour bed, if your name began "Miss" you got no painkillers. Nice, no?

That doesn't sound very nice, no. But thinking about it a little deeper, just why is it that we need painkillers to give birth? Aside from domesticated animals of one sort or another, other creatures seem to have little difficulty reproducing. Things may not be perfect, but I'm not aware of rabbits needing modern healthcare or supervision and there seems plenty of 'em!

Now don't think I'm on some misogynist's soapbox here, I'm not. When you read about Native Americans in the past giving birth by themselves, quickly and easily, long before any white doctor could arrive, and having families of 15 or more children it does make you think. All isn't well here. It is true that women today very often do need painkillers and modern medicine to give birth, and that's not considering those men and women who cannot conceive in the first place for one reason or another, but that was not the case amongst healthy tribes living without our civilisation.

That's why I would have to say I strongly favour a simple life. All is not well with "our" soil, "our" environment, "our" climate, and all is not well with our very selves. I don't think fixing these problems is compatible with our current way of life, because it is our very way of life that has caused these problems in the first place.

In times past women were physically fit, with good muscle tone and weren't overfed so produced children with smaller birth weights. Farmers see the same thing with cattle now. Those kept inside on high energy rations or on "improved" grassland have more assisted births than those kept outside on natural grazing. The ones kept naturally have lower birth weights and so the calves are easier to push out. The cows are in better condition, leaner and fitter, as well. Third world women usually manage quite well without painkillers. They're mentally harder than us soft Westerners as well

[rushdy]

I wasn't really thinking about globalization and leaving the peasant economy. More about home cooking instead of buying ready meals and dining out, doing your own washing by hand instead of buying a washing machine, making and mending your clothes instead of buying new, carrying the shopping home instead of having it delivered y Tescopoly, having a sing-song down the Dog n Duck instead of downloading tunes to your MP3 player.

Sounds like the life!

[biffvernon]

I'm sure I've heard the idea that the ideal pelvis shape for walking upright on two legs is not the ideal for birthing. Evolutionary compromise only requires two children to survive the average woman and bipedalism gave us an advantage over easy births. (That might be complete tosh. I'm not an anatomist or a woman.)

[Ludwig]

I'm sure I've heard the idea that the ideal pelvis shape for walking upright on two legs is not the ideal for birthing. Evolutionary compromise only requires two children to survive the average woman and bipedalism gave us an advantage over easy births. (That might be complete tosh. I'm not an anatomist or a woman.)

That's correct; I can't remember where I read it but it was from an authoritative source.

In the story of Adam and Eve, the pain of birth is part of mankind's punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Quite profound in a way.