Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

14/10/2011

The 21 hour work week

Dear October 15 organizers, here is a short letter to addressing some realities you have missed in your statement and to bring some solution path to the problems we are all facing.

On point one you're right, austerity solutions are increasing inequalities and solutions put forward may destroy a good part of the existing welfare. You are also right when you're mentioning that it's not only an economic crisis – politics has also a lot to do with it.

Now in point two, to get to a universal minimal income, you need an important readjustment of the current welfare system, but you mostly need wealth and jobs to be more evenly distributed – on the European level and on the planetary level, this is the biggest challenge.

Number three, is an easy one, or close to.

In number four, you're right, we are all migrants, but a stable system cannot be a completely open system. No country can absorb a large amount of migrants every year without any problem. No country can create jobs for everyone. This is why jobs have to be widely distributed, so that everybody can have a prosperous life in their own country.

In number five, and other documents, you are calling for a direct democracy system. Again, we are faced with an unmanageable situation. Direct democracy for all level of decision is not possible and not desirable even with in our highly advance technology world. There has to be some level of representation, some people to officialise laws and apply them.

This said, there are some solutions that I think would be very much acceptable, it’s an all new social contract, but it’s totally possible.

That solution is based on one simple idea: The 21 hour work week.

21 hour work week means distributed work and income. It also means a lot more time for individual to participate in civic activities. From there some forms of citizen driven democracy is possible provided that those who decide not to participate in some or all debates must accept that others will decide for them.

Another problem in your demands is the end of information control. As for direct democracy, it is impossible for everybody to read every argument of every side of evry debate. Also getting the actual facts out as most of the time the facts are subjective by essence, is impossible. So some information media has to exist – state owned media, in democratic countries are, to date, the closest we can get to objectivity.

Lastly, one way to tackle the business problem is to stop taxing them and tax only people (don’t panic just yet – this goes with other reforms) which would mean, theoretically, better income distribution and less fiscal evasion. This would be accompanied with a profit roof, a maximum salary disparity factor and a security deposit roof. All the money made by companies would then be either spent in salaries or reinvestment.

With these in place everywhere, economic stability would be closer, migration would be unnecessary and a universal minimal income would become possible.

.jpm

Commentaires

merveilleux merci puissamment pour tout. votre site internet est tout carrément rocambolesque et bon

Écrit par : insomnie | 02/11/2011

Les commentaires sont fermés.