This is the big drum that I've been hitting on for a long time. The question is whether we can find technological solutions that sustain the current mindset or whether paradigm shift (forgive the use of this cliche) is needed.
Can the market, a system of thinking that disregards or denigrates resource limitations really bring about sustainability?
I remember the story by a professor in my third world economics class about how labor markets functioned in non-industrial societies. We are accustomed to thinking that if wages rise, so will the number of hours worked. More is better, right? Well when Europeans came to Brazil, they found that the locals would only work long enough to purchase an item they wanted, and then would disappear back into the forest. Hence the introduction of slavery in the New World. So instead of demand increasing without restrant, there was a set demand that once satisfiedd would no lead to further labor. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
My point in regard to the environment here being, that perhaps in order for a society to be sustainable, demand has to be subject to social restraints. And more interestingly, perhaps demand predicated on more being better is not inherent to human nature. Is the real reason that Americans want more because they have some biological need for it, or that they use these objects as indentifiers of social stature.
So if demand is basically socially given, aren't efforts to alter it on an individual level pointless. because they do nothing to alter the causal force behind it?
Remember the market is predicated on the idea of atomized individuals acting rationally to fulfill their preferences. So if we buy into the logic of the market we have to influence the calcluation of utility by individuals. We appeal to the idea of conservation as saving money, and hence granting the consumer greater utility.
But what if preferences are socially determined? Efforts to appeal to the individual on the basis of saving money mean less, because the elasticity of demand has less to do with the individual than the cultural mindset.
I hope I'm no being obtuse here. I have a tendency to think in the abstract. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
re energy, in the US, I've been stating things along the lines of 'we'll know that things are changing when leaving the door open when the air conditioning is running, having lavish Christmas light displays, and other lavish demonstrations of wasteful energy become as socially undesireable and unacceptable as smoking cigars would be now in a maternity waiting room."
Demand subject to social restraints ... absolutely ... Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!
But the art of long-time survival does include sustainability. We may have forgotten many things in these good times, "geometric" technnology improvement may stop abruptly. In fact, technology develops just as fast as energy availability allows. And we can clearly see horizons of energy resources by now.
The social standard for now is to consume anything you are able to. It is almost unacceptable to restrain yourself. I do not think that this is a core human nature. It is the outcome of... intelectual evolution. Greedy libertarian memes have won over human minds of the world - old restrictions, even tabus and ethical imperatives were cast aside. Were those memes necessarily winners is quite a question...
The important mechanism is that people like to ape the others, especially most successful. When the most affluent turn out to be enjoying benefits of no restraints, all others follow.
I think that the realization that you do not have to, and actually should not do everything you can do will be the core social adaptation to the coming problems of Peak Energy and Climate Change. It is very tricky to imagine an effective mechanism for the adaptive transition, but... the logical feature of any adaptation to a hard predicament is that not everyone can adopt. And obviously, social adoptation is much more complex than individual adaptation - but the times might be that much tough that the only way of outliving is functional cooperation. Not many communities would probably survive - and the world will be very different thereafter.
Does it make sense to "adapt" individually now, by refraining from most effective consumption while everyone else is possibly squandering the last loose resourses? I think it does, to some degree. The ultimate prize is not momentary satisfaction. It is important to train your habits and feel comfortable with growing restrictions. Someone has to show alternative followable examples. It is a sad excuse to continue maximal consumption just because others try to consume as much as possible. If this is what it takes to save more of the planet - forgetting freeriders in as much you can't affect them - why wouldn't you do it?
Am I a good example? My material aspirations are pretty modest, sometimes frustratingly to some. But long distance travelling, even if still suboptimally frequent, is a minus. If I have to change my behaviour for most effect, I suppose I should talk more if some would agree (ha!)
Your question is such a classic Tragedy of the Commons issue. If you know the problem is there and that you are contributing, do you restrain yourself, 'losing' value in face of others, or do you continue to participate in the communal plunder? While, if youc an get everyone to agree, the second is irrational, the irrationality dissipates the more individual your action.
But, we are in agreement:
It is a sad excuse to continue maximal consumption just because others try to consume as much as possible.
As I mentioned in other comment below, small communities are more able to deal with the Tragedy of Commons issues, since they do not have to formalize their solutions for full generality. This is in agreement with the "localization" article from Oil Drum that you cited.
The practical problem of switching to locality governing is of course the more powerful federal or central "problem solvers". The Reagenesque governments that we mostly have form indeed a problem, not a solution. One should settle for the mindset that not much particular help ought to be expected from them (unless you are in the privelleged class). If only they can be influenced to regulate emissions and share energy resourses kindly, the world is not the worst possible.
In case of aggressive or even armed requisition campaigns (as brought up in yet other thread below), all ingenuity must be used to isolate the upper government and let it collapse on itself as soon as possible. Every thug can be fooled in one way or other. Some toll burdens can be tolerated, but the levying job must be made very demanding, or futile.
I think this is a critical and crucial insight now spreading, albeit slowly. "full generality" is as much of a mythology as infinite growth. the same farming techniques do not work in one climate as well as in another, or even in two different fields on the same farm. one of the primary dicta of permaculture is that you must observe your land and its microbiomes very closely to understand what will work in each tiny subregion, for maximal productivity and health.
this is antithetical to the totalising, reductionist ambition of C19 thought which sought to discover "universals" and then smash all particular data sets into the universal moulds. One Way of doing things had to be right (and of course it was Our Way). we could see this as an outgrowth of monotheism, insisting on One Centralised God (kind of like a spiritual monopoly capitalism, or a dictatorship); and its offspring include Taylorism and the search for the One Most Efficient Way of producing a chair, which must then be imposed on every manufactory in sight -- which leads us gradually but inevitably to the Company World with One Soft Drink, One Hamburger, One Operating System, all replicated identically and imposed in every environment, every culture, every neighbourhood without variation, using workers who have been reduced to robots following numbered instruction steps in a three ring binder.
this approach fails miserably when it is applied to biotic systems, because the very definition of successful biotic systems is that they are dense, diverse, and highly adaptive to local conditions. the attempt to farm every acre of apples (corn, potatoes) identically with every other acre of apples (corn, potatoes), to make every apple as nearly as possible identical with every other apple, etc., has led us to the brink of agricultural disaster.
in the political sense, "full generalisation" means top-down government from the most centralised nexus, be it DC or Brussels or the WTO HQ, imposing some Suit's fantasy of the One Best Way onto millions or billions of people whose realities are inconceivably fractal and diverse. solutions to Peak Oil, solutions to water shortage, responses to the increasingly violent vagaries of a destabilised climate, will not be successful if imposed top-down by totalising generalisers. they will have to be local, informed with "local knowledge" (a sailor's term for actual lived experience, over many seasons, of the winds tides and hazards of a given sailing area). three ring binders will not solve the problem.
don't get me wrong; centralised or generalised law making has its place, I am not a big fan of abolishing the State altogether. basic human rights laws, the preservation of national and continental watersheds and biotic treasuries, assurance of safe passage for individuals exercising their (universal) right to mobility, the oversight of elections -- some standards can be defended as universal and enforced globally. but practical hands-on solutions to resource management, crop diversity, public health etc. cannot be dictated as one-size-fits-all by a Central Committee (or a board of directors -- just two names for the same bunch of elite clowns thinking God appointed them to micromanage the unwashed).
the design for a comfortable and healthy home varies considerably depending on the climate and terrain. people should be allowed to figure this out locally and build what works for their needs and their climate. universal laws should prohibit their using slave labour to build that home, or cutting down endangered forests to do so, etc. -- but local conditions should determine the shape and thermal economy and materials and design of a home appropriate for its microregion; and local democratic process should determine local land use and allocation of water, woodlot, etc.
all of which is a verbose way of saying I agree with the quoted comment, strongly. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
ts offspring include Taylorism and the search for the One Most Efficient Way of producing a chair, which must then be imposed on every manufactory in sight -- which leads us gradually but inevitably to the Company World with One Soft Drink, One Hamburger, One Operating System, all replicated identically and imposed in every environment, every culture, every neighbourhood without variation, using workers who have been reduced to robots following numbered instruction steps in a three ring binder.
I think it's more that you get One Product for the confomists and A Different Extra Special Product for the Overt Noncomformists, possibly with a Quirky Homespun Alternative for those who want to get back to their hands-on earthy roots. (Those last two can sometimes be combined successfully.)
The narrative space that marketing and lifestyle choices live in is really shockingly small.
Apart from that - I'm wary of eulogising small local solutions because historically small local solutions often haven't been terribly good. Sometimes they've been very good indeed, but just as often - not so much.
People may know their locality, but without cross-fertilisation their skill and talent base is correspondingly small.
I think the monotheistic/local line is a false dichotomy. What promotes diversity is open, or at least very cheap, access to non-local insight and tools. The best of all possible worlds is diverse sharing and enhancement of local small-scale solutions, and the role of government should be to make sure that as much sharing and innovation happens as possible.
The other role of government is to maintain a framework of stability in which sharing can happen effectively without the threat of unlawful parasitism - either by local thugs, or by corrupt government.
I'm going to borrow Chirs Cook's "reversing the polarity" phrase: we need to allow reductions in employment with stable standard of living. As productivity increases it becomes easier to provide a decent living standard for all with less use of labour and resources, which can also be spread out more thinly. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Why progressive taxation is not the route to happiness Happiness is fashionable these days. Yet should we accept the common view that the new "science" of happiness has cemented the superiority of Scandinavian social democracy over Anglo-Saxon liberalism? The answer is: No. The results are just as destructive to the pious certainties of "progressives" as to those of their opponents. Richard Layard of the London School of Economics and the UK's House of Lords produced an elegant, brief and influential exposition of the new doctrine two years ago. That doctrine itself, as he explains, is a modern reincarnation of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism*. (...) Its most important negative conclusion is that, beyond a certain threshold, extra wealth does not make us any happier. In any society, richer people tend to be happier than poorer ones, but the proportion of people saying they are very happy does not seem to rise over time. The explanation for this is partly that relative position matters and partly that we become used to prosperity. (...) What is under challenge, then, is modernity itself, not a competitive market economy alone. Prof Layard makes that clear in his comments on the decline of community and the family and the rise of individualism, crime and television. A conservative could read this book, agree with the analysis and reach policy conclusions that are almost the polar opposite of those stressed by a good social democrat, such as Prof Layard. Prof Layard's conclusions are, however, rather different from those of such a putative conservative: tame the rat race by taxing excessive effort; increase economic security; and promote mental health through cognitive therapy and modern drugs. (...) For the economist, then, it is the economic policies that are most questionable. Prof Layard argues that higher income is a route to higher status. But higher status for some is always lower status for others. So this is what economists call an "externality". The externality should be taxed, just like any other form of "pollution". One answer to that is that effort is already taxed quite heavily in western societies. Another is that if monetary status is discouraged, people will seek status on other and often more damaging dimensions, power being a particularly dangerous example. Yet another answer is that it is far from obvious why differences in status become increasingly disturbing as income differentials increase. The fact that someone is one's boss or has a more prestigious position in society is a big enough difference on its own. Furthermore, how far should we pursue this opposition to status? Why not abolish all indications of superior performance, from classed degrees to Nobel prizes? Finally, is it not evident that the search for status also has positive externalities - innovations of all kinds, for example? In all, these arguments for more progressive taxation seem weak. This is less true of what Prof Layard says on economic security. While policies that raise unemployment are harmful to happiness under any plausible assumptions, there is no reason to abandon the welfare state's most important achievements: universal health insurance, state-funded education and security in old age.
Happiness is fashionable these days. Yet should we accept the common view that the new "science" of happiness has cemented the superiority of Scandinavian social democracy over Anglo-Saxon liberalism? The answer is: No. The results are just as destructive to the pious certainties of "progressives" as to those of their opponents.
Richard Layard of the London School of Economics and the UK's House of Lords produced an elegant, brief and influential exposition of the new doctrine two years ago. That doctrine itself, as he explains, is a modern reincarnation of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism*.
(...)
Its most important negative conclusion is that, beyond a certain threshold, extra wealth does not make us any happier. In any society, richer people tend to be happier than poorer ones, but the proportion of people saying they are very happy does not seem to rise over time. The explanation for this is partly that relative position matters and partly that we become used to prosperity.
What is under challenge, then, is modernity itself, not a competitive market economy alone. Prof Layard makes that clear in his comments on the decline of community and the family and the rise of individualism, crime and television. A conservative could read this book, agree with the analysis and reach policy conclusions that are almost the polar opposite of those stressed by a good social democrat, such as Prof Layard.
Prof Layard's conclusions are, however, rather different from those of such a putative conservative: tame the rat race by taxing excessive effort; increase economic security; and promote mental health through cognitive therapy and modern drugs.
(...) For the economist, then, it is the economic policies that are most questionable. Prof Layard argues that higher income is a route to higher status. But higher status for some is always lower status for others. So this is what economists call an "externality". The externality should be taxed, just like any other form of "pollution".
One answer to that is that effort is already taxed quite heavily in western societies. Another is that if monetary status is discouraged, people will seek status on other and often more damaging dimensions, power being a particularly dangerous example. Yet another answer is that it is far from obvious why differences in status become increasingly disturbing as income differentials increase. The fact that someone is one's boss or has a more prestigious position in society is a big enough difference on its own.
Furthermore, how far should we pursue this opposition to status? Why not abolish all indications of superior performance, from classed degrees to Nobel prizes? Finally, is it not evident that the search for status also has positive externalities - innovations of all kinds, for example?
In all, these arguments for more progressive taxation seem weak. This is less true of what Prof Layard says on economic security. While policies that raise unemployment are harmful to happiness under any plausible assumptions, there is no reason to abandon the welfare state's most important achievements: universal health insurance, state-funded education and security in old age.
In a nutshell: rich people are a less dangerous form of elitism than others. So, as you cannot fight 'modernity' and the quest for superior individual status, you should let that harmless form flourish.
As good a justification of neoliberalism as it goes, I guess. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
This is enfuriating, because although Mr. Wolf has encountered evidence that does not comport with the understanding provided by their mindset (I mean this is the broadest sense, as in the set of rules that provide order and certainty by providing individuals a way in which to interpret life around them. To use another cliche, they think inside the box) they struggle to provide explanantions that reinforce existing understandings of the way in which the world works.
As much as Mr. Wolf laments that the absence of income based status forces those who seek to prove themselves better than others forces the status seeker to assert their superiority through the use of other social distinctions.
Well, doesn't it stand to reason that the rise of identity based politics amongst lower income populations globally in which status is determined not by wealth but by adherence to religious and cultural tenets is essentially a reaction to income inequality and declining ecnomomic mobility.
Thus fascism in Europe arises as a response to the commodification of human dignity inherent to the creation of a labor market in which labor is not reconized as carrying humanity. Humanity being the basis of order in the democratic society.
Consider that while in political order, anything but the doctrine that one person equals one vote is anathema. While in the economic sphere, the idea that some animals are more equal than others (the irony is killing me) is inherent to the market where price is the basis of decision making. And intensity of preference matters, such that the willingness to pay larger sums of money indicates greater preference. Thus the prefernces of the wealthy matter more than those of the poor. Such is the basis of the neoliberal assault on democratic values, and the danger of the infiltration of economic paradigms into every crevice of human life.
What other institution in modern society is permitted to be so grossly anti-democratic as the market?
Shouldn't the implication of Mr. Wolf's revelation not be an argument for the expression of status through income, but rather an argument that the market and the economic sphere as a whole must be subject to the same rules of democratic governance as the political sphere?
After all the firm is a social creation. See how long it last without society guaranteeing investors that their liability is limited to their investment. Why not privatize the limitation of corporate liability?
Now much do you supppose it would cost to get that sort of coverage in the private sector. And that's a line of attack that attacks the internal inconsistencies of neo-liberalism. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
One answer to that is that effort is already taxed quite heavily in western societies.
It is? Where? And how?
Another is that if monetary status is discouraged, people will seek status on other and often more damaging dimensions, power being a particularly dangerous example.
We're lucky there's no evidence that this happens already.
Yet another answer is that it is far from obvious why differences in status become increasingly disturbing as income differentials increase. The fact that someone is one's boss or has a more prestigious position in society is a big enough difference on its own.
Well, no it's not. The narrative is really about cooperation vs exploitation. If I run a company in which I'm paid more, but I'm clearly willing to work hard and to share the profits with the employees in an inclusive way, the perceived differential is much smaller than if I flaunt my private jet and yacht and treat them as personal slaves.
Furthermore, how far should we pursue this opposition to status? Why not abolish all indications of superior performance, from classed degrees to Nobel prizes?
Status based on genuine achievement is far less damaging than status based purely on robot-like commercial exploitation.
There are no prizes for running your sweat shops more brutally than anyone else. Because no prizes are needed.
Finally, is it not evident that the search for status also has positive externalities - innovations of all kinds, for example?
Innovations are fine, but creativity and ingenuity are too often parasitised by accountancy and capital-diddling which builds status without being innovative.
In outline, this is a desperately silly straw-man argument that confuses the existence of status - not a bad thing when it's based on proven talent, and is inclusive - with the nature of status in capitalist economies, which is often illusory and disconnected from hard work, talent or the kinds of achievements that make a social contribution.
money isn't power?
rich people don't start wars?
hands up anyone who can think of a recent large-scale war that wasn't run by rich people... and didn't make rich people even richer?
where did this hopeless schmuck get the idea that wealth isn't a "dangerous" form of status? The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Well, no. How does commercial advertising function to alter the social status of demands? It works on the individual level by building a false social image, and when that false social image becomes institutionalised by individuals, actual society conforms more closely to the false image.
Of course, in the false social image, inconvenient, unintended, or even unexpected consequences can be omitted, while they actually occur in actual society.
However, when we are trying to work with the real consequences of our actions, we must beware of slavish imitation of commercial advertising ... since we intend to have a different form of impact.
I believe that one important focus for our actions should be on smoothing the path and lowering the barriers to changes in the direction of sustainable economic development. There is, after all, plenty of pain coming down the track ... but when pain is the driving force, it does not provide much specifics in terms of direction. What we have to do is to provide directions to move where the reported experience is, "hey, this isn't that bad", so that as the news filters back into the panicky mob, that is the direction that they start to take.
For American Outer Suburbia, more specifics and less sweeping generalities in Retrofitting Outer Suburbia. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
So is culture essentially subjective or intersubjective?
If culture is subjective than we can understand it through though the internalized meanings that people give to concepts that vary person to person. So culture doesn't exist in any real sense.
If culture is intersubjective then we can understand it as shared symbols and meanings, that are socially determined rather than resulting from the individual internalizing social values. Individuals don't determine meanings, and may not even be aware that what they believe to be their own opinion results from social influence not individual choice. In a real sense, we are not entirely "free to choose" with our decisions being conditioned by social rules. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Societal structures and individual social behavior are in a mutually self-reproducing loop. Societal structures are composed of rules and common understandings distributed among individuals, and they constrain and enable individual social behavior. In turn, it is those individual social behavior that creates those rules and common understanding.
That is, at least, my view of it. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
No, in fact what your example seems to indicate is that all other things being equal demand is self-restraining and what needs to be socially constrained is the amount of labour. In other words, the 35 hour week. And when productivity increases by another 14%, the 30 hour week, and so on.
Full employment with constant demand and increasing productivity requires decreasing amount of labour (and resource use).
The system we have, by trying to squeeze as much profit as possible from labour and resources, runs into overproduction crises and demand shortfalls, and requieres constant stimulus to demand, either in the form of Keynesian spending or "supply creating its own demand" through advertising. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
If only people could provide more creative services than working at a call-centre... Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
And that is, some at CoFFEE would argue, one of the opportunities implicit in the Job Guarantee program ... that since the entitlement is to an opportunity to work at the specified wage, the material inputs per labor hour for JG jobs can be designed to be substantially below the average in private sector employment. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
And let people work as much or as little as they like? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I didn't know you were a fan of Manchester Capitalism. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Why do you think most people would prefer 60 hour work weeks? Most people I know would prefer to work less than 40 hours, and a few work 80 hours and like that.
Why don't let people decide for themselves? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
What I'm trying to say is that the gains of the labour movement over the past 200 years are the "social engineering" you're talking about. And so is the Swedish Model. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Sweden needs no minimum wage because wages in Sweden aren't determined by the market. They're determined by associational bargaining. I think that this is highly superior to having either the state or the market determine wages.
And it all worked fairly well until you had skilled workers break with solidaristic wage policies in the early 90's. And when that happened you lost much of the wage restraint that made the system work, and the macro coordination to ensure economic stability between the blue collar and white collar unions.
I guess for me the interesting thing is that Sweden is one of those countries where the logic of the market is highly constrained within social institions and rules. Which is why you don't need nearly as much state intervention. Sweden is imperfect, but the ability of associational systems like in Sweden and Germany to achieve social justice by social organizations rather than state intervention is something that deserves to be looked at much more closely. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I do not agree with this description. There has always been tensions among different unions about how to split the pie. There was governmental efforts during the crisis years in the early 90's to limit all unions wage demands but that was in my opinion more related to the general transition from high inflation - low unemployment to low inflation - high unemployment (moving on the Phillips curve). The unions system of internal negotiations is quite unchanged.
The reasons for the general crisis was a mixture. Ingredients included increased governmental borrowing and spending during the roaring years of the late 80's and an overheated housing market that when it crashed wiped out fortunes and a lot of savings. Construction came to an abrupt halt. Housing companies turned out to have more loans then assets. If banks were allowed to go bankcrupt some would have, Nordea (Nordbanken) that was in the worst shape was taken over and run by the government.
Which role inflation and the transition to low inflation (in the middle of crisis) played is less clear to me.
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/June2007/08/c2877.html
Supreme Court of Canada says collective bargaining protected by Charter of Rights and Freedoms OTTAWA, June 8 CNW Telbec - Canada's largest union is hailing today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada as the Court's most important decision in support of free collective bargaining in Canada. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada's previous refusal to recognize collective bargaining as protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Paul Moist, national president of CUPE, stated "In overruling its own decisions from 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed tremendous hurdles faced by the trade union movement in this country ." "The Supreme Court of Canada has now opened a door that was closed twenty years ago ," says Moist. He notes that the possibility for today's ruling was opened by the 1995 judgment in Dunmore http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=228. "Today the Supreme Court has followed this opening and determined that the right of workers to bargain collectively is so important to society as a whole that it is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Court held that collective agreement provisions dealing with contracting out, layoffs and bumping are central to the freedom of association. Substantial interference with collective bargaining over these essential rights violates the freedom of association. Moist added, "CUPE is particularly pleased that the Court found that the Charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as contained in international labour conventions that Canada has ratified." For Claude Généreux, CUPE's national secretary treasurer, "Collective bargaining is the fundamental reason that trade unions exist. The Court has recognized that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected. CUPE is ecstatic with this." "From now on, governments that interfere with freely negotiated collective agreements and the collective bargaining rights of employees must justify their actions against the protection provided by the Charter of Rights."
OTTAWA, June 8 CNW Telbec - Canada's largest union is hailing today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada as the Court's most important decision in support of free collective bargaining in Canada. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada's previous refusal to recognize collective bargaining as protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Paul Moist, national president of CUPE, stated "In overruling its own decisions from 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed tremendous hurdles faced by the trade union movement in this country ." "The Supreme Court of Canada has now opened a door that was closed twenty years ago ," says Moist. He notes that the possibility for today's ruling was opened by the 1995 judgment in Dunmore http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=228. "Today the Supreme Court has followed this opening and determined that the right of workers to bargain collectively is so important to society as a whole that it is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Court held that collective agreement provisions dealing with contracting out, layoffs and bumping are central to the freedom of association. Substantial interference with collective bargaining over these essential rights violates the freedom of association. Moist added, "CUPE is particularly pleased that the Court found that the Charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as contained in international labour conventions that Canada has ratified." For Claude Généreux, CUPE's national secretary treasurer, "Collective bargaining is the fundamental reason that trade unions exist. The Court has recognized that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected. CUPE is ecstatic with this." "From now on, governments that interfere with freely negotiated collective agreements and the collective bargaining rights of employees must justify their actions against the protection provided by the Charter of Rights."
If you want to work 60 hours a week at the minimum wage to (eventually) afford a BMW, please do! I'd rather work 30 hours and ride my bike.
But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you want to work 60 hours a week at the minimum wage to (eventually) afford a BMW, please do! I'd rather work 30 hours and ride my bike. But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves.
But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves.
The ironic thing here is that I think that you've misinterpreted the social conditioning of preferences with individual choice.
In one word.
Lagom
Is your preference for leisure over seeking further material gains the result of the rational calculation of utitilies to choose the option providing the greatest utility, or is this socially conditioned, such that the formal organization of work by law is unneccesary because social norms condtion preferences to an extent that it's unneccesary? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
It's just that you can't be an employee of some corporation if you want to work more than 48 hours per week (or some other limit depending on the country).
Just offer your work as a contractor on a per job basis and there is no regulation in the total hours worked.
So you can get your BMW, even in France.
Freedom to work more exists only if there is a balance between the demand and the supply of labor. With structural underemployment (whether via unemployment, part time employment or other schemes), the threat of using illegal immigrants or offshoring activity, there is no balance. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Engineering is good! Social engineering is great! As an engineer, I have never understood why 'social engineering' is supposed to be a bad thing... It means we think about what we want and try to achieve it, rather than let the terms be dictated by whomever happens to have a ridiculous idea and the money to back it up. As if flailing around with no plan is better than a good design.
If I need the money or love my job, I would have no problems with 60 hours a week. If I feel I have better things to do I'll switch to half time and tell my employer I have other things to do and that he only have to pay me half my old wage. How nice for him, he'll save loads of money.
Maybe it's utopian, I don't know... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If we have pure technological progress, we should indeed increase the baseline wage represented by the JG wage ... and if that means people choose to request fewer shifts and time worked goes down, great. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
Of course, much of that is a matter of design, and since commerical corporate design horizons are governed by compound interest on interest rates in financial markets, and commercial corporations are constructed to be antagonistic to labor income, placing so many of our fundamental technology design decisions in the hands of commercial corporations is something that we have to think through. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
She was contemptuous of the "free"market fairy tales about how modern economies grow out of traditional economies and gave other examples of the use of state power where markets failed to do the job that corporations wanted them to do.
that seems axiomatic. it's physically obvious that there's only so much water in the Earth's outer atmospheric and geologic layers; if there were enough thirsty human beings to tie up all that water in our tummies and bladders, then there wouldn't be any to grow plants, and we would all die (we're only here because of plants, after all). if you multiply the number of human beings by a large enough X, you're bound to run out of something essential.
the big (and contentious) debate centres on what we're really running out of, and whether we're really running out of it or whether scarcity is artificial due to hoarding and hogging and market-fixing and other chicanery; and whose fault it is that we're running out of whatever it is. and the associated big question, how many of us can live a decent life on this ball of rock, and what do we mean by "decent"?
in general, I listen seriously to Malthusians who say "there are too many of us," and I don't listen seriously to Malthusians who say, "there are too many of Them." The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Except, that is, if you plot energy consumption per person, and then it becomes clear that they have been overcome by innovation plus the application of additional energy.
Now, innovation alone can deliver economic growth. But it cannot deliver constant 3% economic growth over long periods of time ... that form of growth, which we became accustomed to in the post WWII period, is material extensive growth.
Rather, pure technological progress can deliver periodic waves of economic growth, of various heights. So an economy that relies on "pure" technological progress for its growth is one that must be capable of functioning without problem in a stable state in the periods between the waves of economic growth.
One important element of that in a monetary production economy is to have the government providing a job guarantee (research site), since the inability to deliver steady real growth implies that pure General Theory Keynesian growth policies may easily be constrained by full employment of resources other than labor. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
All these years of climate change denial have just delayed the inevitable adaptation. And Now we're going to biofuels! Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Even the Bible knows that when one is blessed with seven years of plenty one ought prepare for the following seven of want. Demand cannot endlessly drive supply...
The biofuels bit... It was very predictable, the consequences to forests and food supply, predicted here at ET, in fact, as well as other places. But it is hard to head off those enthusiastic profiteers...
Hmmm, market mechanisms, supply, demand... When something is more scarce the price will go up, which will encourage more investment, which will cause larger supply, to meet demand. This equation ignores the energy aspects, that if your lack is one of energy, then a willingness to pay a higher price is not enough, because the energy to build increased production capacity might not be there, or the sources might not give a large enough return on investment. (In energy, not money...) And all the enthusiasm for further development, seen through the willingness to invest money, cannot help with the energy calculations. Enthusiasm does not appear in thermo. More is not always available... Optimism doesn't cause everything to come out alright...
It seems to me that economics predicts that with some optimism, enthusiasm, and lots of demand, we'll be sure to get the supply. That there are no non-human constraints at all... Only political difficulties, no material ones... But with 'iron laws' of economics hard-wired to 'reality' rather than imposed... I don't get it...
Please note that none of the discussions of near-term limits address the question of what physics, chemistry, and biology tell us about what is achievable in manipulating matter and energy. Instead, they look at what we have, and imagine minor improvements in technologies and changes in deployments of labour and capital to exploit them. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
And I wouldn't exclude human technology from biology. It's only a marginally more advanced example of tool use and resource extraction.
With respect to energy efficiency, answers vary depending on the process under consideration and the improvements range from small to an order of magnitude or more. As one important example, photovoltaic cells have already shown >40% efficient conversion of solar energy to usable free energy, electric power, but "The highest yielding crops convert solar energy into plant material with an efficiency of 1-2%".
The achievable efficiency of transforming matter from one form to another can be (at worst) comparable to that in biology, for comparable products, and the mass-efficiency of delivering useful functions (structural strength, motive force, information processing...) can in many instances be orders of magnitude higher, for achievable, very un-biological products (e.g., >40% efficient photovoltaic cells). Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
40% efficiency of conversion of solar energy into electricity is not the same thing as 40% efficiency of conversion of solar energy into photovoltaic cells.
And those biological systems are self-repairing, self-assembling and fully biodegradable. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
plus, many of them are edible and nutritious -- which is more than I can say for a milliamphour of solar power. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
and that leads us to the next question: which is more important, eating, or having an internet connection / iPod / private auto / whatever ?
we are now faced with the question: which of these luxury lifestyle accessories is compatible with a decent diet for everyone? which of them is even compatible with a decent diet for the affluent elite nations? our appetite for toys and profit has now collided with our appetite for food... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Indeed, but 5% seems more than reasonable, calculating efficiency relative to the thermodynamic minimum for the required transformation of raw materials. This is good enough to be attractive: -----------
In the context of achievable systems, assume
"And those biological systems are self-repairing, self-assembling and fully biodegradable."
These are nice properties, but I'd settle for (other means of) low-cost production and maintenance, together with full recyclability.
One must also consider the environmental advantages of consuming no water and only 1/10 as much land area fore equivalent energy production. Replacing total human power consumption, ~ 14e12 W, would require only 0.03% of Earth's surface area. Picture sparse arrays in selected, scattered patches of desert. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
