This all may seem very obvious to many of my readers, but I am afraid that private property is a dying concept so I think it’s worth discussing.
People need meaningful work to be happy.
One of the most frightening thoughts for the future is that there will be massive unemployment caused by automation and a changing world economy. This is the prediction of many futurists including Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum.
You may not know this but his ‘Great Reset’ plan was prompted by Schwab’s belief that what he calls “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” is going to lead to massive displacement of workers due to AI and automation. His solution seems to be a basic minimum income paid for by taxes on the rich. According to The quote below, this idea has been around for over 50 years and was even considered by President Nixon.
On the other hand, some of Nixon’s domestic policies seem remarkably liberal today: For instance, he proposed a Family Assistance Plan that would have guaranteed every American family an income of $1,600 a year (about $10,000 in today’s money), and he urged Congress to pass a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan that would have guaranteed affordable health care to all Americans.https://www.history.com/topics/1970s/1970s-1
However, Nixon’s bill did not pass and here’s why.
But FAP wasn’t killed by voters. Nixon easily won re-election after he proposed two versions of the bill during his first term. And it wasn’t killed by the House–the chamber most directly influenced by voter opinions. Both versions of FAP cleared the House Ways and Means Committee and passed the House with bipartisan support in 1970 and 1971. FAP was killed by the Senate–stalled by the Senate Finance Committee and ultimately doomed by opposition from its members. Democratic Louisiana Senator Russell Long, chair of the Senate Finance Committee at the time, was vehemently opposed to FAP, but he was not alone. The ranking Republican on the committee, Delaware Senator John Williams, opposed FAP from the start and badgered the Nixon administration to make changes to the bill that he knew would increase its cost beyond what even the administration was prepared to defend. Democratic New York Senator Abraham Ribicoff also opposed the initial bill because he wanted the benefit level–only two-thirds of the federal poverty threshold and less than AFDC payments in New York at the time–to be raised.
Long’s opposition to FAP is the most interesting, not only because of the power he wielded as the committee chair, or because he might have been expected to support it as the son of populist Huey P. Long, who championed a much more generously redistributive program called “Share Our Wealth” in the 1930s. Long’s opposition is the most interesting because its effects extended fifty years into the future. Long was not only able to keep the FAP bills from passing, he skillfully used the Congressional struggle over FAP to enact his own version of welfare reform with a very different approach to the poor, with lasting effects that continue to shape US poverty programs today.https://basicincometoday.com/fifty-years-later-reflecting-on-the-defeat-of-nixons-family-assistance-plan/
So it turns out that Klaus is not proposing anything new. Are the conditions right in the economy and politics to finally pass this idea? It sure seems like the Democrats are trying. This author explains why they think now is the time. https://basicincometoday.com/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-income/
Who is Klaus Schwab really?
I can’t decide if old Klaus is a bad guy or a good guy. He seems to be a smart guy, good at organizing people, who is worried about humanity and wants to fix the problems that have been created by capitalism. The more I study him, the more I like him, but the jury is still out.
Can we stop the robot takeover? I really don’t know.
The future of work: skills and training needed
Covid ushered in what some have called an ‘opportunity’ to remake the world more equitable, mostly by redistribution of income and new social programs such as free childcare and community college. For now, many workers are living off their stimulus checks, unemployment checks and child tax credit checks. But eventually, if they don’t go back to work soon, the trillions in Covid money will run out and they will discover that their jobs are gone, taken by machines and immigrants or outsourced to other countries.
People need to work to feel good about themselves. People need to own property to have power over their lives. People need to be free to think and act independently of a nanny state. None of this will happen if a new class of non-working people is created. It seems crazy, but actually this is where we are headed unless something intervenes to alter the course. Google “Life without work” and you will get many articles. Of course, meaningful work does not have to mean only paid work, but having money is important to freedom.
What we need is job training and life skills and financial education to help people get better jobs, more money and grow their wealth. Right now we have millions of jobs available AND millions of unemployed people. They say that they can’t find people with the necessary skills for the good jobs and nobody wants the low-paying jobs. So train the people and give the other jobs to the robots.
Private property matters.
In today’s podcast, I talk about the importance of owning property in a free society. It is no coincidence that Karl Marx says the OPPOSITE thing about property. In his deranged mind , property is theft.
You can have a better sex life! Ep 54 – Blue Skies and Green Pastures with Paula Adams
Owning property provides the means to TRADE your property for other things. That property could be money or some other real property, but it gives you power. People who own nothing, have no power. They are like children, dependent on others to provide for them.
When you have nothing, you also have nothing to lose, which impacts your decisions, your mental health, and your view of the value of life itself.
Here is the link to the WEF blog post that I read in the podcast. It’s the one about owning nothing and being happy that caused such a stir. Ida Auken is the author of this imaginative look into a future without work and property, but with plenty of renting things, cooking and walking.
Men and women have different needs about work and property.
MEN, especially, require meaningful work and property ownership to be happy. When I say ‘happy’ I am using that word in a general way. My belief is that a normal man is not going to feel right if he doesn’t work and have something to call his own. For young men, that might be a truck or boat or a nice computer. It doesn’t matter what it is, just that he bought it with money that he earned and he has total control over that property. No one is going to take it from him.
Do women need to work and own things? Yes and no. I think women need to feel productive and useful, but they experience work and careers differently than men, in general. As far as property, I think women do like to own things, but it’s not an essential need for their psyche. For men, ownership is more about pride. For women, it’s more about joy. Of course, men enjoy their stuff, too. But a man feels like less of a man when he owns nothing.
This author agrees with me, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/men-need-work-in-a-way-women-dont
Want proof that men and women are different? Go to a search box and type Things men should own. It’s pretty fascinating to read the lists. Here is just one link. https://mensgear.net/things-every-man-should-own/ Note the tone of the article. It’s all about pride. Then type in Things a woman needs. You’ll get completely different lists! Mostly clothes and household items. Pretty funny.
Teach your children that work and owning things is good!
Let’s go back to ownership and private property. The Marxists in the colleges and online are doing a great job brainwashing the woke generation against it. So don’t forget to teach your children, especially your boys, the joys of owning something they bought with money they earned, and start them young.
Of course, also teach them about saving money, giving their money to the church, and investing their money to make it grow. All things you can’t do if you’re a communist/Marxist.
I want to learn much more about this topic.
I just found this awesome resource on the Bible, work, and economics. Obviously people much smarter than me have been discussing economics and the Bible for a very long time. Once again, I’m late to the party. https://tifwe.org/resource/ownership-and-property-in-the-old-testament-economy/
The more I think about this topic, the more I see that I have so much more to learn about it. But I will go ahead and post this as an introduction to my studies. It’s funny that my original college major was business. But I switched to psychology and focused more on how learning about people. Now that I’m older, I am back to being super interested in economics and politics and history. Guess it was always in there waiting for me. These subjects go together, people and economics, etc, but it’s hard to learn everything at once.
As for Klaus, he seems well-meaning, but instead of a guaranteed basic income, how about we remove all those artificial barriers that make working and opening businesses so difficult these days? Is it possible to dismantle monopolies? Maybe the robots can do something else besides take jobs. Or maybe we can invent new work opportunities for people.
Let me know your thoughts! Am I hopelessly old-fashioned about gender? Is Klaus Schwab a good guy or a bad guy? How important is doing work and owning things TO YOU? Does God bless the idea of owning property? Am I totally wrong about everything? What do you think of the Universal Basic Income/Basic minimum income idea?