Fund the police

[little2add]

 

The maid “Annie” in the famous movie “its a wonderful life” comes to mind.    Very endearing

Should “its a wonderful life” be condemned too. 

[Era Might]

10 hours ago, little2add said:

Why would a racist turn over the running of his household, raising of his children and to cook his meals to somebody they hated?  

Funny how history can be twisted to fit todays politically correct narrative.

Langston Hughes, "Madam and Her Madam":

I worked for a woman,
She wasn't mean—
But she had a twelve-room
House to clean.

Had to get breakfast,
Dinner, and supper, too—
Then take care of her children
When I got through.

Wash, iron, and scrub,
Walk the dog around—
It was too much,
Nearly broke me down.

I said, Madam,
Can it be
You trying to make a
Pack-horse out of me?

She opened her mouth.
She cried, Oh, no!
You know, Alberta,
I love you so!

I said, Madam,
That may be true—
But I'll be dogged
If I love you!

[Aloysius]

There are interesting economic issues that arise here, that kind of domestic service is a valid enough job and as long as it pays well and people are treated well and free to participate in it or not, there's nothing wrong with it.  of course we touch the vein of a much deeper issue because as one notices, it's people in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions often working for the elite and wealthy... but that just lays bare the nature of the economy in general.

personally I would never want to have that kind of situation, but then, I really idealize a home that is family only where the logic of economics is kept walled away, I don't like the idea of people inside the house that are just there because they are paid to be there.  I would find it weird paying someone to do the domestic things, as I just feel more comfortable with the idea of the family doing them ourselves (husband and wife splitting them in whatever way makes most fair sense, getting kids to do the chores, etc).  it's just not for me, even if I were crazy wealthy I don't think I'd want that.  I guess if I were wealthy enough to own some kind of mansion or castle then maybe it'd make sense to employ some people to take care of it, lol, but that's really not on the list of positions I'd like to be in.

but there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of setup of domestic paid labor, as long as there's a living wage and people treat each other with respect.  all human societies will have some people more advantaged than others, the only thing we can do is try to set up a system that gives people as fair as possible a chance to either fail and lose their advantages or succeed and gain new advantages for themselves and their families, it's impossible without tyrannical forms to level out all advantages that linger from past injustices, those will always pop up in any society and as long as families try to make lives better for their children, inequalities become inherited.  so yeah if domestic labor is a way for some people to make a living, that can be an ok thing, but anyone who employs such domestic labor who doesn't pay their people well or treat them with dignity, that kind of thing will call to heaven for vengeance--one of the four sins that traditionally do so (depriving workers of their just wages). 

in modern entrepreneurial capitalism, I think we tend to prefer the more corporate model of some company like a cleaning service company or a nanny service where their job is formalized within the structure of some company so their boss is the manager of the company you hire to do the service rather than the homeowner themselves, such formalized layers probably leave people a bit more empowered in theory.  but one could entirely envision a personalized relationship between someone doing domestic labor and the owner of a house without such a middle man that could be very personable, friendly, loving, and profitable for the person involved.  of course, that has not always been the case, but in principle the idea of domestic labor in that fashion is not inherently untenable IMO.  but I wouldn't want it myself.  unless I was Batman.

[Era Might]

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

There are interesting economic issues that arise here, that kind of domestic service is a valid enough job and as long as it pays well and people are treated well and free to participate in it or not, there's nothing wrong with it.  of course we touch the vein of a much deeper issue because as one notices, it's people in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions often working for the elite and wealthy... but that just lays bare the nature of the economy in general.

personally I would never want to have that kind of situation, but then, I really idealize a home that is family only where the logic of economics is kept walled away, I don't like the idea of people inside the house that are just there because they are paid to be there.  I would find it weird paying someone to do the domestic things, as I just feel more comfortable with the idea of the family doing them ourselves (husband and wife splitting them in whatever way makes most fair sense, getting kids to do the chores, etc).  it's just not for me, even if I were crazy wealthy I don't think I'd want that.  I guess if I were wealthy enough to own some kind of mansion or castle then maybe it'd make sense to employ some people to take care of it, lol, but that's really not on the list of positions I'd like to be in.

but there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of setup of domestic paid labor, as long as there's a living wage and people treat each other with respect.  all human societies will have some people more advantaged than others, the only thing we can do is try to set up a system that gives people as fair as possible a chance to either fail and lose their advantages or succeed and gain new advantages for themselves and their families, it's impossible without tyrannical forms to level out all advantages that linger from past injustices, those will always pop up in any society and as long as families try to make lives better for their children, inequalities become inherited.  so yeah if domestic labor is a way for some people to make a living, that can be an ok thing, but anyone who employs such domestic labor who doesn't pay their people well or treat them with dignity, that kind of thing will call to heaven for vengeance--one of the four sins that traditionally do so (depriving workers of their just wages). 

in modern entrepreneurial capitalism, I think we tend to prefer the more corporate model of some company like a cleaning service company or a nanny service where their job is formalized within the structure of some company so their boss is the manager of the company you hire to do the service rather than the homeowner themselves, such formalized layers probably leave people a bit more empowered in theory.  but one could entirely envision a personalized relationship between someone doing domestic labor and the owner of a house without such a middle man that could be very personable, friendly, loving, and profitable for the person involved.  of course, that has not always been the case, but in principle the idea of domestic labor in that fashion is not inherently untenable IMO.  but I wouldn't want it myself.  unless I was Batman.

I would argue that the only reason ppl have to become domestic workers is because they have no access to education or training for anything higher. This is getting a little off topic, but when we talk about a state, what we're talking about is organization of the nation. We have settled into the idea of state as the organization of the higher classes. But the ppl who are connected into that high-level 'state economy' are at the brim. There are only so many ppl you can fit into the state bureaucracy. The problem is that our idea of the state ends there. We don't connect political formation at the grassroots level with state building. Or rather, America has repudiated that form of state building. America is no longer able to form the polity into a collective and unified state because Reagan committed the nation to free market individualism. But that only works if the ppl have a grasp and command of themselves as both political and economic entrepreneurs who are responsible for weaving their own personal economic and political networks. This type of thinking requires mass political reeducation and formation, because American ideology is so geared toward the discipline and reward of work, the so-called Protestant ethic. Americans instinctively blame or praise a person for their life, because Americans are trained to think that if you're a butler or whatever, you chose it, when in fact the ordinary worker has very little economic agency. They are trained to work a job and fill a role, which is why employers and even schools have disciplining mechanisms like uniforms and timekeeping. But this society is too complex and advanced to have ppl flipping burgers or butlering for a living, but in a laissez faire society, you have neither state building nor political or economic formation of the masses. The only mass mechanisms in the system are the ritual of elections and street protests, or as Malcolm X put it, the ballot or the bullet. The age of the so-called service economy musf *immediately* give way to the knowledge economy, but you can't do that if you're stuck in a semi-feudal economic arrangement like butlering. It's time to evolve, we can't be peasants anymore, but most ppl are stuck in the peasantry of mass labor. It's time to make our own work, especially for black and brown ppl because white ppl aren't out here to create jobs for black and brown ppl. Self-reliance is the word of the age.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

meh, I think there's a lot of value in doing small jobs and service jobs and such things.  certainly some people want more out of life, but the society is complex and individuals are all different, it's fine for some jobs to be simple and lowly and some to be intellectual.  perhaps automation is going to take away more and more of such labor opportunities, but jobs and labor are just a reflection of the value people place in interacting with each other and doing different things for each other, the economy is just the incentivization of that, so no matter what there will still be different services for people to provide each other in exchange for value.  not everyone is going to be or even going to WANT to be involved in some kind of information/creativity job.  people want meaningful lives, plenty of people find meaning in being waiters or butlers or childcare workers (whether that be some kind of formalized daycare or some kind of 'semi-feudal' nanny job) or whatever, and I think it's a bit elitist to look down on such things.  I'm all for increasing and oiling the wheels for people to have the opportunities to do more if that's what they want, but I think one is blind to much of human nature if one assumes everyone fits into (or even wants to fit into) some kind of creative or knowledge economy.

i certainly agree we have many situations where people have no other opportunities, we can't assume every person in a low level job has chosen that for themselves--there are millions of factors that lead ppl to such things.  but all we can do is try to allow for as much meritocracy and mobility is possible, because there will always be lower status and higher status jobs.  and at the end of the day some people are smarter and some are less intelligent, some are more creative and some are less, two people can have access to the same socio-economic status and the same educational opportunities and still come out with one being more creative, smart, and competent than the other.  someone will flip burgers, someone will take out the garbage, someone will clean the toilets...  now of course automation may change the kinds of things that human labor fits into--probably the most painful transition may be when they come up with self-driving trucks that don't need human operators--but either way we'll still have to find ways for labor to be exchanged for value to keep economies moving and humans finding meaningful lives, with various levels of status in various kinds of labor that's available for people to do.  some people will fairly find themselves on the bottom ring, and some people will unfairly find themselves on the bottom ring, the best thing we can do is try to make as fair a system to allow people to move up to higher status based on their capabilities.  that's not what we have now, plenty of people who, if given the opportunity, would be able to do great things, end up stuck on lower levels for very unfair reasons, and we need to address those as much as possible--but no system will ever be perfect.

-------------------------

"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice" -Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

We do need to work to eradicate any and all kinds of such force and injustice. But that doesn't mean no one should ever flip burgers or wait tables or be a butler, there is nobility and dignity in even lowly jobs--but there is always work to be done to mitigate against the positions by which people's ability to make such free agreements are distorted into such force and injustice where they have no other option.

[Era Might]

5 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

I'm all for increasing and oiling the wheels for people to have the opportunities to do more if that's what they want, but I think one is blind to much of human nature if one assumes everyone fits into (or even wants to fit into) some kind of creative or knowledge economy.

Yes, this is the crux and I disagree in that it's not a choice. The knowledge and creative economy IS the economy, whether you like it or not. Even service jobs like retail sales are increasingly about what you bring to the table in terms of knowledge and creativity. We can wax poetic about the dignity of labor, but it's time for this country to wake up. It's not the 1700s anymore. It's time to talk reality, starting with race but not just race. This is a backward country in many respects, including economically. Add on top of that the precarious and petty economy of driving Uber, etc. It pays, but that's the new rat race.

[Aloysius]

At our present level I still think solidarist economics is the right way to go (in line with Heinrich Pesch, the Papal Encyclicals / general Catholic Social Teaching, or various distributist writings)--not erasing 'class' differences and different levels of status and work but bringing classes closer together in their cooperation and making it possible to move between them based on merit, and making sure the lowest status lowest skilled jobs still pay living wages--the problems you're describing with the precarious economy is the effects of neoliberalized labor that definitely exists in our (relatively, or idealized as) unfettered capitalist (/corporate-government corrupt capitalism) society that doesn't have many good solidarist polices or solidarist institutions (unfortunately we're caught in the polarized binary between 'capitalism' and 'socialism' with no end in sight)...and of course we're all staring at the danger of what happens when automation slowly creeps in on areas of unskilled uncreative human labor, what that will mean for meaningful labor for segments of the population who simply are not intelligent and are not creative.  society needs meaningful ways for the generally unintelligent and uncreative to contribute and subsist off of meaningful work also, because we'll certainly always have some people like that with us.  if you're giving advice on how to get ahead and be successful in life--yeah of course, knowledge and creativity is power.  But we're not all blank slates capable of the exact same competences, not everyone can or should get ahead to the highest levels, there's meaningful work to be done at lower levels too.  There's should be no shame in being a waiter or a butler or a nanny, or a truck driver or a taxi driver, or whatever, society needs such people and needs to demand they have good wages upon which they can subsist.  knowledge and creativity getting one to higher levels of success is perfectly reasonable and is, of course, how our economy works.

 Anyway, interesting stuff to think about.  I suggest we ruminate on all of these thoughts until the next random set of general memes about present day political controversies spur us to get into more weeds of socio-economic-philosophical-historical discussions

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Era Might said:

I would argue that the only reason ppl have to become domestic workers is because they have no access to education or training for anything higher.

I would argue that domestic workers are intelligent, skilled, compassionate, caring individuals who care more about the quality of life than money

[little2add]

Annie was a happy person

You’re such a negative-Nancy, Era

 

[Era Might]

46 minutes ago, little2add said:

Annie was a happy person

You’re such a negative-Nancy, Era

 

Call me anything you want, just don't call me a butler.

[little2add]

 

 

[Era Might]

36 minutes ago, little2add said:

 

 

[Aloysius]

10 hours ago, Aloysius said:

  I suggest we ruminate on all of these thoughts until the next random set of general memes about present day political controversies spur us to get into more weeds of socio-economic-philosophical-historical discussions

 

51 minutes ago, little2add said:

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Era Might said:

haha I think I really got my finger on the pulse of the pattern of this thread. 

[Era Might]

3 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

 

 

haha I think I really got my finger on the pulse of the pattern of this thread. 

Lol. It's ok I had some time to waste.

[little2add]

4 hours ago, Era Might said:

what does Marcus garvey have to do with  pancake syrup