If we lived in a society where certain basic needs like health care, secure retirement and basic sustenance were guaranteed, it would allow people to pursue their passions.
Would this release of creative energy offset the claimed decrease in economic activity posited by the pure capitalists?
How productive are people forced to work for minimum wage at jobs they detest just to survive?
I suspect not very.
Still, forcing them to need these jobs increases the labor supply and drives down wages.
However would the release of the creative forces offset this or not?
This is probably the single biggest difference between Capitalists and Socialists. The idea that everyone should be taken care of to some degree versus a dog eat dog mentality.
In our earliest societies, as best we can tell from studying indigenous peoples, we had essentially a socialist society although everyone who could was expected to contribute. Those who couldn't because of age or other infirmity were generally taken care of.
There are a few instances where this was not true, generally in the harshest environments, although even there mostly they were not abandoned unless absolutely necessary.
As our original simple structures evolved we saw more of a disconnect between members and less of a desire to share.
Can we at this point in our society emulate our earliest ancestors and treat all people equally with merit being rewarded, but not excessively?
That remains to be seen
No comments:
Post a Comment