Because we have an economy of cybernated abundance that does not need their labor, that is rapidly severing the tie between work and wages, that suffers from hard-core poverty due to maldistribution, not scarcity. From this point of view, why is the voluntary dropping-out of the hip young any more "parasitic" than the enforced dropping-out of impoverished ghetto dwellers?
Rosack goes on to ask the pertinent question:
The economy can do abundantly without all this labor. How better, then to spend our affluence than on those minimal goods and services that will support leisure for as many of us as possible?
"Maldistribution" is a keyword that sets in train a very important set of questions.
And so for day 210
12.07.2007