I think the other side of that argument is why the capital gets locked up in the first place?
It's because there's excess surplus from productivity gains. If you work 1 hour a day you can be far more productive than just a few years ago. Either wages should increase to match that gain or hours should decrease to match that gain. In both cases, wealth would be unlocked.
If you work fewer hours you get more time for hobbies and side projects and other wealth-creation ideas.
If you work the same amount of hours but for a higher salary, you get money to shift into investments or to be able to take time off to invest in yourself and your family.
The current surplus wealth goes to the top and to the company itself.
It reminds me of what Ivan Illich (sp?) pointed out about over adoption of any specific technology. That we'll keep using it to such excess even if it harms us. I think if we use that truism as a guide on social norms with regard to economics then I think we've adopted the concept of private ownership to such excess that it harms the process of private ownership itself. I think it's time to go back towards a Lockean approach to the problem (if your actions harm others in their pursuits in common then it should be curtailed to ensure equal opportunity for all).
Comments
I think the other side of that argument is why the capital gets locked up in the first place?
It's because there's excess surplus from productivity gains. If you work 1 hour a day you can be far more productive than just a few years ago. Either wages should increase to match that gain or hours should decrease to match that gain. In both cases, wealth would be unlocked.
If you work fewer hours you get more time for hobbies and side projects and other wealth-creation ideas.
If you work the same amount of hours but for a higher salary, you get money to shift into investments or to be able to take time off to invest in yourself and your family.
The current surplus wealth goes to the top and to the company itself.
It reminds me of what Ivan Illich (sp?) pointed out about over adoption of any specific technology. That we'll keep using it to such excess even if it harms us. I think if we use that truism as a guide on social norms with regard to economics then I think we've adopted the concept of private ownership to such excess that it harms the process of private ownership itself. I think it's time to go back towards a Lockean approach to the problem (if your actions harm others in their pursuits in common then it should be curtailed to ensure equal opportunity for all).