In our society there is no right to laziness, say politicians like former Chancellor Schröder or entrepreneur and manager happy, and they mean that the unemployed would have to take kindly even the most miserable job at all even the low wages in order not to unemployment insurance - in which they have after all been paid for years as a rule - or by prolonged unemployment, the state - to whom they have previously had been paid at least in general taxes - to be a burden financially.
But what about those who do not have to work because they can live off their assets or the return of their property? What about children, the sick and the disabled, pensioners and retirees? Ultimately, all live are not working, from what other work for them, whether it be dealing with people on unemployment benefit or social assistance or pensions, rent, interest or dividends. And even those that use only their assets to live, either from inherited - and also from other people's money - or gains that they themselves on the average, have made to life beyond what is necessary - and usually also to ultimately expense of other people who have received correspondingly less, whether paid less or less corporate profits or stock. Since the sum of the globally acquired is limited, every human being lives, of more than the world average income replaced, but not at the same time worked out accordingly more logically relating to this part at the expense of others.
That often also between income and the service provided there is no rational relation, ie that some people or even the majority of working people for a lot of hard work and comparatively low wages and some other people, and relatively few, the wearing of responsibility or clever and / or happy action on the market collect a lot of money is known. It is also obvious that one through diligence and hard work at best fairly well off, but can never be really rich: that an average earner alone by saving could be rich, just a frequently told stories to the legitimacy of the actually existing capitalism, because so much money earned an average earner in truth in his whole life. Really rich, you can always be at the expense of others, whether as entrepreneurs, managers, stock speculators, landowners, entertainers, professional athletes, real estate brokers, Abmahnanwalt etc., but never by ordinary wage labor.
So why should those who have to work not because of their youth, age, infirmity or their wealth, to be ethically justified and have a right to laziness, but not those who are unemployed, because in our society less and less regular paid work there? What is sing at all from the gospel of work, the politicians and entrepreneurs so much, and the right to work, the trade unionists and human rights so much demand to keep?
Why work? do
is undisputed that work is necessary for society, if we satisfy our basic needs for food, clothing, housing, health and entertainment, or even live in prosperity. The goods that we consume must first be produced and distributed. Most activities are the production and distribution of goods, but are not as interesting and rewarding in that we love to would do. Consider, for example, to assembly line work or sales or office work or similar monotonous work, as in our society the rule, not the exception. Most people work so because they have to make money. Work is therefore mainly a necessary evil, not in itself meaningful, satisfying work. The Transfiguration of the work to a per se - and not just for the money and the end products - good or desirable, or even the sacred duty to the meaning of life, as practiced by many politicians, entrepreneurs and managers, is therefore plenty of unrealistic.
course there are exceptions: If scientific, or artistic or entrepreneurial activity, has generally made his hobby into a career and will be so happy. As work in the usual sense of alienated wage labor can not describe such activities but surely. Furthermore, since many companies are trying to replace monotonous assembly line work through group work, whereby the work of the individual employee is more varied and the staff is often satisfied. The hobby is the fact, however, most still do not work. The Group also work for individual employees also have disadvantages: Did he used to be in blind obedience to the commands of superiors, he now bears responsibility for the summary - And often undergoes massive pressure from colleagues, if its performance degrades for example due to age or illness. Discipline is thus replaced by self-discipline, not more pressure from the boss, but by way exercised over his colleagues. improve
rationalization, automation, and the disappearance of work
part about the working conditions, and most importantly produce more goods in the same time and / or with less explore, the firm's ability to simplify, accelerate, improve and cheapening of work processes. Ultimately, this rationalization process called for the reduction of labor and / or Material costs per unit produced, ie the reduction in unit costs, and - if the market hergibt the - to the expansion of production. If technically possible and financially advantageous to automate the production taking place.
The previously employed in this production by unemployed workers when the company was not in other areas of human needs and has the professional staff are able to work there. Lead to a total rationalization and automation of stagnant social goods and needs constant work of employees to a steady increase in the number of unemployed people and thus strengthen the position the capital owners / employers in the distribution struggle.
Given the nature of the ordinary wage labor as a necessary evil would be rationalization and automation also welcomed from the employee perspective, where would the savings in time and costs passed on to employees or at least shared with them. In fact, the productivity gains are made over several decades for the workers to the threat. For the case of weak trade unions, weak demand and strong international competition, the advantages of streamlining and automating almost exclusively to the capital owners / employers gain or consumers in the form of falling prices benefit, while the disadvantages such as work intensification and job losses have to pay the workers.
The traditional counter-script: to compensate for economic growth
To the job losses through rationalization, politicians and economists hope for more than thirty years to a possible high rate of economic growth: the citizens are more and more and more and consume more quickly to the growing product range that by rationalizing and automation inevitably arises, customers and it will not market crises, bankruptcies and unemployment is even higher. Politicians and economists also hope to expand the service sector and a higher demand for services such as product consulting, health care, children, elderly and health care, home help, etc., because the market for cars, household appliances, consumer electronics, etc. both at home and - abroad - at least in the longer term is probably not be expanded, have discovered a number of politicians and economists now.
in fact, might increase the consumption of goods and services if they increase the production of goods and services due to rationalization and automation compensated or even surpass, prevent lost jobs and help create new jobs . Let However, we teach the last thirty years that we will wait for an economic growth that leads to a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed, probably in vain. Clearly, the needs of a society of goods and services is not any titrate. Moreover, the political decisions of recent decades, as explained elsewhere, to a severe financial burden and to withdrawal of purchasing power is just with the financially weaker sections of society to run well into the middle class into it. Especially these layers there are, however, which would most likely need for more material goods.
The alternative: redistribution of work and shorter working hours
The fact that rationalization lead and automation in stagnant social goods demand and constant labor of workers to a steady increase in the number of unemployed, can indeed deduce another counter-script: not only economic growth but also a more even distribution of work could reduce the number of unemployed. Such a redistribution could be achieved through more part-time work, but also by reducing the weekly or working life. Given the global competition for financial compensation for a reduction of weekly working time or life would be possible only with thriving businesses. If you encounter through work time reduction difficulties in filling demanding jobs, this would be through appropriate training and retraining measures: An unemployed - also of unemployed graduates - after all, there is no shortage. happens
Currently, however, the exact opposite of work time reduction and qualification: Firms fear of employees take advantage of the loss of a job, to summarize the work and to extract unpaid overtime, and the politicians to extend the working life and both companies and politicians do not try such as, unemployed or potentially unemployed people demanding, to qualify under current state of knowledge forward jobs security force, but even well-qualified unemployed people to take in order to reduce the cost of unemployment benefits and social assistance even the most miserable and low paid job. So people are humiliated, cemented the mass unemployment and wasted human resources.
economic growth and sustainable development
Against an unfettered economic growth, at least in its present form also speaks an ethical argument: Our economic system is based so far mainly on the exploitation of natural resources of the earth (water, soil, oil, natural gas, coal, other mineral resources such as metals, Phosphates, etc.) and to the destruction of natural habitats and thus the livelihoods of future generations. It is hardly to renewable energy and energy saving, and on resource conservation and recycling.
For environmentally-friendly and future-proof, sustainable business, it would however need to end the current raw material and energy waste and non-renewable energy sources such as coal, petroleum and natural gas and non-renewable raw materials more expensive so that a sparing use of them, the switch to renewable energy and provide a complete recycling of non-renewable raw materials are worth. The technical possibilities this is largely in place.
But the political will is lacking because the process of change, of course, an - at least temporarily - would reduce private consumption, leading to: The money for the forced conversion of a throw-away and waste economy would be necessary to a circular economy, would not be for private consumption longer available. Many politicians are not willing or able to make provisions in the long term and to communicate and implement necessary changes. Currently, for example, the oil price is kept by the governments of major producing countries under pressure from Western countries artificially low. In return, grant U.S. the Saudi royal family and other dictatorial regimes, political and military support.
should Furthermore, the requirements for environmental protection and control of these conditions are worsened dramatically: it is what it is cheaper for a company from a business perspective, without regard to produce on the environment and health of employees or the population as a whole. If you want to change such behavior in their own interest and in the interest of future generations, there is no alternative than to exercise the judicial and police coercion, if possible, based on international agreements, but if necessary also on a national level. Hope for the social responsibility of managers and entrepreneurs who might in any case be futile, because even the competition forces the companies to the lowest possible cost - and so ruthless - to produce, if the state and the consumers they know gestatten.1 Typically but the consumer did not produced the conditions under which the goods and the seller work (s) and can manufacturers and retailers have no control so through his buying behavior.
Conclusion There may be no right to laziness, if it is meant that can be expected from everyone according to his ability skills and contribute to society. This applies not only workable but then unemployed, but every able-bodied and / or cash-rich member of society, particularly politicians, managers and entrepreneurs. It is cynical and anti-social if the better-off or rich the low paid, unemployed and welfare recipients expect constant new reductions in their income, but collect even more, whether you own property now - that's the rule - inherited substantially or - this is the exception - result of a business establishment and the subsequent successful acting out on the market. For even in the latter case owe the company founder the vast majority of its assets other people, not their own performance. Ethically acceptable to the retention of the added value contributed by the entrepreneur is therefore well at all only if the profit is reinvested in the company as much as possible in order to remain competitive or to increase.
Also expect the citizens of a democratic and social state, that do their elected leaders every indication that a work-eligible citizens do not get just any job, but part of him as a useful felt, adequately paid job that his potential and interests corresponds as closely as possible, and that from childhood he relevant Training opportunities will be provided. People's skills is, moreover, not only an obligation of economic reason, but also contribute to the stabilization of democracy, because (of) education, employment and property-less, constantly humiliated people can the benefits of a liberal constitutional state convey difficult. It is also difficult to inspire people for democracy if they have the impression that the parties less the good of the whole population rather than mainly the well-being of the capitalists at heart.
In any case, it is a right to laziness in that sense that it is entitled to seek ways imposed, harmful, to avoid unnecessary or meaningless work. For work has no value in itself and reduce rationalization and automation should not only serve to increase corporate profits, but to physically or psychologically stressful work. There are many ways to spend his time more enjoyable and meaningful than work, it is with social contacts, whether it be hobbies, whether it be personal development or social commitments. Too lazy must be allowed. Since being lazy is a bit dull and most people love the variety and look for recognition, the risk of Dauerfaulenzens is probably rather low anyway. Therefore, it would be appropriate to place more of the Song of the work to sing again the praises of laziness.
0 comments:
Post a Comment