Is it necessary to work gratis unemployed (TIG)

[Cuicui]

From the time the allocation is key, it seems to me normal and moral to provide labor in exchange. The difficulty lies in the methods and organization of this work.

[chatelot16]

it's stupid that a community pays people to do nothing when there is useful work to do

the solution is to hire people properly! it will make unemployed less

then if the colectivité is not able to pay its employees at the normal rate is indicative of a more serious problem

the normal price of the work is it normal! should it reduce wages? it is of course not possible ... it is no longer possible to live normally with a small salary that never increases, and housing prices and transport that increases in disaster

to solve the problem of current misery should not be too much to hope an increase in salary, so we must build economic housing, and econological and positioned to reduce or even simply remove the transportation costs ... and so we live better poura without salary increase ... or even create new employment of lower wages offset by better economic organization

[renaud67]

generalize the return to family gardens ...

[boubka]

Hello everyone
ca also exists in France under a disguised form part against a hypothetical open-ended contract.
ca s name is the AFPR or you work the period of testing (usually 3 months) being renumeré has your normal rate by assedic and your employer aids.
http://www.pole-emploi.fr/candidat/l-ac ... pz?id=4817

[phil53]

Bubka, you also forget that internships are also a huge source of free labor.

I am quite appalled by the words of some, on another forum that would not have surprised me, here I thought the thought was different!


Some reminders:

In the first companies (so-called primitive) of which there are still examples of tiny men worked between 2 and 3h a day to meet their needs, the rest was spent on social ties.

Time of the ancient Greeks work was reserved for slaves, free men (possibly many) spent their time in the war the arts and sciences.

In Roman times work and torture meant the same thing and again the citizens were not working.

I pass the Middle Ages or there was still incidentally more holidays after the revolution.

This revolution so much praised by the school has been a great joke.
The bourgeoisie with the complicity of the church confiscated the holidays and made it into the minds of the people that it was necessary to work that it was a duty. And the poor buggers asked for more, they worked again and again, yet they were starving. In 19ème a worker worked more than a convict or a slave.

And workers to revolt because working as they produced too suddenly bourgeois (always with his accomplice the church) had to find new markets. So we settled to sell all these products. Because these machines cons of workers as they always wanted to work as much (although they had swallowed the lesson of duty, the glory of the work) still produced more suddenly invented the bourgeois consumption.
Indeed by giving them a small purchasing power they consume and worse by creating needs through advertising they become insatiable.
And suddenly, they believe innocently, they still want to work more to earn more.

It is forgotten that the bourgeoisie a step ahead. At the beginning of the XXth century was the reference monetary gold US quickly realized that it would be easier to make notes and invented the system to believe that everyone was richer now but it was not enough need of tickets, Simple 0 in computer files will do.

The workers believe that they want to work less in order to save resources but also to enjoy life?

No they claim the work as if the human ideal was limited to that.
Our politicians from all walks of life, even the extreme left, are following the same pattern: we need to regain growth, we must create needs, find new opportunities, so work harder and squander our resources.

[chatelot16]

In the first companies (so-called primitive) of which there are still examples of tiny men worked between 2 and 3h a day to meet their needs, the rest was spent on social ties.

very interesting ! I often say that if we were organized to effectively take advantage of the technical means we have not invent shit heap for all waste, we will work 2 hour a day and ca be enough!

if the primitive society did it already we really progressed upside down

Time of the ancient Greeks work was reserved for slaves, free men (possibly many) spent their time in the war the arts and sciences.

In Roman times work and torture meant the same thing and again the citizens were not working.

Slavery is a solution?
the Roman contempt for manual labor was serious!

[phil53]

Charlot16, I do not advocate slavery, I would point out that in other times the work was not an almighty symbol almost sacred but rather a necessary evil.

Should he live to work or work to live?

[Ahmed]

I note the comments, moreover very sympathetic to Phil53, to emphasize some confusion.

Eg.:

In the first companies (so-called primitive) of which there are still examples of tiny men worked between 2 and 3h a day to meet their needs, the rest was spent on social ties.

This statement is only a projection biased our perception of economic activity, as modern Westerners.
It tends to accredit, on the one hand, that the work is transhistorical (thus linked to the human essence), on the other hand, that the activities necessary for the material survival of the group were distinct from the playful or free activities.
These are 2 errors: for the man of primitive societies, the concept of work as we understand it today no sense, Subsistence activities (that do not work, repeat it!) Are never separate from other activities.


Further on, another serious misunderstanding: it is specified that the workers, after the revolution, would have become "workaholics".

This is to make light of the many resistance movements to new work organizations that prove that the workers had a very clear perception that this was not in the direction of their interest.

destruction of machinery in France as in England (Luddites) did not express a rejection of mechanization, but the degradation of the working conditions.

[delnoram]

From the time the allocation is key, it seems to me normal and moral to provide labor in exchange. The difficulty lies in the methods and organization of this work.

You talk about this specific case?
http://www.expatriation.com/trader-bour ... omage.html

[phil53]

This statement is only a projection biased our perception of economic activity, as modern Westerners.





destruction of machinery in France as in England (Luddites) did not express a rejection of mechanization, but the degradation of the working conditions.

Obviously I made a shortcut to avoid detail and to say that according to our design work and leisure etc primitive society spend between 2 and 3h basic housing supply needs for us what.

As for the workers, they destroyed the machines because they saw them as an unfair competitor taking their work
To my knowledge there was no revolt to say the machines are working for us are working less
This to put 100ans 16h to spend more per day to 7 à8h

Mechanization yes but this should be done with a reduction in working time.

Read Paul Lafargue's book "the right to laziness"