As EU leaders gathered in Brussels for the talks, thousands of trade unionists
demonstrated behind a police cordon against EU imposed austerity targets outside
the summit venue. Figures showed that southern European Mediterranean nations
continued to suffer the steepest drops in employment, with fourth quarter
employment in Spain, Portugal and Greece dropping 4.5pc, 4.3pc and 6.5pc
year-on-year respectively. Mr Barroso insisted that the EU needed to stick to
the austerity measures and "reforms that are indispensable for European
competitiveness" but conceded that more needed to be done "to promote growth in
the short term and to have a reinforced commitment regarding social
obligations." "Because in some cases we are reaching the limits of what is
socially acceptable, and this is certainly a matter of concern for all of us,"
he said. During Thursday's summit France, Spain and Portugal will clash with
Germany, Holland and Austria over their demand for more time to meet their
debt-cutting targets against a growing popular backlash against EU austerity.
A draft EU summit text echoes Mr Barroso by calling for an ﾓappropriate mix of
expenditure and revenue measuresﾔ, language that France and others will
interpret as a loosening of fiscal constraint against resistance from Germany.
"We will discuss growth and employment and how to fight the present economic
deterioration in Europe," said Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister and an EU
austerity hawk. "At the same time creating a consensus on the fact that we
need both to implement the necessary austerity programmes and structural reforms
to improve our economies." Europe's leaders fear that an anti-austerity
backlash is growing across Europe after Italian elections wiped out mainstream
political parties delivering a stunning rejection to Mario Monti, the EUﾒs
favoured candidate who only secured one in 10 votes. In a bid to overcome
growing public dissent, the draft EU summit text expresses concern about low
growth and proposes a "youth employment initiative" that allocates €6 billion
for the highest unemployment regions of the EU over the coming seven years - a
tiny amount of cash compared to austerity programmes cutting tens of billions.
"Six billion will never be enough. I think 60 billion would not have been
enough," a senior eurozone official told Reuters. "It is our political response,
it is not a response in substance." "The burden has been placed on the people,"
said Bernadette Segol, the leader of the European Trade Union Confederation.
"Unemployment is up and up and up every month, when is the growth going to come?
We need investment. We are not dealing with figures, we are dealing with people,
who have feelings and votes." 
Access Investments-Building Awareness - European Union-ROMANIA
Saturday, March 16, 2013
...thousands of trade unionists demonstrated...
As EU leaders gathered in Brussels for the talks, thousands of trade unionists
demonstrated behind a police cordon against EU imposed austerity targets outside
the summit venue. Figures showed that southern European Mediterranean nations
continued to suffer the steepest drops in employment, with fourth quarter
employment in Spain, Portugal and Greece dropping 4.5pc, 4.3pc and 6.5pc
year-on-year respectively. Mr Barroso insisted that the EU needed to stick to
the austerity measures and "reforms that are indispensable for European
competitiveness" but conceded that more needed to be done "to promote growth in
the short term and to have a reinforced commitment regarding social
obligations." "Because in some cases we are reaching the limits of what is
socially acceptable, and this is certainly a matter of concern for all of us,"
he said. During Thursday's summit France, Spain and Portugal will clash with
Germany, Holland and Austria over their demand for more time to meet their
debt-cutting targets against a growing popular backlash against EU austerity.
A draft EU summit text echoes Mr Barroso by calling for an ﾓappropriate mix of
expenditure and revenue measuresﾔ, language that France and others will
interpret as a loosening of fiscal constraint against resistance from Germany.
"We will discuss growth and employment and how to fight the present economic
deterioration in Europe," said Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister and an EU
austerity hawk. "At the same time creating a consensus on the fact that we
need both to implement the necessary austerity programmes and structural reforms
to improve our economies." Europe's leaders fear that an anti-austerity
backlash is growing across Europe after Italian elections wiped out mainstream
political parties delivering a stunning rejection to Mario Monti, the EUﾒs
favoured candidate who only secured one in 10 votes. In a bid to overcome
growing public dissent, the draft EU summit text expresses concern about low
growth and proposes a "youth employment initiative" that allocates €6 billion
for the highest unemployment regions of the EU over the coming seven years - a
tiny amount of cash compared to austerity programmes cutting tens of billions.
"Six billion will never be enough. I think 60 billion would not have been
enough," a senior eurozone official told Reuters. "It is our political response,
it is not a response in substance." "The burden has been placed on the people,"
said Bernadette Segol, the leader of the European Trade Union Confederation.
"Unemployment is up and up and up every month, when is the growth going to come?
We need investment. We are not dealing with figures, we are dealing with people,
who have feelings and votes." 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Europe and the EU project are like the titanic. The elite have their lifeboats ready to sail but steerage are find the gates upward locked and barred. Its already costing us here in the UK £50 million every day (Thats what was paid for Fernando Torres) just to maintain membership of this toxic chaotic club or £1825,000,0000 a year. That would pay for 36.5 full football teams of Fernando Torreses, If that was not bad enough we buy more from them than we sell to the EU so we are getting a very raw deal for our money indeed.
Thats why the MEPs met in secret to overturn Mr Camerons buget measures and Mr Van Roumpey has made clear that Cams renegotiation of UK membership is a non starter and wont find any supporters as to allow the UK to cherrypick which rules it likes and ditch or change those it dosent would throw the whole Eurozone into more turmoil than it is already as they would have to do the same for every other state that found it didnt suit them.
If Mr Cameron cant get this deal what exactly will he have to offer voters in the referendum??
The offer of his in out referendum is by itsself a clear admission the EU is seriously damaging the UK so thats why top business leaders are urging him to let us hold the referendum right away in stead of dragging it on for years.
UKIP is the only party offering a solution
At last, some sensible talk from a political leader, allbeit one who is stepping down. Austerity has failed throughout Europe and has caused immense suffering and social stress, especially in the south. Now is the time to admit that the neo-conservative experiment to revive economies following the banking crash of 2008 has failed, utterly and without any compensatory effects. The ideas of the Chicago School and Ayan Rand have been tested to destruction, and are now totally discredited.
The question is - when will the political leaders of Europe admit that the policies they have been following for the past 3/4 years are redundent, and that a deliberate resort to public expenditure to kick-start their economies is now required.
Come back Keynes, all is forgiven!
n a bitter valedictory statement to a two-day EU summit that ended in Brussels on Friday, Mario Monti, who was crushed in the recent Italian election – a result that stunned the EU elite – pleaded for greater scope on economic and fiscal policy in the crisis.
He complained that other countries such as France and the Netherlands were being granted more breathing space on their spending targets than he had been given over the past 16 months, and said that he had followed EU orders in his policymaking, an admission he did not emphasise during the election campaign.
In the letter, Monti, a liberal reformer who was the darling of Brussels but roundly rejected by Italian voters, voiced disappointment bordering on a sense of betrayal at the way he was treated by fellow EU leaders, most notably in Berlin and Brussels.
"Since November 2011," when he replaced Silvio Berlusconi as caretaker prime minister, "Italy has been delivering on all the policy objectives set out by the EU. In the meantime, some member states have been given extra time to reach their budgetary objectives," he complained.
"Not only has Italy not requested any extra time to perform its adjustment, but it did not request any financial assistance from the EU or any other international organisation. On the contrary, Italy has contributed to the financial assistance of other EU countries in need."
Attending his final EU summit, Monti warned that the leaders were not acting strongly and fast enough to combat record mass youth unemployment, storing up trouble for themselves at the ballot box.
"Public support for the reforms, and worse, for the European Union, is dramatically declining, following a trend which is also visible in many other countries across the union," he said. "To revive growth and fight long-term and youth unemployment would be the best message to counter the mounting wave of populism and disaffection with the European Union, showing that Europe is listening to people's concerns."
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
To fight long-term and youth unemployment means first accepting that employment in the future will be very different from employment as we knew it in the past few decades of rampant consumerism.
Consumerism, which is the getting of lifestyle satisfaction by the acquisition and consumption of ever more 'stuff', is bound to wane.
Supplies of the 'raw materials' of fuels and ores which consumerism requires are beginning to contract.
It is grim, but unescapeable, that many jobs in both the public and private sectors were only there as a result of cheap fuels, and cheap food based on petrochemically-derived artificial fertiliser.
I am so old that I remember the debates we had when we read Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972).
We expected a move to a 4-day week and then to a 3-day week and then to a 2-day by the end of the twentieth century----but we didn't foresee the peddling of 'Greed is Good'.
What we foresaw (wrongly) was that there would be satisfaction got from "Enoughism". 'Nuffers would be proud to put leisure days to good use.
I expect that when it gets bad enough (youth unemployment at 75%? middle-class adult unemployment at 50%?) there will arise a clamour to start sharing out equitably what paid employment remains.
It is downright daft to have one person overworked and stressed out, with another completely out of work but stressed out by searching for a non-existent job.
Both should be on a three-day week and each should be able have a productive allotment.
When that clamour comes, political parties will instruct bureaucrats to develop policies in response, but not until.
Europa... lumea in care infractorii au mai multe drepturi decit oamenii cinstiti. Europa... societatea in care pagubitul face puscarie pentru ca a incercat sa-si apere bunurile, casa sau familia, iar infractorul e despagubit pentru prejudiciile suferite.
Europa... lumea in care multi aleg sa devina infractori pentru ca pot sa traiasca mai bine in puscarie decit in libertate.
Post a Comment