Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [PETITION] Recognize that Working Less Helps the Economy and the World

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 24, 2012, 6:05 p.m. EST by Misaki (893)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

People are afraid to admit that we should be doing something different because it means those doing the old thing are unethical or wrong. This is not true because our actions have many different counterbalancing effects, harming one group but helping another. There is no 'perfect action'.

At the most basic level working fewer hours means we could share jobs, reducing unemployment. But it has many other effects...

Helps the poor:

Helps the rich:

It also fixes war, poverty, and hunger, and allows us to focus more attention on climate change.

Some concerns people might have are resource consumption and social spending. But people are more likely to agree to taxes to help, say, orphans if they are not already being taxed to support adults on welfare who are able to work.

Sign and share - http://www.thepetitionsite.com/231/052/314/recognize-that-working-less-helps-the-economy-and-the-world/
White House petition - http://wh.gov/QXEZ

2 Comments

2 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I like to work.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

This thread is related to another conceptually.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/message-slovenia-world-we-take-responsibility-each/

There is a more equitable action. Reason needs to be applied in order for the equity to be known. Free speech is needed, we don't have the spirit of that and are far removed from it.

The thread "message-slovenia-world" describes a unity from a local point outwards within their social structure. True-by participating less we can contribute less to the problem. However, the best is that after a period of time, we have permanently moved away from participation in the problem.

As an ideal, this is probably not possible from where we are technologically, but the ideal should not be relinquished. In such a case to know exactly what we do not want to do, and work in the most effective way possible to see that our society does less and less, is logical.

However, this cannot detract from knowing what we need to do. Not chicken & egg with that observed.

We must examine fundamental political needs, then integrate the priorities in time there with a coordinated cessation of participation in what is not wanted.

There is a dual message, choose and participate well in transitory consumption, work, whatever, but have an established goal with your society to some degree; for developing the sustainability we need.

Herein is where the greatest meanings of free speech are found, and our current media/communications scenario is dominated by corporate interests exclusively. We compensate by being human and speaking a langauge that is EXCLUSIVELY human right here and agreeing on something that is shared by many others.

I say that is the Constitution for the United States (not of). An ongoing infiltration has made it so odius that many have abandoned it as something worthy of discourse. To do so abandons allies that out number you hundreds of times, IF, you aim to see all demands met.