Index:

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:39 -0400
From: Patricia Byrnes
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:03:21 +1200
From: David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:32:35 EST
From: Priscilla Richter
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:53 EST
From: "Marco Santarelli"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:32:52 -0600
From: Mark Burch
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:10:19 -0500
From: Carol Bruce
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:09:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Fingerson, Linda
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:31:12 -0600 (CST)
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:22:30 -0400
From: Vicki Madden
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:05:43 -0600
From: Jane Jones
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:33:17 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:44:24 -0700
From: Jane Madison
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:25:45 EST
From: Priscilla Richter
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:43:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:31:58 +0000
From: Peter Bacon
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:25:05 EST
From: bob banner
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:32:29 -0600 (CST)
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:44:07 -0500
From: Patricia Byrnes
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:21:22 -0600 (CST)
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:57:37 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:24:21 -0500
From: Gwen Bruington
Date: Wed Apr 01 06:30:26 1998 +1200
From: David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:50:27 -0800
From: Christine Chute
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:44:54 EST
From: Jill Dakota
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:18:43 -1000
From: Kaleopono
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:08:34 -0800
From: suzan badgley
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:03:55 +1200
From: David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
"A good life": when do you know you've had one?
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: SS-John Short
Ken Hawn's MEMBER LOCATION LIST - revised 05/05/98

From ???@??? Fri Mar 27 10:32:29 1998
      from Edsac (p46-max4.auck.ihug.co.nz [203.29.164.46])
	by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA10411
	for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:04:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327080321.00729b94@mail.geocities.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:03:21 +1200
From: David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
Subject:  

Should one work hard?

At 14:39 25/03/98 -0500, Patricia Byrnes wrote:
... This topic genuinely concerns me because it seems like everyone is working themselves to death and not having time to enjoy the people they are "working so hard for". I am working now to pay off my debts and develop a lifestyle that will allow me or a potential husband to raise the children at home ...

This really bugs me. Any input would be appreciated.     Thanks.

Patricia
----------
>From: Kailua9
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 1:59 PM
>Subject: 	Re: One income household
>
>    On the "one-income" subject, I would like to bring up a point that I've
>never heard mentioned about it -- when figuring out whether they can afford
>to live on just one income, people don't realize that the added pressure on
the one wage-earner tends to motivate him/her to achieve more than they might
>have otherwise.  This is purely anecdotal, of course, but in my husband's
>case, he started out as a carpenter when our first son was born.  Now,
>sixteen years ... later, he is a project manager for a construction company
> ...
>    My brother is also a good example.  He started out in construction as a
>laborer with no skills whatsoever, just a willing attitude.  When his first
>daughter was born, and they opted to have his wife stay home with her, he 
>was worried sick about how they could afford to lose that second salary. 
>Now, five years later, he is a superintendent and brings in an ample salary
>...  
>Paula 
{David MacClement responds:}
** I'm sorry to say that, once again I don't agree that this is a 'good thing': "the added pressure on the one wage-earner tends to motivate him/her to achieve more". Though I'm having some doubts about my decisions over the last 20 years.

I have three children, all at university or already with degrees (the oldest is a mechanical engineer: 26, though not in that kind of job now), and I've been influencing them to only work if they really like the job, the rest of the time living on less than $2,800 p.a. I've also let them know that I'm not looking forward to grandchildren, though of course leaving the actual decision to them individually. (I have to say my wife differs from me on this. The "not looking forward" part!)

The 2 younger ones seem quite happy to live under the same roof with me.
At least for now. They have guaranteed food (the same as I eat, supplemented with more fruit & veg. that my wife buys, partly for herself), a roof over their heads, peace and quiet when they want it, no assigned chores and ~$70/wk for expenses during term-time (40 weeks), which my wife pays from her Physics lecturing salary. Easy to see why they stay?

It's not the whole story: they have made it clear (though it's really only been true for the last year) that they value highly, being able to talk to me about anything and everything. They're also remarkably pleasant and able young people (though the youngest, who left to catch the bus a few minutes ago, has my trait of quick irritability!); a friend, who's a Member of Parliament and one of the co-leaders of the N.Z. Greens, also values our children highly, as does her partner (who in the past studied social Anthropology like our youngest).

Part of the reason I've been pointing this out is the various comments about not putting young children into daycare. We did, from only a few months old, and not only have we seen no evidence of harm or lack of benefit, but believe the kids actually are much better at most things now, than my wife and I are or were. It's true we took a lot of care in choosing and monitoring the day-care centres (in Ottawa for the oldest, then here in N.Z. when we moved). Also, neither of us is good at being around young children, so getting someone else who wants to and is good at it, like our daughter is now, is the obvious (and we think, successful) answer.

Anyway: basically I think a job should be optional, now there are so many people on earth, with those who are "making" huge amounts of money from the $trillions sloshing daily around the world (electronically) being required to pay sufficient tax to supply between $500 and $2000 p.a. to every adult on earth. If that slows down the economic growth-rate, so much the better. There is no need for growth in use of resources, though there could be growth in services. Governments and their corporate henchmen have got away too long with promoting the un-truth that everyone benefits from growth.

!Enough! 

**               http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/
David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
                 http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6783/
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:09:27 1998
      from PRichter1@aol.com
	by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id GBVEa19599;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:32:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <f57b6ce.351baa75@aol.com>
To: srebbett@roanoke.infi.net, positive-futures@igc.org
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:32:35 EST 
From: PRichter1 
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
Sallee and Betsy have raised some very important issues in the discussion on one income families. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

First, there are economic factors involved in two income families. Jobs that are female-dominant are lower paid jobs, period. This has been true since the first part of this century when the first typists (secretaries) were male and were extremely well paid positions. When they turned female-dominant, they became poorly paid. Same for teachers, for social workers, for corporate public relations -- many fields that become female - dominant. And if you look at the annual salary survey in Working Woman magazine (not one of my regular reads, but someone gave me their last salary survey issue), women in any profession average from around $.58 to around $.68 on the dollar of what males earn. Yes, we do see more couples where the male chooses to stay at home and the female is the major bread winner, but as a rule, the economics favor women having to make the choices between staying at home and working at jobs that are often marginal. And the farther down the economic ladder one goes, the more the economics of this come into play (women with low education coming off of welfare typically earn far less than their male counterparts).

Second: the recent rise in choice to stay at home to raise children is difficult for some to do. Betsy pointed out how difficult this is for some people. And Tom's story about his mother staying home yet not providing nurturing love is another example. {correction: Shely's, not Tom's. See below}

Truth is, our society has rewarded those in the workforce with much greater status from practically the very beginning of this country (read about Puritan family life for further insight). As Sallee pointed out, the rise of feminism in my lifetime has contributed to this big-time. I was in high school and college when Betty Friedan and others came on the scene. Many of us realized that the big status was "out there'" in the workforce and not at home. So we invested heavily in career development and spent major effort on our professional lives. When kids came along, we bought into the day care game -- it was atrocious (still is), but when the kids became school age, we tired of *that* particular battle and left it to others. The point of this is, women within the last thirty years have taken advantage of having a much greater freedom of choice.

As with anything else, sometimes we find that we are drowning in our own freedom. I did choose to stay home for the first couple of years of my son's life. It was incredibly difficult, especially since we relocated to another city because of a job transfer when my son was 7 months old. I will never forget the gnawing aloneness that I felt each and every day as I took care of the house and Ryan. My husband was not a social person, so we never went out when he came home from work. I did not feel "fulfilled" or anything else. I couldn't wait to get back into the work force, so I went back to school for a masters in social work. Divorced midway through that program. And after that, I felt that I had no choice as to work or not to work. I have been focused on career ever since.

But now as an empty nester, I have been finding that I have neglected my relationship to myself and intimate relationships with others in those years of career focus and single parenting. I love what I do, there's just too much of it and I don't know how to forge close personal relationships much anymore. And as a minister, I hear similar stories all the time. People don't have time for friendships yet yearn for them. There's too much pressure on the nuclear family for many of those to be the nurturing sanctuaries that many people wish they could be. Many of us have chosen to be players in the economic marketplace or professional world for a variety of reasons, but find an emptiness at the core of our beings. And others who have chosen to stay home raising children find a similar emptiness because there are pressures there, too. There was a fairly recent study that found that, though many complain of working 60 to 80 hour weeks, they actually prefer staying at work than coming home to the "second shift" with their families. Tragic!

I think that the strong negative (and I must say irrational) reaction to feminism is rooted in this dual reality. It is easy to blame a movement for producing radical change in our lives (we no longer live in the June Cleaver world that many idealize) when the real problem is our failure, for many, many decades, to look at the concept of sustainable communities (without the power trips and competition) and the ramifications that these can have ecologically, economically, spiritually, sociologically, and psychologically. Betsy said it beautifully:

>> The key is a transformation of people's attitudes toward money and
toward the Earth. Somehow, they need to see the hollowness of the
messages they've been accepting, and to connect their own unhappiness to
those very messages, those false pictures theu've had in their heads of
what it means to be a human being and live on this jewel-like planet.  <<
Instead, we have been market-driven as rugged individuals and we are collapsing in many ways under this weight. The blessing is that some of us are beginning, in this movement called VS, to look at the ramifications not only for our lives but for the quality of life that is so lacking around us.

Can you tell it's sermon writing day? I'm procrastinating on the "real" sermon-- lucky you ;-) But I'm preaching this evening to a regional gathering -- now I really know what I'll be preaching about!

Out of the pulpit now,
Priscilla Richter

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 06:10:07 1998
          from us.nortel.com by brtpsa05.us.nortel.com 
          id <08028-0@brtpsa05.us.nortel.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:54:15 -0500
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Message-Id: <199803271511.HAA06915@igcb.igc.org>
Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:53 EST 
From: "Marco Santarelli" 
Subject: re: Should one work hard?
.... I would like to add that I agree that we work entirely too much in this country. In my position 50 hours a week is the norm rather than 40. I would like to see the work week shortened to 32 hours instead of the standard 40. Economists talk about economic growth and increased productivity that will in turn increase the amount of opportunities for the unemployed. However its seems to me that large companies increase the workload per employee rather hire more people. I think that increased productivity is leading to the destruction of our planet's habitats. I wish we could all work less, buy less, and live more.

Marco

At 08:03 27/03/98 +1200, David MacClement wrote:
> 
> **  I'm sorry to say that, once again I don't agree that this is a 'good
> thing':- "the added pressure on the one wage-earner tends to motivate
> him/her to achieve more".  Though I'm having _some_ doubts about my
> decisions over the last 20 years.
> 	I have three children, all at university or already with degrees (the
> oldest is a mechanical engineer: 26, though not in that kind of job now),
> and I've been influencing them to only work if they really like the job,
> the rest of the time living on less than $2,800 p.a.  ...
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:01:53 1998
	from mburch (brndas1c-p05.mts.net [205.200.47.99])
	by smtp1.mts.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03071
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:33:35 -0600 (CST)
To: 
Message-Id: <199803271533.JAA03071@smtp1.mts.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:32:52 -0600 
From: "Mark Burch" 
Subject: Working Hard
I'm not sure now who it was that posted the message about how having five or six kids to support can really make a man focus and "make something of himself". Similarly, being sole bread winner for the household.

This highlights for me the relation between work and simple living. One reason I choose to live simply is so that work can find a _proportionate_ place among the other occupations that comprise my life. My partner works for wages half time as a laboratory technologist. Half time work is very healthy for her. It leaves her substantial time for her own studies in homeopathy and art, for spiritual reading and meditation, for gardening, exercise and prayer. I "work" full-time, but at a pace which more resembles part-time and I'm doing things I absolutely love -- writing, speaking, facilitating workshops. I take days off when I wish because I'm self-employed. My work finds its place within a life which also includes reading, martial arts, gardening with Charlotte, meditation practice, friendships, children, homecare. We are not financially independent.

I have no quarrel with the assertion that working full-time at wage labour when one is the sole economic support for one's family "makes something" out of a person. The question is, what? As Betsy Barnum has already pointed out, a generation ago mostly male bread winners worked hard so their families could keep up with the "Joneses". Today, both men and women are working half again as hard just to "keep up" -- forget the Joneses.

Is this progress? Is this good for people?

By this point in human history, shouldn't we have found ways to provide what everyone really needs on two or three hours of labour per day and apply the rest of our energies to more important things than continually re-arranging our pillows? By comparison, the Bushmen in the Kalihari Desert are more "civilized". Ask any Bushman and he/she will tell you outright -- they live to dance. Gathering food is just what they need to do to get ready for the next dance. We live to work. "Gathering" food is just what we do to get ready for our next shift at work. What's wrong with this picture?

Mark Burch
mburch@mb.sympatico.ca

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:02:17 1998
	from damiel (ad12-070.arl.compuserve.com [199.174.139.70])
	by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA02533
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:18:06 -0800 (PST)
To: positive-futures@igc.org 
In-Reply-To: <199803271511.HAA06915@igcb.igc.org>
Message-Id: <199803271718.JAA02533@m3.sprynet.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:10:19 -0500 
From: Carol Bruce 
Subject: re: Should one work hard?
Marco wrote:
>.... I would like to add that I agree that we work entirely too much
>in this country. In my position 50 hours a week is the norm rather than
>40. I would like to see the work week shortened to 32 hours instead of the
>standard 40.  Economist talk about economic growth and increased 
>productivity that will in turn increase the amount of opportunities for the
>unemployed. However its seems to me that large companies increase the
>workload per employee rather hire more people. I think that increased
>productivity is leading to the destruction of our planets habitats. I wish 
>we could all work less, buy less, and live more.
This made me come out of lurking. I wonder why so many people "work" so many hours -- actually it seems like "putting in time" would be more to the point. When I worked at conventional jobs, I marvelled at how many hours people spent wasting time chatting and in useless meetings. Since I became a freelance contractor, my productivity has increased tremendously -- since I don't sit in an office all day -- I work at home or am in the classroom teaching computer classes. I have an incentive to get work done so I can have time to do more important things. And, in all the conventional jobs I had before I went freelance, I never had an employer threaten to fire me for working only 40 hours -- because when I was there, I got things done.
If the employer gave me too much to do for one person, I told them so, and asked which things they wanted done first or at all.

We are not slaves unless we choose to be. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Like several people on the list, I've read and been influenced by Ishmael (author: Daniel Quinn). When people read that book, or YMOYL, and ask "What should I do now?" my answer is always "Less." Find a way to work less. I don't know what led Marco to feel that the norm is working 50 hours a week. My husband works that much sometimes because he feels he "has to." I ask him "who is making you?" The reality is that he expects himself to work that much. He is slowly changing his attitude, though, after reading Ishmael and part of YMOYL.

Comments?

Carol

(follow this thread)

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:03:20 1998
	 by msm.cgnet.com with Microsoft Mail id <351BEE52@msm.cgnet.com>;
 Fri, 27 Mar 98 10:22:10 PST
To: positive-futures 
From: "Fingerson, Linda" 
Message-id: <351BEE52@msm.cgnet.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:09:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism 

I think the study* is Arlie Russell Hochschild's recent book, which got a lot 
of attention in the press.  (* mentioned by Priscilla Richter: Fri, 27 Mar 08:32:35 )

(return to that earlier post)

Best, Linda l.fingerson@fordfound.org _________________________________________________________________________ From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:03:30 1998 from eot.com (tvu-24.dialup.eot.com [206.9.124.89]) by perham.eot.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id MAA23001; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:31:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199803271831.MAA23001@perham.eot.com> To: "Marco Santarelli" , positive- futures list Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:31:12 -0600 (CST) From: CK Valois/B Brummitt Subject: re: Should one work hard?

I've mentioned this book before...but this is a good time to do so again. An excellent treatise on this subject that I picked up on the Ferry from Vancouver to Victoria...about 3 years ago.

Working Harder Isn't Working; How we can save the environment, the economy and our sanity by working less and enjoying life more
By Bruce O'Hara, published by New Star Books in Vancouver, 1993

Bruce

  Cheryl Valois and Bruce Brummitt 
             46N56' 95W20'
   Visit the Natural Building Gallery
   
----------
From: "Marco Santarelli" 
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: re:Should one work hard?
Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:53 EST

....I would like to add that I agree that we work entirely too much
in this country. In my position 50 hours a week is the norm rather than
40. I would like to see the work week shortened to 32 hours instead of the
standard 40.  Economist talk about economic growth and increased 
productivity that will in turn increase the amount of opportunities for the
unemployed. However its seems to me that large companies increase the
workload per employee rather hire more people. I think that increased
productivity is leading to the destruction of our planets habitats. I wish 
we could all work less, buy less, and live more.

Marco
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 10:03:54 1998
	from [206.42.131.42] by spacelab.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2
     release (PO203-101c) ID# 101-43685U5000L500S0) with SMTP
     id AAA2764 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:30:00 -0500
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Message-ID: <19980327152959.AAA2764@[206.42.131.42]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:22:30 -0400 
From: "Vicki Madden" 
Subject: work, money, gender stuff

Priscilla wrote:

I think that the strong negative (and I must say irrational) reaction to
feminism is rooted in this dual reality.  It is easy to blame a movement for
producing radical change in our lives (we no longer live in the June Cleaver
world that many idealize) when the real problem is our failure, for many, many
decades, to look at the concept of sustainable communities
Now Vicki is writing:

This is very true. People are suckered into blaming feminism, when it is really, *as usual*, advertising and corporations needing to create "needs" in us. The essay written by Carol Flinders in the first edition "Laurel's Kitchen" was an eye-opener to me. It is called Keeper of the Keys and it is about women's roles in a family. And how advertisers need to divide us as individuals and as families in order to keep us wanting, needing that elusive I-know-not-what so that we keep buying. When we focus on wholeness within ourselves as individuals and us as families, we don't need so much status stuff.

Capitalizing and coopting feminism, ads (and ad-mediums like women's mags) have constantly fed us two simultaneous messages: you must have a spotless home, elaborate meals, be a sex symbol to your husband, lose 20 pounds this weekend, etc; and also you are much too good to be stuck at home as a housewife, you ought to be working. And then when we work, we spend a lot of the disposible income we are making on stuff to try to create that first illusion.

Vicki
...proud to be a feminist and proud to sacrifice my ability to make money to spending more time with my son
...day-care mom and single breadwinner and now remarried and still needing to balance making a living and making a home for my family
...not seeing any contradictions in this at all: it's human life

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Mar 28 13:11:27 1998
	by ems1.uwsp.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
	id ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:05:44 -0600
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org>'" 
Message-ID: 
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:05:43 -0600 
From: "Jones, Jane" 
Subject: Working hard
Working hard, working smart, and working well are all sources of great satisfaction in my life, as is life balance. Most people get a tremendous amount of satisfaction and meaning from work; in fact if the author of Flow, Mihalyi Csikczentmihalyi, is to be believed, people who are asked to report moments of optimal experiences are most often reporting that these occur at work.

I think we want to tease out the issues of work as exchange for money and work as a way of creating meaning in life; not that they are separate necessarily. I feel very fortunate that what I do for money is also what I do because I love it. And most fortunate that I am on an academic calendar, so I have less time demands from this work I love. I also manage to minimize commuting time by living 1/2 mile from campus and walking or biking to work, this last step has been a very intentional choice.

I don't think we can work too hard when we love our work and the rest of our life is in balance. My opinion.

Jane Jones
Professor, Health Promotion, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

Be Well
Have Fun
Work Smart
Stay in Touch

Health Promotion and Human Development
101 College of Professional Studies
University of Wisconsin Stevens Point WI 54481

715 346 4414
fax  346 3751
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:26:41 1998
	from the-word-garden ([206.9.108.37])
	by orion.means.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA05241
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:34:36 -0600 (CST)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
References: <3.0.3.32.19980327150922.007566e8@itis.com>
Message-ID: <351C373D.7ABF@polaristel.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:33:17 -0600 
From: Betsy Barnum 
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
Subject: Re: parental sacrifice
Rutledge Research: Carol Fabos-Gruba wrote:
> The 3rd point is very tough if you're raised to have a CAREER.  "So what do
> you do?" someone asks.
>  "I parent.  I homeschool."
I have found this one of the most difficult things in going against the cultural current: To make a statement like this, and not feel ashamed. I have heard retired people say the same. I know a very active and involved retired man in my community who, when asked what he "does," responds that he is retired. "Oh, you don't do anything!" is what he often hears. *Very* frustrating.

I recently saw a video about Marilyn Waring, formerly an M.P. in New Zealand and author of a book about work and women -- I forget the name of the book, but the video is called "Who's Counting?" In it she talks about the U.N. rules for measuring economies, rules which all countries must follow if they are to be members of the UN and benefit from its programs. These "rules" specifically state that anyone who is not being paid in money for the work they do is "unoccupied." This of course includes mothers who take care of children and homes (fathers, too), subsistence farmers, volunteers, people who get what they need by trading in kind--the list goes on.

Her point was to show how little of what what women do, worldwide, in almost every country and community, is valued because they are not paid for much of their economic activity. This, rightly or wrongly, translates into the idea that women *themselves* are not valued, when "value" can only be expressed in monetary terms.

Betsy

-- 
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@polaristel.net
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624

**************************************
We have stories to tell, stories that provide wisdom about the journey
of life. What more have we to give one another than our "truth" about
our human adventure as honestly and as openly as we know how?

--Rabbi Saul Rubin
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:26:50 1998
	from montana.com.montana.com (mso1-14.montana.com [208.4.224.14])
	by infolink.infolink.morris.mn.us (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA09720
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:49:50 -0600 (CST)
To: Positive Futures Mailing List 
References: 
Message-ID: <351C39D8.7A49@wcec.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:44:24 -0700 
From: Jane Madison 
Organization: West Central Environmental Consultants
Subject: Re: Working hard
Jane Jones writes:
	I don't think we can work too hard when we love our work 
	and the rest of our life is in balance.  
I think the problem is putting the rest of our life in balance. To many employers (and employees) "working hard" means putting in a 50 or 60 hour week. I really think most people who work 50 or 60 hours a week could accomplish the same amount in 35 hours if they applied themselves and stopped yacking on the phone. I work for a company where we bill the clients by the hour, not the job. So of course, by boss wants me to work 80 hrs/wk (no, I'm not kidding). I have a lot of friends in the same boat.

Somehow, we need to convince corperate America that a well rested employee who is happy because they have time to spend with friends and family is by far more creative and more productive than an employee who is constantly expected to work overtime.

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:03 1998
	from PRichter1@aol.com
	by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id WCDJa08407
	for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:25:45 -0500 (EST)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:25:45 EST 
From: PRichter1 
Message-ID: 
Subject: Re: Should one work hard?
Carol Bruce writes:

> Like several people on the list, I've read and been influenced by Ishmael
>  (author: Daniel Quinn). When people read that book, or YMOYL, and ask "What
>  should I do now?" my answer is always "Less."  Find a way to work less. I
>  don't know what led Marco to feel that the norm is working 50 hours a week.
>  My husband works that much sometimes because he feels he "has to." I ask
>  him "who is making you?"  The reality is that he expects himself  to work
>  that much. He is slowly changing his attitude, though, after reading
>  Ishmael and part of YMOYL.
Me again. Yes, it's still sermon writing day. I'll try to be briefer this go- round.

This is a dilemma for some of us who actually get a lot of good stuff from our jobs. Today I spent the morning with an 87 year old woman whose son is in jail. Her story was so sad. But she is such a beautiful woman who is well loved in her retirement community. It took time to hear her stories. I felt honored.

And this afternoon I went to Children's Hospital where I sat with a family who has a ten year old adopted daughter born with spina bifida. She was getting delicate spinal cord surgery (probably about her 5th). They have a grown adopted son (adopted at age 5) who was not loved as an infant. He will always have an attachment disorder. He will allow no one close, no one to love him, even this wonderful family. They suffered much with him. What prompted them to pick themselves up and adopt again, knowing this girl will need love and care for the rest of her life? I was honored by their story, too. But I digress.

My point is, I love what I do. Even writing the sermons that I procrastinate on. (Maybe especially that). Yet I work far too hard, and at the cost of my personal life. This is truly a dilemma for me. I wouldn't give up what I did today for anything. And I have to go off and lead a worship service tonight. I know that this is not a balanced life. And it doesn't even pay well (I still have much to go on my student debt to get my ministerial education). I live in fear of coming down with some dread disease like chronic fatigue syndrome. I know that work is addictive to me and many others. I want to jump off the merry go round but I don't know how. Yet I do cook all my meals from scratch and live as simply as I can (and, yes, I drive too much).

Any suggestions will be gratefully accepted!
Faithfully,
Priscilla Richter
in Pittsburgh, where it is in the 80's today and spring fever abounds!

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:07 1998
	(from tomgray@localhost)
	by igc4.igc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00208
	for positive-futures; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:43:53 -0800 (PST)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Message-Id: <199803280243.SAA00208@igc4.igc.org> 
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:43:53 -0800 (PST) 
From: Tom Gray 
Subject: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism

From: "Michele D. Hirt" 
Subject: Re: Work, child-raising, choice, and Feminism
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:49:34 -0500
:-
>And Tom's story about his mother staying home yet not providing
>nurturing love is another example
Sorry, guys, but those were my posts - both the alcoholic parents & the community college ones.

I accidently sent them only to Tom instead of the whole list & he was kind enough to forward them on to y'all.

(sorry, Tom, but thanks!)

Shely

(return)

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:23 1998
	from 203.63.9.108 by mail.webtime.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA00618; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:29:47 +1000
Message-Id: <199803280629.QAA00618@mail.webtime.com.au>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:31:58 +0000 
From: Peter Bacon 
Subject: Re: Working Hard
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Mark Burch makes a tantalizing point, I think, when he compares our work-driven lifestyle with that of the Bushmen of the Kalihari: "... Ask any Bushman and he/she will tell you outright---they live to dance. Gathering food is just what they need to do to get ready for the next dance. We live to work. 'Gathering' food is just what we do to get ready for our next shift at work. What's wrong with this picture?"

In part, perhaps what's wrong here is that we work in order to get money, which we then use to buy food. It's a perversion of the hunter-gatherer paradigm: we "hunt" for a parking space so we can "gather" our food at the local Safeway or Vons--rather than raising most of our own food, either individually or collectively (as in ecovillages, for example), and calling *that* "work." Well, of course, it *is* work, but somehow it hasn't achieved the status or legitimacy in our society that "real work" has.

There's a sad irony here: On the one hand, food and the means of producing it have become more remote, more cut off from any tangible life that *we* know first-hand, more subject to manipulation (genetic and otherwise) as a mere product, an abstract *thing*. On the other hand, money--by its very nature an abstraction--has assumed a "reality" that is realer than real for most people.

I don't have any illusions about "noble savages"; nor do I have any immediate plans to don a loincloth and head off for the Kalihari. But I do think the Bushmen are on the right track, as Mark suggests: less cerebration (worship of an abstraction) and more celebration (the dance) may be at least part of the cure for what ails us.

Peter Bacon (whose beets and cauliflowers and lettuce are coming along quite nicely, thank you)

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:27:27 1998
	from WrtngZone@aol.com
	by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id JADPa24204;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:25:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3cb43d8b.351ca5d4@aol.com> 
To: carolmb@sprynet.com, positive-futures@igc.org
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:25:05 EST 
From: WrtngZone  
Subject: Re:  re: Should one work hard?

At 12:10 27/03/98 -0500, Carol Bruce wrote:
<Comments?
          Carol>

(back to original)

At the heart of the VS movement as I see it is to listen to what is ENOUGH... this assumes that one is not addicted to perpetual DOING. When one has ENOUGH one then has the TIME for passionate undertakings, SERVICE in the community, SPIRITUAL work and the myriad of other things that make living on this planet such a mystery and challenge. If one's WORK is already his or her passionate LOVE then work as long as you want. I won't complain.

We need to remember that right livelihood assumes that "no harm" is being undertaken while working. And as Ernest Callenbach reminds us in his Preface to MINDFULNESS AND MEANINGFUL WORK (Explorations in Right Livelihood): "... it is questionable whether any livelihood except on the fringes of society can offer much in the way of rightness..."

bob banner
for hopedance magazine

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:28:58 1998
	from eot.com (perham-149.dialup.eot.com [206.147.16.189]) by perham.eot.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA03614; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:32:29 -0600 (CST)
To: jacque greenleaf , "Betsy Barnum" , positive-futures 
Message-Id: <199803281432.IAA03614@perham.eot.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:32:29 -0600 (CST) 
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt 
Subject: Re: One income household
I envision a society where the "workplace", the community and the home are not separate places. Where everyone regardless of their ages are learning (and becoming fulfilled) through the living of their daily lives. Where important aspects of "us" are not compartmentalised and kept away from daily existence; Art is not in museums, spirituality is not in churches, animals are not in zoos, Mommy's and Daddy's are not in factories, children are not in schools. A society where competition is shunned and cooperation is the standard. A society that exists as an extension of family.

Bruce

  Cheryl Valois and Bruce Brummitt  
             46N56' 95W20'
   Visit the Natural Building Gallery
   
----------
From: jacque greenleaf 

it may be true that too many people are too motivated by stuff and 
outward appearances, but I for one can't forget the stifled emotional and 
intellectual lives of way too many women not so long ago...

...*NO ONE* should ever be made to feel like a bad parent merely because 
they choose to stay home on the one hand or go to work on the other. 
mothers and fathers differ, children differ, economic situations differ, 
and family goals differ. if you simply must have an opinion about someone 
else's choices in this regard, the only question worth asking is whether 
the family members are generally satisfied with their lives.

jacque greenleaf
salem, oregon
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 06:29:13 1998
	by rssmnt.rssm.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.837.3)
	id <01BD5A36.D181F210@rssmnt.rssm.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:46:52 -0500
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'" , "'Betsy Barnum'" 
Message-ID: 
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:44:07 -0500 
From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
Subject: parental sacrifice/WORK
Betsy: You are opening my eyes this week! Your contributions to the thread on two income households were great. You helped me to see that there are many factors in our society contributing to this. This morning I was thinking about the effect that women entering the work force (out of desire or necessity) may have had on the structure of the family today. I am in no way saying feminism has had a negative effect on the family! Thank God our daughters are not raised to embrace a single career path anymore! (though we still have a way to go in this area). I think that our society has to adapt to the fact that women are in the work place but we must also be mindful of the fact that children are involved in this transition as well. Maybe one day our work weeks will be structured to allow more time with the children for Moms and Dads.

Secondly Betsy, your point today about the fact that some women's work is often under-valued because a monetary value cannot be placed on it. (i.e., raising the children, providing a nurturing and beautiful home for the family, volunteer work et al). It does seem that society places a great deal of value on working.
  Many times when I meet someone new they often say off the bat, "What do you do?' as if this is the best way to get to know me and I can be more easily categorized or defined by the work I do. I think a "tell me about yourself" would be better. I am much more than my job. YMOYL touches upon this subject very nicely. That book opened my eyes too.

Anyway thanks for your input!

Patricia

>----------
>From: 	Betsy Barnum 
>Sent: 	Friday, March 27, 1998 6:33 PM
>To: 	positive-futures@igc.org
>Subject: 	Re: parental sacrifice
> ...

________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Mar 29 15:27:19 1998
	from eot.com (perham-113.dialup.eot.com [206.147.16.153]) by perham.eot.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id QAA25838; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:21:22 -0600 (CST)
To: "Byrnes, Patricia J." , positive- futures list 
Message-Id: <199803282221.QAA25838@perham.eot.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:21:22 -0600 (CST) 
From: CK Valois/B Brummitt 
Subject: RE: One income household

----------
>From: "Byrnes, Patricia J." 
>That would be wonderful but how can we achieve this?    Patricia
>
>>----------
>>From: 	CK Valois/B Brummitt 
>
>>I envision a society where the "workplace", the community and the home
>>are not separate places.  Where everyone regardless of their ages are
>>learning (and becoming fulfilled) through the living of their daily lives. 
>>Where important aspects of "us" are not compartmentalised and kept away from
>>daily existence;  Art is not in museums, spirituality is not in churches,
>>animals are not in zoos, Mommy's and Daddy's are not in factories, children >>are not in schools.  A society where competition is shunned and cooperation 
>>is the standard.  A society that exists as an extension of family.
>>
>>Bruce
Hi Patricia...
It's really quite easy. We live our lives that way and other folks see it/feel it and create change in their lives.
Bruce
  Cheryl Valois and Bruce Brummitt  
             46N56' 95W20'
   Visit the Natural Building Gallery
   
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Tue Mar 31 05:52:05 1998
	from the-word-garden (NewPrague-12.dialup.means.net [206.9.108.15])
	by orion.means.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA01107
	for ; Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:58:57 -0600 (CST)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Message-ID: <351EFC11.663F@polaristel.net>
References: <199803271718.JAA02533@m3.sprynet.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:57:37 -0600 
From: Betsy Barnum 
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
Subject: Re: Should one work hard?
Carol Bruce wrote:
> I wonder why so many people "work" so
> many hours--actually it seems like "putting in time" would be more to the
> point. When I worked at conventional jobs, I marvelled at how many hours
> people spent wasting time chatting and in useless meetings.

> And, in all the conventional jobs I
> had before I went freelance, I never had an employer threaten to fire me
> for working only 40 hours--because when I was there, I got things done. If
> the employer gave me too much for one person, I told them so, and asked
> which things they wanted done first or at all. We are not slaves unless we
> choose to be. Of course, your mileage may vary.
I think you have a point, Carol, that many of us acquiesce in the assumption that we will work more than 40 hours. But it is unfair to imply, as I think you did above, that those people who work extra are actually wasting a lot of their regular time and are not productive--that if they reduced the chit-chatting and trips to the coffee room, or stopped going to useless meetings, they'd be able to finish their work in 40 hours.

There are lots of workplaces in this country where people, both professionals and support staff, are expected to work more than 40 hours. In some instances, there's mandatory overtime. I also know people who work in places where raises and promotions--or even simply being taken seriously as a committed professional--are linked to routine extra work.

And I also know of places, one of which I worked at, where no matter how productive an employee is every day, there is always another pile of work waiting. There's never an end to it, no matter how productive you are. This is a common situation at many corporations, from what I have read, where the workforce is reduced through attrition or even layoffs, and the work those employees did is then divided among the ones who remain.

And when there's a deadline, the pressure to get that work done on time is intense. Management says, "I don't care how long it takes or how you do it. Just get it done!" There is often little or no recognition of people's limits, their other commitments, the fact that when they're tired they're less productive. There's little or no recognition of the time required to complete a project, and assignments are given with not enough regular time to finish them.

I do concede your point that, in the final analysis, people who work extra hours are doing it by choice. And I've heard and read of people like you, who just stood up for their right to have a life and refused to bow to the pressure. Some people can do that; most, I think, can't, either because they are afraid of consequences, or because they know they are *not* stellar employees, or because they just don't have the self-esteem. Lots of people really do feel trapped.

In my mind, the problem lies not so much with people who feel they have no option, but with a work culture that applies tremendous pressure to employees to work more and more hours. This culture seems to pervade not just the private sector, where lots of people really are "wage slaves," but also government and the nonprofit sector as well. I've seen some of the most excruciating situations in nonprofits, where the agencies are supposedly working to improve some social problem or other, and they are exploiting their employees every bit as egregiously as any telephone company or bank--worse, perhaps, because they are playing on their employees' compassionate desire to "do good work" and solve the problems.

> My husband works that much sometimes because he feels he "has to." I ask
> him "who is making you?"  The reality is that he expects himself  to work
> that much. He is slowly changing his attitude, though, after reading
> Ishmael and part of YMOYL.
The problem is with the corporate culture, but the solution, I agree, is in people changing their attitudes. As people simplify and reconnect with what is really important, they may realize they don't need the raise or the promotion, they don't want to be taken seriously in that way, and they don't even need the job because their lifestyle doesn't depend on that level of income.

This issue is wrapped up both in money and how much people need, and in the definition of "success," which we have discussed in the past on this list. When people are able to see beyond the American Dream's definition of success, and define it for themselves as what makes them feel happiest and most fulfilled, jobs will cease to have such a hold on their lives. When people stop identifying themselves as "what they do" and get to know "who they are," the job recedes in importance to what it is, a way to get money for some material needs. Then, people stop confusing "job" with "work" and feel released to pursue what they really *want* to do, whether it is highly paid or not.

It's puzzling, though, that in this time of low unemployment, when it should be a job-seeker's market, that workplace conditions are more tyrannical than ever. You'd think businesses would be courting the best employees by making the workplace sweeter and more appealing, rather than insisting that people sacrifice their home and family life to more hours at the desk.

Maybe it's because companies are still caught up in the need to grow, and can't find ways now to improve productivity other than driving the existing employees to greater output. Sometimes I think this situation is one more example of the frenzied effort to whip a failing economic system into continuing to work when in fact it is already ceasing to function...

Betsy

-- 
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@polaristel.net
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624

**************************************
We have stories to tell, stories that provide wisdom about the journey
of life. What more have we to give one another than our "truth" about
our human adventure as honestly and as openly as we know how?

--Rabbi Saul Rubin
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Tue Mar 31 10:27:53 1998
	from freedomnet.com (ric-45.freedomnet.com [198.240.105.45])
	by freedomnet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/antispam) with ESMTP id OAA00285;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:27:13 -0500 (EST)
To: Betsy Barnum , positive-futures@igc.org
Message-ID: <351FAB15.A6B271CA@freedomnet.com>
References: <199803271718.JAA02533@m3.sprynet.com> <351EFC11.663F@polaristel.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:24:21 -0500 
From: Gwen Bruington 
Subject: Re: Should one work hard?

At 19:57 29/03/98 -0600, Betsy Barnum wrote:
> In my mind, the problem lies not so much with people who feel they have
> no option, but with a work culture that applies tremendous pressure to
> employees to work more and more hours. This culture seems to pervade not
> just the private sector, where lots of people really are "wage slaves,"
My husband works for a major corporation, repairing computers. There is a lot of stress in his job as everyone expects immediate results. Management has been complaining about all the overtime, but meanwhile, computers continue breaking down and needing repair .. at all hours of the day and night.

My husband's manager told his employees that *they* needed to find a solution to cutting back on the overtime, but that something had to be done. Charles suggested that one employee change his hours so that he was working 3 p.m. to midnight. Then Charles volunteered to work midnight to 9 a.m., effectively covering the work load 24 hours a day during the work week.

We've been doing this for several months now and it's been a win-win situation.
  My husband works in the middle of the night when there are fewer calls and less stress. The other guys don't have to worry about getting called out. The overtime has been reduced. And the best part of all is that our family has Dad around much more--in the past he didn't get home until about 7 p.m. every night; now he wakes up about 4:30 p.m. and we have him with us all evening.

Gwen Bruington

 _________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Wed Apr 01 06:30:26 1998 
To: tomleav@juno.com (Thomas E. Leavitt)
From: David MacClement 
Subject: Re(2): Should one work hard?

On: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:53:21 EST Tom Leavitt said:
>David,
>Your comment on growth is so true.  Have you read "When Corporations
>Rule the World" by David Korten? ...
>
** Yes, Tom, I bought a copy, though I found it too depressing (dis-empowering) to read more than half.

Sincerely,
David.

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Wed Apr 01 13:22:22 1998
	from opengovt29.open.org(199.2.104.29) by opengovt.open.org via smap (V2.0) id xma023245; Tue, 31 Mar 98 14:12:42 -0800
To: 
Message-Id: <199803312212.OAA23262@opengovt.open.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:50:27 -0800 
From: "Perry/Chute" 
Subject: work & money & stuff like that
I have followed this discussion with much interest. This discussion of one income v. two incomes, working hard and long v. working hard, but less, etc. is obviously at the heart of VS, at least as I understand it. I think the basic, bottom-line (and not very helpful) key to figuring out "Why?" is our (US) culture's equation of stuff with happiness:

Stuff = Happiness.

In the US, we measure our worth by what we have and what we consume. We equate "democracy" with freedom with individualism with getting the stuff we want. There is a subtle and quite insidious shift between each step from democracy to stuff. The shift may get lost in the individual steps, because we don't see it. We say,

etc ... but where this leads!

I agree with those of you who have suggested that our economic system amounts to the tail wagging the dog. That's my interpretation of the remarks about consumption becoming the end in itself. Used to be, hunter/gatherer peoples spent 25 or so hours per day to be fed, clothed and housed, albeit not as fancily as we are. Consumption was designed to keep us alive and thriving so we could reproduce. Now, we spend 40 plus another 40 plus overtime to be fancily fed and clothed and outfitted with every conceivable "good" (who picked _that_ word?) from Rolex to motorhome.
    We even equate democracy with our economic system (capitalism). That's just sick.

I know this does not contribute to the discussion, but thanks for letting me blow off steam.

Christine Chute
perychut@open.org

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sat Apr 04 14:15:22 1998
	from JillDakota@aol.com
	by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id WUEHa01913
	for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:44:54 -0500 (EST)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Message-ID: <10c3c0b2.3523dca9@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:44:54 EST 
From: JillDakota 
Subject: work
I am glad to hear of people who love their work. It makes me hopeful.

Most of the women I know who work have job titles like, "data systems analyst" or "customer service representative" or "support systems primary contact." It does not sound like anything I would want to spend 40 hours a week doing.

My sister got employed by Microsoft, right out of uni, with $16,000 owing on loans. She puts in about 60 hours a week, and makes herself available for extra meetings and so on, with no pay involved. She spends a tremendous amount on clothes and lunches, and still lives with my dad. She makes not a significant amount more than I did waitressing 10 years ago.

As for Susan's timely question: If the bottom of our "traditional" life fell out tomorrow and Carsten was disabled or gone, I would of course, do what I have to do. I would rent out the bottom of our house, to try to keep it. I'd sell the car with 2 more years of payments to go on it, buy a beater and bank the money. I would either run the best daycare in the city from my home, or begin apprenticing with my brick mason stepdad or framer brother-in- law.

My daughter would go to the local school, but if I did daycare, my son would still be with me. Or, my mother would move in with me to try to keep the house, and I'd get a para-professional teaching job in the schools. Or, we'd move back to Australia and help my mother-in-law run her motel in the outback, and work in Aus. where the minimum wage 4 years ago was $12.00 an hour.

At some point I would either create a web page consultant business, create a private school, become an E.K. therapist or begin free-lance writing. I would not go back to Uni in order to get a job as a "systems analyst." (nothing against you, if that is your job)

--Jill

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Apr 05 06:26:29 1998
	from localhost by uhunix3.its.Hawaii.Edu with SMTP id <188158(10)>; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:18:47 -1000
To: Positive Futures 
Message-ID: 
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:18:43 -1000 
From: Kaleopono 
Subject: Working hard
I've experienced working just to earn my bread, sometimes with a supervisor or boss whose attitude and treatment of me was very demeaning. This has always been emotionally draining and hard for me to endure. I've left those work environments as quickly as I was able.

I've also experienced working just to earn my bread, but in a supportive environment where the general feeling is that we might as well enjoy one another, help each other out, and have fun while we're spending this time together. This is much more tolerable than being treated like a wage slave...although that's still, in essence, what my status is.

And, I've also experienced working because that activity is what I am called to do. It's not optional. I feel commanded to do it; I cannot keep my attention away from it; I live and breathe it. If I get paid to do this, well and good. If I do not get paid...well, I STILL have to do it, or something within me dies.

If I can find a way to receive the necessary income, I much prefer allocating all of my time, energy and attention to the latter way of supporting myself. I exist in a state of true freedom when I do so.

Now I am certain that the way of the future will be finding one's calling, and then following that calling in the spirit of giving, of service toward self and others. When we perceive that we are only one, tiny part of the magnificent whole, then we feel more humble and are not likely to be greedy for more than our fair share while others within our own and among other species do not have enough....

I surmise that the overall productivity of a community working from this motivational base will actually be superior to what we have now. People will be more vital and enjoy life more when all around us are not self-centered and grasping, but instead are observing others' welfare. In the spirit of aloha with a feeling of generosity, they will share their surplus with those whom they encounter in their daily lives who do not have enough of that thing, whatever it is. The person given to will reciprocate, giving the surplus derived from his or her calling.

Far less activity will occur in the mathematically measurable money economy. We'll value and honor unpaid labor such as running a household, raising children to be whole and vital beings, improving the common assets of the community...even dancing and singing.

Life will be a lot happier for everybody.

Kaleopono
Kona District, "Big Island", Hawai'i

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Apr 05 06:25:32 1998
	from suzan (nvcr01m01-18.bctel.ca [207.194.20.18])
	by mail1.bctel.ca  with SMTP id UAA23346;
	Fri, 3 Apr 1998 20:10:38 -0800 (PST)
To: Positive Futures Newsgroup , Kaleopono 
Message-ID: <3525B242.E58@bc.sympatico.ca>
References: 
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:08:34 -0800 
From: suzan badgley 
Subject: Re: Working hard
Kaleopono wrote:
> Now I am certain that the way of the future will be finding one's
> calling, and then following that calling ...
> 
> I surmise that the overall productivity of a community working
> from this motivational base will actually be superior to what we
> have now.  People will be more vital and enjoy life more ...
> 
> Far less activity will occur in the mathematically measurable
> money economy.  We'll value and honor unpaid labor ...
> 
> Life will be a lot happier for everybody.
This sounds like the ideal life for all living beings. I hope that I will be around to witness such a happening. Recognition of each others happiness and supporting each others goals is a fine tool to possess. Im finding that the city life is stiffling our minds and restricting our thoughts. How can we express ourselves and know ourselves when the dictatorship surounding us prevails. One look at the one sided biased box (TV) with the commercials leading us into demanding directions is enough to make me pack it all in.

I miss the life amongst the trees and waterfalls, where birds and nature's rhythm soothe the temples. One with all...
Sorry, I have had a bad first week at work DOWNTOWN!!
Suzan

_________________________________________________________________________


From ???@??? Sun Apr 19 06:20:45 1998 from Edsac (p34-max2.auck.ihug.co.nz [202.49.255.96]) by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA17127 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:16:13 -0700 (PDT) To: positive-futures Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980409210355.0068810c@mail.geocities.com> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:03:55 +1200 From: David MacClement <davd@geocities.com> Subject:

"A good life": when do you know you've had one?

We have a cat, spayed, middle-aged, which has free run through a cat-door, catches mice in our un-cut back-yard, and is generally fed on demand (with dry food - water is always available outside). He clearly enjoys being part of our family - he lets us know this often.
    As I was passing my son holding him, both enjoying it, I realised the cat may not be alive next summer (9 mths from now), because he's likely to get cancer in his other kidney, in which case, the owner (my daughter Ruth) has said he'll have to be put down.

However, I think he's had a good life, and it's not such a bad thing if he does die.

    I too, on my page:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/davdsviewhowliv.html
    point out that I've had a good life: worked hard at what I can do well and was useful (teaching physics), travelled widely (including taking the family to live in India in 1988), read a lot, sailed on the ocean in our own yacht, scuba-dived, flown sailplanes (Silver "C"), raised 3 great children to independence, and provided companionship for my wife during the last 30 years. I'm now wise, though probably not as wise as Arnie Anfinson and Betsy Barnum. Certainly my advice is expected to be right much more often than not. [I didn't say I was humble!]

    "How much is enough" can be asked about a person's life, too, I believe.
If I were to die in the near future, I wouldn't be too fussed.

    The point is that the struggle to "make something of one's life", or in Ruth's words: "to _be_ somebody", is not open-ended ("more is always better"). Those of us who have lived through the flowering of western civilisation since mid-century (we're clearly going down-hill now - no longer hopeful, in general) often know that we've had a better, easier, more interesting life than present and future generations will.

So, can we delineate some or most of the components of "a good life"? Some sort of framework indicating what people like my two sons and daughter in their 20s could reasonably aspire to?

One should at least be conscious of the bounds, parameters, or limitations of the next 60 years, and probably describe more than one set of components, dependent on various assumptions about the environment in which "a good life" will be lived.

Limiting the discussion to the life of an average citizen in the present OECD countries ("The West", though it includes Japan), there are at least 3 ways the future could go.

  1. best: the rich all drop their consumption to that of a family of 4 on US$50,000, the military-industrial complex starts holding cake-stalls to produce all their revenue, and corporations are disbanded into local businesses.
  2. middle: the rich drop their consumption in half (with $50,000 minimum), the military reduce to what they were in about 1922, and corporations lose their "legal person" status and are viewed with the great suspicion they used to have before 1905. "Greening" trends continue but catastrophes happen increasingly, and the second half of the 21st century is worse than the first, for most of the world (incl. non-human).
  3. worst (I hope!): private-army-defended rich ghettos proliferate; a small minority of the recent middle-class join the rich, and most become poor; cities crumble and riot as is already happening but rarely reported*; supplying materiel to public and private armies is even more lucrative than now; "Iraq-attack"s become common, and even OECD average lifetimes drop, the way they have in Russia and the CIS.
(* since writing that, I listened to a BBC radio report of the large number of killings of women in Ciudad Juarez on the Mexico-US border in recent years, apparently as a result of "frustration at the lack of jobs for men".)


    My first guess at what "a good life" could contain for each is:

case: (1) The skills used and usefulness are similar to what I described for myself, but with even more foreign travel (back-packer style), to knit up the whole human race, prevent wars, and provide OECD citizens with some empathy for the rest of the world. Note I've said little about material possessions, or even jobs. (the Internet helps empathy~, for those with the necessary.) I'm even doubtful that a maximum income/expenses of US$50,000(1998) is sustainable! (~ Ruth's first ICQ session is going on right now on our second-best computer; this is just a little old Mac PowerBook 100)

case: (2) It will be "normal" to travel, even on business, to only certain destinations (often by air); the others being too risky. Most cities will become more cosmopolitan (because of all the economic refugees - several of my ancestors emigrated for economic and religious reasons). It'll be apparently easier to choose products and activities that seem to do less harm to the environment (though such changes will be too little, too late). There will still be a sense of community, of doing one's best for one's "fellow man", but that'll probably just be one's neighbours.

case: (3) I don't see what might constitute "having had a good life": most average citizens of currently OECD countries will struggle almost all the time to keep what little comfort and sense of satisfaction they can. With corporations and the rich with their armed goons controlling everything useful, I can see myself being a suicide-bomber when I decide to die.


I guess I've strayed somewhat from what I intended:
' "A good life": when do you know you've had one?'

I suppose there's no point in describing "what is enough" when even that is almost certain to be unattainable.

David.

**               http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/
David MacClement <davd@geocities.com> 
                 http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6783/
_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Sun Apr 19 06:23:41 1998
	from anna.az.com (anna.az.com [204.57.139.9])
	by lucy.az.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA08101;
	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: thegarden@world.std.com, positive-futures@igc.org
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:45:06 -0700 (PDT) 
From: SS-John Short 
Subject: Time to go to work?
We have at least four types of money and talk, write, teach and think as if we have just one type. The four I'm thinking of are:
  1. The money that is earned from labor like from a job, a profession or a good business.
  2. Money that is derived from money -- like interest and multi-tier bank loanings made from 80 or more percent of the same original money.
  3. Money from personal rubber checks or other bouncing money like that that the Federal Reserve System puts in and takes out of their member banks by way of interest variations and unbacked checks to the Treasury for currency.
  4. Money gained due to inflation.
Good common sense dictates that there should only be one type of money, and that is type 1. Good common sense dictates that it is time to give up our gambling instincts concerning money AND our greedy slobberings for unearned "wealth". It is time to go to work, to keep on working.

The human being is designed to work, to be active doing things. Much of our health depends on activity. To be cut off from action, our work, our visions, our health, our education, our play by a decadent economic/money system is JUST PLAIN DUMB.

To allow such a system to prosper and grow is to allow our own throats to be cut. To not take the responsibility for this mess we have created and have allowed to be created, to not attempt to change the direction of this bull-rush of socialistic, communistic, capitalasstic, dictatorial events is cowardly and un-American.

    imho
    john short

_________________________________________________________________________

From ???@??? Wed Apr 15 06:32:09 1998
	from default (ppp2-21.fcol.com [209.4.112.195])
	by moe.fcol.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA32565
	for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 10:30:04 -0400
Message-ID: <354F87AD.FA5FBBD9@fcol.com>
To: "positive-futures@igc.org" 
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 17:42:06 -0400 
From: Ken Hawn 
Subject: MEMBER LOCATION LIST - revised 05/05/98
THIS IS A LIST OF WHERE POSITIVE-FUTURES MEMBERS ARE LOCATED.
05/05/98 Revision

I MISPLACED A FEW NAMES. LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED YOU.

Sorry if I mispelled your name or location. Feel free to send me a correction. If you would like to have your e-mail address added to the list please give me your name, location, and e-mail address and I will add it.
             (Don't send it to the List).

send to:   khawn@fcol.com
NAME			     ADDRESS                    E-MAIL ADDRESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lewis     	Fairbanks, Alaska
Laura McKenzie		Springfield, AL		     laurabrownmckenzie@worldnet.att.net	
Jay McDaniel          	Conway, Ark
Peter Bacon		Melbourne, Australia	     pdbacon@webtime.com.au
Bob Lewis     		Santa Cruz, CA		     rllewis@cisco.com	
Russell Schick          Santa Barbara,CA             rschick@acc.com
Mark Phillips          	Santa Barbara, CA
Bruce Bigenho           Santa Barbara, CA
Karen Neddermeyer       Santa Barbara, CA
Mya                     San Luis Obispo, CA
Bob Banner              San Luis Obispo, CA	     hopedance@aol.com	
Tom                     Pasadena, CA
Gary Berlind            Berkeley,CA                  gberlind@crl.com
Alan Rogovin            Berkeley.CA                  ahr@n-h-i.org
Kai Wyrill             	San Diego, CA    	     kaiforchi@aol.com
Bill Reed               San Diego, CA      	     wreed@mail.sdsu.edu
Marge Wurgel            San Diego, CA
Bob Hartman             San Diego, CA
David Harris         	Sacramento, CA               david@well.com
Valorie Ryan            Sacramento, CA
Richard Chauvaux       	Cambria, CA 	   	     indioblanco@calwest.net
Kim Wine/Joe Cates    	Albany, CA
Frank & LeAnn           Monterey, CA
Cheryl Ireland          Fairfax, CA
Carol Billings          McKinleyville, CA
Joy Rothke              San Francisco, CA
Cecile Mills		Watsonville, CA      	     seasea1@got.net
Rebecca Johnson		Fairfield,CA      	     reb@cwnet.com	
Jim Reed		Los Altos, CA      	     jrrrjmd@juno.com
Beverly Feldman		La Canada, CA      	     bevf@ix.netcom.com
George Ng      		Toronto, Ont.,CAN      	     georgeng@interlog.com
Kirk Brown              Montreal, Ontario, CAN
John Semenoff        	Grand Forks, BC, CAN
Jocelyn J. Paquette     Thunder Bay, Ontario, CAN
Jennifer Lee            Ottawa, Ont,CAN 	     jalee@chat.carleton.ca
Keith Heidorn       	Victoria, Brit. Col., CAN    see@islandnet.com
Sharlene Lindstrom	Terrace, Brit.Col., CAN	     slindsr@kermode.net		
Mark Burch            	Brandon, Manitoba ,CAN	     mburch@mb.sympatico.ca
Donna Maher             Ottawa, Ont, CAN 	     donna_Maher@ACDI-CIDA.GC.CA

Mara Smith		Arvada, CO
Jill Meyer              Denver, CO            	jilldakota@aol.com
Tom Morrissey     	Loveland, CO            thomcelt@juno.com

Pat Meadows   		Newark, Del.

Ken Hawn                Jacksonville, Fl      	khawn@fcol.com
Mike Crawford           Lakeland, Fl
Susan Schmickle         Clearwater, Fl
Cara McNulty            Hollywood, Fl           caram@sportsline.com
Kelly Carpenter         Ft. Lauderdale, Fl	kelly@gate.net
Leo Tucker		Boca Raton, Fl		lttucker@aol.com
Betty Laughlin          Homestead, Fl
Gwen Fontenot		Pensacola, Fl		BGCSFUN@aol.com

Jef & Lorraine Murray   Atlanta, GA		jeff.murray@gatech.edu
Max M. Lund		Atlanta, GA		elhughman@aol.com
Kimbra Daniel		Ila, GA			kdaniel@arches.uga

Terri Nolen		Guam, USA		tnolen@uog.edu	

(Kaleopono)Steve Norris Kealakekua, Hawaii      norris@hawaii.edu

Marlin Nissen           Elgin, ILL
Deb                     StoneFort, ILL
Margaret Fox-Hawthorne  Harvard, ILL
Kim Griffiths           Chicago, ILL         	griffkim@aol.com

T. Davis                South Bend, IN
Barbara Bunch           Bloomington, IN     	bbunch@indiana.edu

Billie Greenwood        Dubuque, Iowa          	pallen@loras.edu

Esther McLean           Beppu, Oita, Japan
Richard Thornhill       Tokyo, Japan         	thornhill@tk.chugai-pharm.co.jp
Brian Teaman           	Hiroshima, Japan        teaman@ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Neil Johnson		Hiroshima, Japan        neiljo@huis.hiroshima-u.ac.jp

Michael Fogler          Lexington, Ky        	mfogler@igc.apc.org
Sue M. Bang             Morehead, Ky            s.bang@morehead-st.edu

Chong Lee Ming          Subang jaya, Malaysia

Peter Kent              Silver Spring, Maryland

Malcolm                 Somerville, Mass
Nancy Stockford         Boston, Mass
Fern Reiss              Newton, Mass            fernreiss@aol.com

JoAnn Schwartz          Detroit, MI             jms@mich.com
Michael Niemi           Ann Arbor, MI
Mike Nowak              Ann Arbor, MI		mnowak@umich.edu
Kaylyn Kraai		Grand Rapids, MI	amazonsrus@aol.com

Jim Morris              North Mankato, MIN      jmorris@mctcnet.net
Betsy Barnum            Minneapolis, MIN        bbarnum@polaristel.net
Murty Yenamandra        Minneapolis, MIN        yenamand@cs.umn.edu

William Theriot         St. Louis, MO
Stephanie               Lake Ozark, MO        	canoerat@cdac.net
Karen Swesey            Omaha, Neb.

Renee Blanchette        New Ipswich, New Hamp.  renee@blanchette.mv.com

Mike Warren             Tobaccoville, N.C.
Leigh O.                Ashville, N.C.
Sarah Doren		Durham, N.C.		sab8@acpub.duke.edu

Ann Mellan              Warren, N.J.            amellan@lucent.com
Sea Willow              Fair Lawn, N.J.
Irene Meyers            Atlantic City, N.J.     irene.meyers@faa.dot.gov

Steve W.                Manhatten, N.Y.         stevwei@aol.com
Linda Fingerson         New York, N.Y.
Tree Manzella           Jackson Heights, N.Y.
Vicki Madden            Brooklyn, N.Y.
Sue O'Doherty           Brooklyn, N.Y.          susan322@idt.net

David MacClement        Auckland, New Zealand  	davd@geocities.com
					http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/

Michele Hirt		Cleveland, OH		shely@bigfoot.com
Kate Cooper		Georgetown, OH		ABRS@hopewell.net

Melissa Oakes           Shawnee, OK

Jacque Greenleaf        Salem, OR
Walter Perry/Christine Chute  Salem, OR
Celeste Douville        Bend, OR
John Anderson           Portland, OR
Lynn Siprelle           Portland, OR
Tana & Steve Jencks	Ashland, OR		tanaflax@jeffnet.org

Jackie Manni            Philadelphia, PA
Priscilla Richter       Pittsburgh, PA          prichter1@aol.com
Jim Kurz		Royersford, PA		jim.kurz@bailey.com
Lisa Wolf		Havertown, PA		lisa_h_wolf@sbphrd.com
Patty Lokken            Fort Thompson, S. DAK

Joachem Schutz          Zurich, Switzerland
Jean-Philippe Rey       Martigny, Switzerland   jprey@media.ch

Ron Watson              Gunnison, CO or Ft. Worth, TX
Bobbi Chukran           Leander, TX
Jim Kerr                Austin, TX		kerrJ4@juno.com
Cox & Son		Austin, Tx		coxnson@kjs1.com

Pamela Carr		UK		        P.S.Carr@btinternet.com

Venna Woodring		North Ogden, UT		vennaw@aol.com

Steve Miale             Charlottesville, VA
Gwen Bruington          Richmond, VA            gwen@freedomnet.com
Salee Ebbett            Roanoke, VA
Carol Bruce             Arlington, VA		crbruce@cpcug.org
Mark Murray		Vienna, Va   		markmu@erols.com
Nancy H. Cady		Alexandria, VA		nhcady@cais.com

Kerstin Lange           Burlington, VT		VTKerstin@aol.com

David Darr              Seattle, WA           	darrd@u.washington.edu
Judith Loback        	Seattle, WA
Arnie P. Anfinson       Seattle, WA             arnie@arniea.seanet.com
Kim Knapp               Seattle, WA             alys@prodigy.net
Cindy Horton            Wenatchee, WA
Wayne Gustafson         Kent, WA
Anne Murray             Port Angeles, WA
Sally & John Short      Sumas, WA
Peter Sugarman          Bellevue, WA            petersu@msn.com

Dino & Lisa Efthymiore  Neenah, WIS.
Chuck Learned &
Linda Farmer            Cambridge, WIS
Jane Jones              Stevens Point, WIS      jjones@uwsp.edu


Bruce Brummit &
Cheryl Valois           46N56'  95W20'		Lilacmn@eot.com
			                http://www.zianet.com/blackrange
Mike Crawford           unknown                 craw@concentric.net
William Theriot		unknown			btheriot@fastrans.net


Compiled by :
Ken Hawn
Jacksonville, Fl
khawn@fcol.com


David.
**               http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6783/
David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
                http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/

This is:  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/DsWorkHard.html