3 ms·

Edwardian-era mansions employed whole teams of butlers whose sole job was replacing candles. Not everyone is in a position to make a discernible impact on soci

Edwardian-era mansions employed whole teams of butlers whose sole job was replacing candles. Not everyone is in a position to make a discernible impact on society. 20% of society will always drive 80% of progress. Think hard how you want the remaining 80% to support their families.

ghaff 9y ago
Probably more like Victorian era.
tlb 9y ago
The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro has a vivid portrayal of this. The people doing it took it very seriously indeed.
logfromblammo 9y ago
Replacing candles was not a pointless job until electrification and incandescent bulbs achieved widespread adoption. The Edwardian reign was just at the tail end of candle-based lighting. By 1914, most of the households that could afford it would have already installed at least one electric light. The Great War would have devastated the available supply of footmen, and made those still around prohibitively expensive, so I'd expect that any servant-employing house would have given up their candle-men entirely by 1918. They would be electrified afterward, with the hand-carried lighting moving to oil lamps, and any lamp-refill duties moved to less expensive female servants. After that, those teams of footmen could be replaced by just one footman, or part-time handyman, to replace burnt-out bulbs. We still have people whose job includes responsibility for replacing malfunctioning lighting, including fluorescent tubes and ballasts. But we no longer have people whose sole responsibility is lighting, except perhaps in the very largest buildings, or those with special lighting needs, such as museums. It wasn't busy work, but the majority of those jobs definitely don't exist any more.
nunya213 9y ago
Pretty simple, return to a 90% top tax rate and give the proceeds out as Basic Income. This shit situation we are in is not sustainable, we have levels of inequality in the US not seen since the roaring 20s and we all know how that ended.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Even 100% tax rate is not enough to pay for a meaningful UBI, even in the US. You will have to take major budget cuts somewhere. Suppose we tax Forbes 500 at 100% level and the companies too. That would provide about 2 billion USD a year. Divided by population it will be less than $2k a person yearly. Suppose you tax top 10%, I'd expect that to double this number. Still way not enough. And we're not even close to military budget.

ghaff 9y ago

Probably more like Victorian era.

tlb 9y ago

The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro has a vivid portrayal of this. The people doing it took it very seriously indeed.

logfromblammo 9y ago

Replacing candles was not a pointless job until electrification and incandescent bulbs achieved widespread adoption. The Edwardian reign was just at the tail end of candle-based lighting. By 1914, most of the households that could afford it would have already installed at least one electric light. The Great War would have devastated the available supply of footmen, and made those still around prohibitively expensive, so I'd expect that any servant-employing house would have given up their candle-men entirely by 1918. They would be electrified afterward, with the hand-carried lighting moving to oil lamps, and any lamp-refill duties moved to less expensive female servants. After that, those teams of footmen could be replaced by just one footman, or part-time handyman, to replace burnt-out bulbs. We still have people whose job includes responsibility for replacing malfunctioning lighting, including fluorescent tubes and ballasts. But we no longer have people whose sole responsibility is lighting, except perhaps in the very largest buildings, or those with special lighting needs, such as museums. It wasn't busy work, but the majority of those jobs definitely don't exist any more.

nunya213 9y ago

Pretty simple, return to a 90% top tax rate and give the proceeds out as Basic Income. This shit situation we are in is not sustainable, we have levels of inequality in the US not seen since the roaring 20s and we all know how that ended.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Even 100% tax rate is not enough to pay for a meaningful UBI, even in the US. You will have to take major budget cuts somewhere. Suppose we tax Forbes 500 at 100% level and the companies too. That would provide about 2 billion USD a year. Divided by population it will be less than $2k a person yearly. Suppose you tax top 10%, I'd expect that to double this number. Still way not enough. And we're not even close to military budget.