…
November 25, 2025
Hello
What can explain citizens’ increasing dissatisfaction yet disconnect with politics?
Didn’t it used to be that increasing political dissatisfaction led to increasing engagement – for example, protest?
Perhaps it’s due to the ubiquitous stench of failure: from our impotent (and worse) institutions to our raising of mentally-ill children to the souring of the previously passionate tsunamic commitment regarding the environment? Or, could it be even deeper?
Perhaps it’s the ubiquitous stench of hypocrisy and, against both reason and the common-good, recalcitrance from the powerful?
Whatever the reason, citizens seem to be increasingly hard-edged as they self-ask, “What’s the point of trying to do anything for the greater good? Shouldn’t I just hunker down and do what I can to look after me and mine?”
The media advertises that they’re promoting ‘nuance’, ‘the contest of ideas’ etc. yet there’s zero contextualisation – i.e. no mention of any of the following groupings let alone all 4 at once:
- 3 Tools – i.e. Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT)
- 5 Outcomes – i.e. Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural]-Government-budget (SEE–in–G)
- Efficiency: ‘The GDP-per-capita-to-Subsistence Ratio’
- Solution: ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
[No wonder people are disappearing into their social-media echo-chambers – at least, it’s algorithm-ed for their interest.]
First, regarding Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT), we know Science & Technology is exponentiating (in 1760, we had the shovel, in 1999, we had Windows Messenger and in 2023, we had AI) yet productivity has flatlined; so, doesn’t that mean Human-Organisation must be the culprit? And, shouldn’t it be expected that, globally, at least one journalist would find that interesting enough to pull their head out from whatever crevice it’s stuck in and investigate?
In principle, in order to converge on equating actual-productivity with potential-productivity, obviously, we need an efficiently holistic Human-Organisation policy.
Second, regarding our 5 SEE–in–G outcomes, they are:
- Socio- empowerment
- Econo- efficiency
- Enviro-international sovereignty
- Enviro-natural sustainability
- Government-budget depressurisation.
Aren’t all 5 a mess with, respectively, disempowerment, inefficiency, invasiveness, unsustainability and deficit all at (or near) record levels and worsening?
Regarding the Disempowerment, social-services-executives are failing; otherwise, Disempowerment would be decreasing. They are failing because they limit their activities (including policy formation & advocacy) to stand-alone (and costly, which means less money elsewhere) remedies. Explicitly, social-services-executives have become social-services-industrialists seeking to increase their budgets with zero zeal on lessening, let alone eradicating, infrastructuralised-Disempowerment. The betrayal of the Disempowered by ‘leaders’ claiming to be ‘Champions of the Disempowered’ is, to use their language, a human rights abuse, which may be worth considering next time you receive an invitation to donate.
In principle, of course, there is a solution.
And, the solution will be holistic not ad hoc, simple not complex, automatic not manual – i.e. it will be systemic on a national-scale, which may be termed, ‘infrastructure’.
Third, regarding ‘The GDP-per-capita-to-Subsistence Ratio’, this is only around 5 (somewhere between 3 and 7) – i.e. in Australia, GDP per person is roughly $100,000 and, for a single adult to subsist, they need at least $20,000 (finding a room in a share-house for $300 a week ($15,600 a year) is a challenge and then there’s only $4,400 for food).
So, since the Industrial Revolution, Science & Technology’s potential-productivity benefits have been doubling around every 5 to 10 years; however, let’s assume it has doubled just every 20 years.
In 1760 Manchester, pretending no one was rich such that everyone was just subsisting, the base is set at 1, that means the ratio should be, in 1780, 2 then, in 1800, 4, 1820 (8), 1840 (16), 1860 (32), 1880 (64), 1900 (128), 1920 (256), 1940 (512), 1960 (1024), 1980 (2048), 2000 (4096), 2020 (8192) and, in 2025, about 10,000.
Yet, even assuming higher base-standards such as sewage and electricity, due to imagination-defying Human-Organisational wastage, the ratio is just 5.
To economists: what (the Hell) are you all doing – why don’t some of you turn your thoughts, modelling and pronouncements to this mismatch? [Over 10,000 economists including many of the world’s greatest (such as every living Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate) receive these emails.]
Only economics-analytical-skills can produce a Human-Organisation policy that solves all 5 of our SEE–in–G outcome problems including raising efficiency such that the ‘The GDP-per-capita-to-Subsistence Ratio’ is at least 50. Thus, if economists don’t address this issue then, presumably, our societies will collapse into self-cannibalisation.
Rather than only predicting what the current system will manifest & continually waiting on the next financial data (unemployment, inflation, …) and/or modelling little Band-Aiding policies, economists’ supreme consideration must become, ‘The GDP-per-capita-to-Subsistence Ratio’.
Fourth, regarding the solution, the CDO’s hypothesis is it’s ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, which represents the substitution of The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) for both:
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)
- Income-Welfare (including, as well as direct-payments, subsidies (such as for childcare) & tax-breaks (such as for superannuation)).
Regarding UMHoW, it’s sentimentally loved yet is our most diabolical policy – first, it directly causes the unnecessary suffering known as unemployment and, second, in conjunction with its income-Welfare sibling, raises costs (including taxes and virtually every other excess regulation), which everyone must pay for including those on UMHoW and income-Welfare, which is why our Ratio is just 5.
To social-services-executives (including trade-unionists), in comparison to UMHoW & income-Welfare, isn’t The USI infrastructurally-empowering – i.e. no poverty, no unemployment and minimised employee-exploitation?
In Australia, a full-time paid-worker on UMHoW receives a little over $42,000 per year after tax.
The USI is pitched at $24,000 – i.e. already more than a part-time UMHoW wage – and The USI is additional to any other income including wages.
For a family of 2 adults and 2 children (The USI is pitched at $6,000 for children), the additional USI income will be 2 x $24,000 + 2 x $6,000 = $60,000.
So, if such a family has only one adult in paid-work and that adult is full-time on UMHoW then their total income is around $102,000 ($60,000 + 42,000), which beats waiting for the yearly UMHoW increase – this year, in Australia, UMHoW increased 85 cents from $24.10 to $24.95.
Plus, The USI is indexed to inflation.
Furthermore, taxes will decrease as the government-budget is depressurised – i.e. revenues surge due to business being unleashed and non-USI-expenditures plummet as crime, mental-illness, bureaucracy etc. all fall off a cliff.
Accordingly, there’s across-the-board reason for ‘The Reform’ yet, across-the-board, the powerful won’t mention it let alone fight for it – perhaps they can’t be bothered thinking about it, aren’t convinced, are afraid to risk their reputations or just don’t see what’s in it for ‘them and theirs’ – which leaves grassroots organisations, such as Owen Wilson & Peter Kargiotis’ ‘My First Party’ podcast, as the last hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwsi4N9zA1I
Best regards
Paul Ross
Founder & CEO
The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)