In a recent Introduction to Permaculture course, presented by Margaret RainbowWeb, participants decided amongst themselves upon the fee for the course and how each person would pay. Margaret believes right livelihood involves changing our attitude about money. In the following article she explains how the practical exercise had a very interesting outcome."
We began by brain-storming. We ranged
over social justice issues, the ethics of using
money to confer status and value, power and
the mis-use of power, the apparent
impossibility of changing things, and how
imperative it is that we do so. It became
obvious that the task we had set ourselves
was not simple.
Time was limited, so we moved on to the specific task of deciding how much my time and skills were worth to the course participants.
Carers, Educators and Gardeners, doing work that will shape the real future of the world
This proved uncomfortable for us all, as we
realised how many value judgements are made
by our society - and endorsed by us - when
deciding how much to pay people. We
discussed the inequities of paying senior
public servants large salaries, while placing no
value on such skills as raising children,
household budgeting, or supporting a partner
physically and emotionally, thus enabling
him/her to concentrate on work outside the
We noted that carers, educators and gardeners, doing work that will shape the real future of the world, were less valued than those handling large amounts of money. We soon agreed, with some relief, not to attempt to reward skills, or assess the potential value of the course to each person, but just to set an hourly rate for my time.
We each reduced our income to an hourly rate. The lowest, $4, was for caring for elderly people in their homes. A University lecturer, surprisingly, when his total hours were considered, earned between $8 and $9 per hour, and an office worker $10. Again, we found the ‘simple’ task was really very complex.
Eventually we agreed on the number of hours for which each person would pay me. Five people participated in a course of 18 hours. To pay 18 hours each was considered unreasonable. To pay 3 1/2 hours left people feeling they were not paying enough. We compromised on 6 hours, or the equivalent in labour and/or goods. This meant that, when setting an actual rate, people would be considering a fair rate for their own labour as well as mine.
People would be considerhg a fair rate for their own labour as well as mine.
Having slept on the problem, we agreed upon
$10 per hour, i.e. $60 or its equivalent, for
the whole course.
Two participants were on Social Security Benefits, but concessions were seen as irrelevant, as money was not the preferred form of payment.
As no-one belonged to the LETS system,
contracts were proposed, and some agreed.
One participant hosted the course, supplied refreshments, transport, and did some laminating for me.
Someone cleaned the house of a friend of mine when they moved, in return for which the friend gave me her old washing machine.
A woman who has agreed to work with me to install a fitted kit wardrobe in my home said she felt really empowered by my confidence that she had the skill to carry out the task.
Five stripped mattress springs, delivered to my home, were deemed worth six hours work.
Word-processing, painting, and heavy cleaning are other tasks being considered as parts of the contracts.
Everyone found the exercise personally challenging, and said they would never be able to see money in the same way again.
Major conclusions were:
As one participant (the lowest paid!) enthusiastically stated:
"I realise now that poverty is a state of mind.
I am a rich woman,
because I have, and am surrounded by, a wealth of real resources"
Return to list.......Return to 'Radical Recycling'.......Rough Guide to Site.......Site Map
- This is an Australian website - Contact Margaret RainbowWeb
URL - http://www.users.on.net/~arachne/time.html