Wealthier Nations
Nations that adhere to old school economic principles are undermining the middle and lower classes. By overlooking cultural values, social discord, and technological disruptions, the economic principles guiding our macro economy are in a never-ending effort to build, acquire, and demolish, rather than sustaining a steady economic equilibrium that happy societies need.
To be direct, a Basic Income for all US citizens is the best way to correct antisocial discord, absorb economic disruptions, and achieve sustainable prosperity.
If this basic income could increase gradually throughout one’s lifetime, it would be a resourceful replacement for most of our social safety net.
Attaining such a controversial endeavor would require confronting and re-prioritizing our expectations of work. Not necessarily devaluing work, but reframing the value of work. “If every citizen had a guaranteed income,” the argument goes, “then no one would work.” Well, what if that guaranteed income could not be saved? What if it were a monthly stipend that you lost if you didn’t spend it?
Our current system inefficiently pours money through government bureaucracy to get funding to our poorest people. Requiring paperwork, time, and heartache to get into the system (and, in some cases, stay in the system). Replacing social safety net programs with a basic income would clear up inefficient public assistance.
To liberals, the most divisive element of this form of a Basic Income is replacing social programs because it assumes that programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP, and public housing are mismanaged rather than underfunded. But I would argue that more funds for these programs would not work as effectively as directly funding the people and not the system.
Nixon once proclaimed that “we are all Keynesians now.” Of course this was before the neoliberal wave of Thatcher and Reagan and their ill-conceived contagion we call Supply Side economics. The Keynesians’ belief was that governments can stabilize economies by spending less when times are good and spending more during periods of recession. A common Keynesianism trope goes, “The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up.” This acknowledges that giving people meaningless jobs stimulates the economy. Supply-Siders argue that if the government never took that money, private enterprise would have more money to create jobs that actually matter. We know government spending on work programs does in fact stimulate the economy. Furthermore, we know that when the wealthy grow wealthier, job growth is not a guarantee. In fact, most of the money saved by the wealthy through tax loopholes (or straight up tax dodging) ends up sidelined in investments that ensure their money grows while remaining inaccessible to stagnant economies.
Implementing economic strategy that ensures all sectors of the economy receive the market capital they deserve requires a realistic approach. We need to be honest about American ideals and values to achieve prosperity for all Americans. That means we admit, WE ARE ALL CONSUMERS NOW. It’s a liberal fantasy to believe everyone is capable of rejecting the needs and wants mainstream society pressures us to have. It’s a conservative fallacy to think we’re independent, capable of living off the land with no effect on society. The American economy is a consumption-based economy. We drive market growth through desire. Modern markets thrive from a cognitive dissonance of the masses: we think money is being made from our work, but it is our pleasures and aspirations that actually drive markets.
Poverty is the result of various factors that prevent some people from being able to pursue happiness. Keynesianism approaches life satisfaction from the standpoint of having an income. Supply-siders insist that people need a purpose. I’m saying that consumption has become our purpose. Our income funds that purpose.
Get Kareemy’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Whether or not this is a “healthy” way for humans to achieve happiness is beside the point. This is the best way to work with American ideals and values to achieve better social cohesion by ending poverty.
Let’s pay people not to be poor.
Theoretically, the best way to reduce poverty is to give money directly to those who need it rather than donating money to charities. GiveDirectly.org puts this theory to test, and the results show that most people use the money to invest in improving their lives. Conservatives instinctually go to this false notion that if people didn’t have an incentive to work, we’d all be getting high and lazing about. This reductionist logic ignores empirical evidence and human economics.
Human economics?
Anthropologists look at economics differently than a traditional economist would. We examine the social significance of exchange, focusing more on the emotional and cultural meaning of value than on the rational correlation between production, distribution, and consumption. Here in the US, the social cost of “needing” employment keeps the poor poor and the rich rich. A basic income for all would empower employees, challenging employers to increase wages and/or benefits (similar to what happens when an economy reaches “full employment” status). Giving humans breathing room to make important life decisions would go a long way toward increasing everyone’s quality of life.
If the incentive to work were to save money rather than to “get by”, making one’s life better would become easier to prioritize. The greatest human achievements make life better for everyone. Eradicating poverty in America would demonstrate that market driven capitalism works best when all people are given the opportunity to purchase the essentials: healthcare, housing, and food. Such a system must recognize certain realities: 1) not all jobs need to exist, 2) giving money directly to people is the best way to stimulate economies, 3) working to save is better than working to survive. A system that can guarantee everyone a basic income, restructure government to be smaller and more efficient, and encourage entrepreneurialism at a micro level is a system that values all her citizens.
Voting with your wallet.
A Basic Income works best when people realize their purchasing power. Every dollar we spend is a vote. Guaranteeing every person in our society the power to consume guarantees everyone the ability to better express their interests.
A system where every citizen has the means to purchase life’s necessities requires the government to compete fairly with the private sector. Housing, food, and healthcare are serious purchases that should never be subject to monopolization. Ending our social safety net would give government more resources to either compete with companies that provide these services or to execute smarter regulations for these essential purchases.
Purchasing health insurance is controversial because some insist that a single-payer system would be superior and others prefer our regulated privatized system. If people were given money to purchase healthcare and told any money they saved could be spent on anything else that month, they may or may not decide to pick an affordable option. If a public option existed that offered a transparent, affordable plan, it would certainly attract a lot of consumers. Such an option would be a massive competitor to private health insurers, triggering lay-offs and corporate re-structuring to compete against a government insurance program. But this is the value of competition. FedEx and UPS compete with the post office and still manage to make profit. Also, we have to ask, are all the jobs in the private health insurance industry necessary? What about the oil industry? Ending government subsidies to oil companies would devastate employment in that industry. Considering many jobs in the coming decades will be lost to automation, why should we pressure individuals to compete for a potentially scarce resource? Think of parents who would have the flexibility to choose to run a daycare rather than running to work. Also, despite their income, many working parents struggle to afford childcare. This would alleviate that stress. Giving people the opportunity to spend creatively opens a pandora’s box of human potential.
A Basic Income would fundamentally alter our way of life in America. If such a radical shift could be implemented toward appreciating our consumerist culture and accepting that technological innovations and familial responsibilities do not always meld well with our dependence on work, then the American experiment might finally steady, finding the balance necessary to enjoy a prosperous future.
