Politic365

 
 


Policy

1:30pm June 15, 2013

Jobs Are Not the Answer

1264750760-poverty-and-unemployment-in-mexico-city232024_232024

by Allan Sheahen

The current unemployment rate of 7.5% percent means close to 20 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed.

Nobody states the obvious truth: that the marketplace has changed and there will never again be enough jobs for everyone who wants one — no matter who is in the White House or in Congress.

Fifty years ago, economists predicted that automation and technology would displace thousands of workers a year.  Now we even have robots doing human work.

Job losses will only get worse as the 21st century progresses.  Global capital will continue to move jobs to places on the planet that have the lowest labor costs.  Technology will continue to improve, eliminating countless jobs.

There is no evidence to back up the claim that we can create jobs for everyone who wants one.  To rely on jobs and economic growth does not work.  We have to get rid of the myth that “welfare-to-work” will solve the problems of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness.

“Work” and jobs are not the answer to ending poverty.  This has been the hardest concept for us to understand.  It’s the hardest concept to sell to citizens and policy makers.  To end poverty and to achieve true economic freedom, we need to break the link between work and income.

Job creation is a completely wrong approach because the world doesn’t need everyone to have a job in order to produce what is needed for us to live a decent, comfortable life.

We need to re-think the whole concept of having a job.

When we say we need more jobs, what we really mean is we need is more money to live on.

Basic Income Guarantee

One answer is to establish a basic income guarantee (BIG), enough at least to get by on — just above the poverty level — for everyone.  Each of us could then try to find work to earn more.

A basic income would provide economic freedom and income security to everyone.  We’d have the freedom to work less if we wanted to, or work the same amount and save or spend that money.

It would provide a direct stimulus to the economy, which would help create more jobs.

In 1972, Democratic Presidential candidate and Senator George McGovern knew the economy was changing. He proposed a $1000 annual “demogrant” for every American.  The grant would act as a kind of cushion against the loss of a job or other misfortune.

We could pay for a Basic Income Guarantee by eliminating most of the 20th-century programs like unemployment insurance, welfare, Social Security, Section 8 housing, etc., and by having the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

Billionaire Warren Buffett admits he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.  Mitt Romney said he paid only 13.9 percent in federal income tax in 2010, despite earning $22 million.  Average-income Americans pay about 20 percent.

A BIG would be cheaper than a jobs program.  President Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan promised to create 3 to 4 million jobs at a cost of $862 billion.  That’s over $200,000 per job.

Such a basic income would recognize that with productivity as high as it is today, too many workers get in each other’s way.  Those who don’t have to work shouldn’t be required to do so.  Instead, they can create, do volunteer service, or work at low-paying jobs which are still socially needed, such as teaching or the arts.

Think of it as the opposite of trickle-down economics, where we give huge tax breaks to the rich in the false hope that something will trickle down to the rest of us.

Not a New Idea

Basic income is not a new idea.  It’s been debated among policymakers in several nations since the 1970s.   Economist Milton Friedman said: “We should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash — a negative income tax.”

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., said: “I am convinced that the simplest solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a guaranteed income.”

BIG’s most recent American advocate is welfare critic Charles Murray.  In his book: In Our Hands, Murray agrees with Friedman and King, and proposes a $10,000 yearly grant paid to every adult.  Murray and others argue it would save money.  There would be no bureaucracy to support and no red tape to manage.

Opponents claim we shouldn’t pay people not to work.  But the duty to pursue work is based on the mistaken assumption that there is work to be had.

In the post-industrial age, the USA will provide ever fewer opportunities for low-skilled workers. Policies in pursuit of full employment make no sense.

Basic Income Can Work

In 1982, the state of Alaska began distributing money from state oil revenues to every resident.  The Alaska Permanent Fund gives about $1000 to $2000 each year to every man, woman, and child in the state.  In 2012, the amount fell to $878.  There are no work requirements.  The grant has reduced poverty and the inequality of income in Alaska.

A 10-year, 7800-family, U.S. government test of a basic income in the 1970s found that most people would continue to work, even when their incomes were guaranteed.  A test in Manitoba, Canada produced similar results.

In 2005, Brazil created a basic income for the most needy.  When fully implemented, the plan will ensure that all Brazilians, regardless of their origin, race, sex, age, social or economic status, will have a monetary income enough to meet their basic needs.

A two-year, basic income pilot program just concluded in Otjivero, Namibia.  Each of 930 villagers received 1000 Namibian dollars (US$12.40) each month.  Malnutritition rates of children under five fell from 42% to zero.  Droupout rates at the school fell from 40% to almost zero.  It led to an increase in small businesses.

Most Americans are six months from poverty.  Middle-class people who worked all their lives, then lost their jobs and saw their unemployment benefits expire, are now sleeping in parks and under bridges.

America hasn’t seen full employment in decades.  Even a full-time job at the minimum wage can’t lift a family of three from poverty.  Millions of Americans — children, the aged, the disabled — are unable to work.

A basic income guarantee would be like an insurance policy.  It would give each of us the assurance that, no matter what happened, we and our families wouldn’t starve.

Allan Sheahen is the author of the new book, Basic Income Guarantee: Your Right to Economic Security. He is a board member of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network. email: alsheahen@prodigy.net. Web sites: www.basicincomeguarantee.com, www.usbig.net, www.basicincome.org.



About the Author

Guest Contributor
Guest Contributor





 
 

 
Five-O

Georgia teens create app to document police encounters

A group of concerned Georgia high school students decided to channel their energy into creating an app to report police interactions in the aftermath of the police violence in Ferguson, Mo. According to a report at For Harriet:...
by Adriana Maestas
0

 
 
Lewis78

John Lewis to #Obama: Declare Martial Law, Federalize National Guard in #Ferguson

During an interview with Andrea Mitchell, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) spoke out on the situation in Ferguson, MO.  Rep. Lewis, a civil rights legend who has seen his fair share of bad law enforcement activity to say the least, call...
by Lauren Victoria Burke
3

 
 
jeffries35

Rangel, Jeffries, Meeks, Clarke, Demand DOJ Takeover of #EricGarner Case

Today at 11:45 a.m. at One Police Plaza in Manhattan, Rep. Jeffries and four other members of the New York congressional delegation will call for the Department of Justice to takeover the Eric Garner investigation and look into...
by Lauren Victoria Burke
1

 

Advertisement
 
money678

Daily Beast: Democrats Pay Black Staffers 30% Less

Democrats Pay Black Staffers 30% Less The Daily Beast: Campaign staffers who are people of color routinely get paid less than their white counterparts, and are often given less glamorous jobs. How an antiquated understanding of...
by Politic365 Staff
0

 
 
RosarioDawsoncropped

Latinas Underrepresented in Films But More Likely to Appear in Them Naked

A new study by the University of California Annenberg school has revealed that less than five percent of actors in top grossing films are Latino and that Latinas are more likely than any other women of other ethnic groups to ap...
by Adriana Maestas
2

 




5 Comments


  1. JohnR

    Agreed. But one of the largest problems with that approach… free basic living… is the history of it. The welfare “camps” that ended up being drug and crime laden horrible places, the history of those born too rich to need to work who ended up just killing themselves with alcohol and drugs and God only knows what else. Humans seem to be at their best when they are being productive… working towards a goal. Not when they have been given everything they need… on the other hand.. according to movies like Zeitgeist, because of the global population explosion we (the human race) aren’t going to be able to feed everyone unless we go totally automated… and the more the population grows, the more we HAVE to automate. We humans can’t work fast enough so we have to learn to quit working… but quitting work is unhealthy for us as a species! These are truly interesting times.


  2. Singledigit

    First, many have predicted this administrations dismal jobs record would lead some to say that this is “the new normal.” It can’t be the administrations fault, after all.

    Secondly, there ARE jobs. They are going unfilled. The problem as I see it(and there are many others), is the culture prevailing that only a college education and not trades is how one becomes “successful.” Which of course, is bunk. There are a large number of trade jobs that are left wanting for skilled workers. But learning a trade these days takes time, and it seems not many have time anymore. Not time to learn, be paid as a trainee, and wait to attain the senority to make a nice living. BTW … if Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes, he’d do it. How this is lost on some, I don’t know. Lastly, giving a free stipend to keep people from starving is a canard. No one is starving in America. And speaking of a free stipend, every fast food place I walk into has a sign saying they are looking for workers. I’m guessing working there for 30 hours a week or so would equal your stipend. What would be rong with people contributing, instead of taking? And why can’t these jobs get filled? Is it beneath folks? therein lies the problem, and that’s what needs to change.


  3. Ken Maddox

    While I agree with the BIG suggestion, I would modify it to a Lifetime Employment Guarantee (LEG).
    Everyone would be guaranteed a job paying a living wage. We will always need workers to maintain and improve our infrastructure. There is work here that needs to be done, and able bodied men & women to do them.
    There has to be a way to provide a living wage, and employment to all who seek it.


  4. Jim

    One silly issue here: If a static amount is paid to ALL Alaskans, then it is obviously foolish to say that this action has “reduced…the inequality of income in Alaska.”


  5. Singledigit

    How would we get a guaranteed income for every American paid for?

    I suppose we could ask those who make a lot more money to “pay their fair share.”

    I know one highly successful person who everyone in America knows by name that made over $600,000 last year and only paid 18.6% of his income in taxes last year! I made significantly less and paid a much higher percentage in taxes last year, and I’m sure the vast majority of people reading this did as well.

    If we could only get the person I cited above and people like him to pay their fair share.

    Next time anyone sees Mr Barack Obama, maybe you can tell him. That’s his income, and his tax rate.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>