2019 Oct 24
I know that some candidates for President are for a universal guaranteed income and it is one of the boogie men of the right. I am against the idea.
The primary problem with the idea of the universal guaranteed income is the fundamental denial of the human instinct to earn what we receive. There are many concepts of “earning” from the satisfaction of growing one’s own vegetables to the feeling of a clean house to the positive feedback one gets with a job well done. In our society the idea has been simplified to making money at a job. Since the universal guaranteed income is specifically dealing only with the financial aspect of “earning” — at least until the star trek universe has a chance to exist–I will discuss this.
I do not subscribe to the idea that those who struggle in society are losers, parasites, entitled, or lazy. Many things can go wrong with a person’s life from parenting issues to one’s neighborhood disfunction to racial or economic bias—sometimes bad things just happen. Not to mention the physical and mental health issues that have a huge effect on many. Most poor people work several jobs to makes ends meet. They also are in an economic system designed to exploit and lower the human cost of goods to a non-calculated entity in society. Finally, the laws are made by the rich and their minions/politicians.
This is what needs to be done instead of the universal guaranteed income, the social safety net must be fixed, extended, made practical, and made flexible to individual needs.
Some of the ideas:
Unemployment insurance needs to be extended to a longer period of coverage. It needs to be possible to make money while on UI (this would apply to disability benefits also) before benefits are cut back. E.g. one should be able to make 20 – 30% more than the benefits given. This would encourage people to stay in a work force and would cut back on the psychological negative effects of being unemployed for long periods of time. It would also allow people to work back into a position. The current system punishes people for getting any money. Benefits should be one year with a chance of appeals for longer. It should also be extended if any education is being pursued. In an ideal world benefits should have as much to do with the cost of living as they do with the amount of money one made in their latest job. This will be called inherently unfair but must be done.
Minimum wages need to be fixed to a cost of living calculation that is real and not just some random amount that is supposed to be used in Enid Oklahoma and Seattle Washington where the costs of living are unrelated to each other. It must include housing, food, health care, childcare, transportation by car, insurance costs on all levels, and schooling costs for children.
Education should be cheaper if not free. A myth about free education, it is not that anyone can go to university anytime for anything. Most countries have extensive testing for entrance and other controls. Education is the only way in our society to work into a new profession. This education should not be limited to universities but also, and maybe, especially, tech and trade schools. UI benefits should be extended if recipients are in classes. How the proof of attendance is done will take some trial and error.
Crucial to the entire population and specifically the work force, employed and not employed, is Universal Health Care. This is a crux of the safety net needed for workers and their families. Allowing workers to know they can go back to school or survive a period of unemployment without bankrupting their families if a medical situation arises or being unable to go to the doctor for a lack of cash or insurance (the cash needed for the deductible [in doublespeak: copay] alone can be prohibitive). It would also eliminate the blackmail used by companies to get people to take cuts in pay or other benefits in order to keep the basic health coverage being offered (e.g. GM and Ford in 2019 negotiations). Pre-ACA the average man, woman, and child in the US spent $8,000 per year on health care. This would be impossible for an unemployed person or a person taking schooling to get into a better career. This is not to mention the healthier a population is the more they spend, the less absenteeism, the “happier” they are.
The IRS must be fully funded. It must get back to going after rich tax fraud and not just going after poor people to cut their already meager benefits. Examples of this need are Manafort, Epstein, Cohen, and probably we will soon see, Trump. These men are examples of ‘discovery through random chance’ where the IRS should be funded to get to these types of people. The cost/benefit is huge even though the job of proving these frauds is high and time consuming.
Obviously, the needs/methods are complicated but must be tried. As technology eliminates more and more jobs, the desperation of people to keep what meager jobs they have, the increasing cost of living while income stagnates, and the decreasing health of the nation requires action. This something must consider the psychological health needs of the population and not just throw money at a problem.
Hark 