It has come to my attention that the Liberal Party in Canada, at least in Winnipeg, has endorsed a version of the guaranteed income.
I don’t know the exact details of their plan, but let’s just say I’m
excited about this development. I believe that this is not only a good
policy that would help solve poverty, but also give workers more
empowerment in navigating our flawed economic system. Whether I support
the plan ultimately depends on the details of said plan, but I am happy
that they are going in this direction.
A little history of guaranteed income in Canada
In the 1970s in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, there was a pilot program for the idea that was done, but it was discontinued and people didn’t even analyze the data until fairly recently, only in the last few years. They looked at the results of the program and found it was an effective anti poverty measure that improved public health significantly. They also found that work ethic was only mildly impacted, which may refute the concept that if you give everyone money that they wouldn’t work. To be fair, the program was only temporary, and the residents knew this, so there are limitations of this conclusion, but it does give some hope that it could work. Either way, I came across this concept about 2-3 years ago, and while I was skeptical at first, looking at the research I am fully for such a program given it is implemented properly, meaning that it effectively solves poverty, taxes people in a fair manner, and does not implode our economy or raise the national debt so much it makes us go bankrupt. Basically, as long as we can pay for it in a manner that is fair, equitable, and economically sustainable.
Some variations of the idea were also popular in the US in the 1970s
Some people may not know this, since it’s kind of forgotten history here in the US with the rise of Reaganism soon after and a shift away from welfare, but the right wing actually looked into the idea during the Nixon Administration. In 1969, a Presidential Commission to investigate the causes of poverty also came to a conclusion that a form of guaranteed income would be good for the country and effectively make a step toward solving poverty. These efforts were documented in the book “Poverty Amid Plenty: The American Paradox.” This eventually led to Richard Nixon proposing a limited version of the idea that was defeated in congress because the republicans were concerned about work disincentives, and because democrats wanted to pass a better version of the idea in the 1972 election and didn’t want to give Nixon credit for solving poverty. Yes, in the 1970s the democrats helped shoot down such a policy because they had a legacy to protect with Johnson’s war on poverty. Reminds me of how they’re now shooting down universal healthcare because of Obamacare… Anyway, after that, the economy went bad, Reagan became popular, the country went in a completely different direction, and the idea has long been forgotten and relegated to the status of “pie in the sky communism.” It’s a shame, really. While Nixon’s proposal wasn’t perfect and in my opinion far too limited in some ways, I really wonder how much different the country would be today if we passed this idea.
Regaining popularity
As I said, I didn’t know about this idea until a few years ago, basically until Mincome was rediscovered and came to good conclusions. Since then, it’s picked up steam. I already covered how Switzerland is going to have a referendum on it this year. Now Canada’s liberal party is taking it more seriously. This is a good sign. There have also been some pilots in the third world that have gotten positive results if I recall. I hope it gets more traction in the US, but given our demonization of safety nets and our special little snowflake mentality (aka “American Exceptionalism”), who the heck knows. I do think it’s about the most “libertarian” approach to a safety net out there since it reduces government influence in peoples’ lives and lets them behave as they desire, but we are to the point where instead of this being a relatively right wing idea like it was in the 60s and 70s, it’s now this far left “pie in the sky” communist idea that we won’t even consider. Even though it is perfectly compatible with capitalism. Even though it doesn’t turn over the means or production to the state or the workers. Either way, I suspect it will become the new universal healthcare. Something all these other countries across the industrialized world adopt over the next several decades, but that we hold out on implementing because ‘MURICA. But we do. And by the time we do implement it, it may be too late, and be such a backwards watered down version (like Obamacare) that we’re told to just be grateful to get something done. It’s really sad. This is an idea that we should be looking into now and debating this election. Instead we’re too worried about trans people in bathrooms. We need a serious ideological shift to make these things possible, which is one of the reasons I’m so hardcore over Bernie Sanders. Crap won’t get done as long as we have a dominant conservative attitude dominating the discussion on these things. We need a serious ideological shift on the scale of FDR’s presidency to even get back to considering the idea, much like we did in the 1960s-1970s.
A little history of guaranteed income in Canada
In the 1970s in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, there was a pilot program for the idea that was done, but it was discontinued and people didn’t even analyze the data until fairly recently, only in the last few years. They looked at the results of the program and found it was an effective anti poverty measure that improved public health significantly. They also found that work ethic was only mildly impacted, which may refute the concept that if you give everyone money that they wouldn’t work. To be fair, the program was only temporary, and the residents knew this, so there are limitations of this conclusion, but it does give some hope that it could work. Either way, I came across this concept about 2-3 years ago, and while I was skeptical at first, looking at the research I am fully for such a program given it is implemented properly, meaning that it effectively solves poverty, taxes people in a fair manner, and does not implode our economy or raise the national debt so much it makes us go bankrupt. Basically, as long as we can pay for it in a manner that is fair, equitable, and economically sustainable.
Some variations of the idea were also popular in the US in the 1970s
Some people may not know this, since it’s kind of forgotten history here in the US with the rise of Reaganism soon after and a shift away from welfare, but the right wing actually looked into the idea during the Nixon Administration. In 1969, a Presidential Commission to investigate the causes of poverty also came to a conclusion that a form of guaranteed income would be good for the country and effectively make a step toward solving poverty. These efforts were documented in the book “Poverty Amid Plenty: The American Paradox.” This eventually led to Richard Nixon proposing a limited version of the idea that was defeated in congress because the republicans were concerned about work disincentives, and because democrats wanted to pass a better version of the idea in the 1972 election and didn’t want to give Nixon credit for solving poverty. Yes, in the 1970s the democrats helped shoot down such a policy because they had a legacy to protect with Johnson’s war on poverty. Reminds me of how they’re now shooting down universal healthcare because of Obamacare… Anyway, after that, the economy went bad, Reagan became popular, the country went in a completely different direction, and the idea has long been forgotten and relegated to the status of “pie in the sky communism.” It’s a shame, really. While Nixon’s proposal wasn’t perfect and in my opinion far too limited in some ways, I really wonder how much different the country would be today if we passed this idea.
Regaining popularity
As I said, I didn’t know about this idea until a few years ago, basically until Mincome was rediscovered and came to good conclusions. Since then, it’s picked up steam. I already covered how Switzerland is going to have a referendum on it this year. Now Canada’s liberal party is taking it more seriously. This is a good sign. There have also been some pilots in the third world that have gotten positive results if I recall. I hope it gets more traction in the US, but given our demonization of safety nets and our special little snowflake mentality (aka “American Exceptionalism”), who the heck knows. I do think it’s about the most “libertarian” approach to a safety net out there since it reduces government influence in peoples’ lives and lets them behave as they desire, but we are to the point where instead of this being a relatively right wing idea like it was in the 60s and 70s, it’s now this far left “pie in the sky” communist idea that we won’t even consider. Even though it is perfectly compatible with capitalism. Even though it doesn’t turn over the means or production to the state or the workers. Either way, I suspect it will become the new universal healthcare. Something all these other countries across the industrialized world adopt over the next several decades, but that we hold out on implementing because ‘MURICA. But we do. And by the time we do implement it, it may be too late, and be such a backwards watered down version (like Obamacare) that we’re told to just be grateful to get something done. It’s really sad. This is an idea that we should be looking into now and debating this election. Instead we’re too worried about trans people in bathrooms. We need a serious ideological shift to make these things possible, which is one of the reasons I’m so hardcore over Bernie Sanders. Crap won’t get done as long as we have a dominant conservative attitude dominating the discussion on these things. We need a serious ideological shift on the scale of FDR’s presidency to even get back to considering the idea, much like we did in the 1960s-1970s.
No comments:
Post a Comment