Class Warfare Blog

April 23, 2017

There is No Real Anti-Science Movement

There was a March for Science across this country yesterday. It did not draw huge crowds but the participants were enthusiastic. Unfortunately, many of the participants seem to be close to declaring that there is a war on science or some other foolishness. There is not.

To show you this, consider the staunchest climate change denier. If they went to the doctor and were diagnosed with a serious disease and were offered a treatment produced by the finest medical science in the world, do you honestly think they would say “Science? I want none of that. Send for an exorcist.”?

A climate change denying businessman looking to upgrade his IT infrastructure looks at the proposals and decides “We want none of this ‘high tech nonsense,’ we want biblically-inspired computers.” Whadya think?

Photo by Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images

The opposition to climate change is there because of economic interests that fear that taking it seriously will crimp their ability to make money. All of those politicians who say “the jury is not yet in on climate change” have no idea whether it is or it isn’t, but they are being paid to say it is not. The order President Trump made to have NASA stop studying the climate is not fueled by some “science is a waste of time and money” attitude on the part of the President. His party is being paid to do this.

Similarly, there is no scientific controversy over the Theory of Evolution. It is an established scientific paradigm. The religious have no problem with the theory (actually very few of them seem to even understand the basics); they have a problem with its findings. If the theory of evolution is true, then any creation story that contradicts it is false and, if you are from a religion that paints the Bible as being ultimate truth, you have a problem. The same thing goes for those religiously-minded who claim the earth is only 6000-8000 years old. To believe the scientific findings (the Earth is over 4,000,000,000 years old) is to toss one’s religion’s creation stories in the trash can and the beginning of “if the Bible got that wrong, what else does it get wrong?”

Science is all about living with doubt. Politics and religion are all about being absolutely sure you are right. Hence the conflict.

But do realize, it is the scientific results these people have a problem with, very specific results. On one hand, unborn children’s lives are sacred and on the other the Mother of All Bombs is a really cool outcome of war science. It is not “science” they question, only when science tells a narrative counter to one they cherish that they “oppose the science.” And since they can’t be bothered to learn the science to try to counter it (probably a futile effort anyway), they disparage it emotionally (I ain’t no kin to no monkey!) and politically (it is too expensive to invest a huge amount of money in uncertain science).

Targeted opposition to specific scientific findings is, however, feeding an anti-science attitude among those who do not want to get involved enough to see for themselves. I can’t see how this is helpful.

But, then, these are the same people who promoted an anti-government attitude (The government is tyrannical!) before they decided to run the government for their own benefit. I do not think they even bother thinking about the long term effects of their actions. There is too much money to be made in the short-term.

April 22, 2017

Through a Glass Darkly, Dirty and Distorted, Too

We are treated with a view of education from the privatizing crowd that is bizarre. They see a child sitting in front of a computer, learning their ABC’s and whatnot. They see robotic teachers teaching from scripts and then subjecting their charges to standardized tests. They see, well, profits mostly.

I am not as concerned that these people see this as “a good idea,” but that others, not “on the take” as it were, agree.

What this whole approach misses is that education is a social process. It doesn’t take place in a closet, but in a crowd. We do, though, have societal icons; one is of the lone wolf academic who studies on his/her own and does great things, such as portrayed in the movie “Good Will Hunting.” Because these are themes we enjoy seeing and hearing about (a little like winning the lottery: if it could happen to them, it might happen to me!), we see and hear about them a great deal (the lone scientist, the lone crime investigator, etc. against all odds blah, blah, blah). But they are not the norm.

Currently scientists are seeing that we tend to think better in groups, that no individual has all of the puzzle pieces but in communication with others, clusters of puzzle pieces get formed, and then clusters combine to make larger clusters.

It is not an accident that communication is a cornerstone of the scientific method. No, not the method that you were taught in school, that was a convenient fiction. You have to look between the lines. Just one person doesn’t have access to all of the facts. They also don’t have access to all of the imagination. Who creates the hypotheses, just individuals? And who creates the theories? Creationists seem to think Darwin created the entire theory of evolution. The truth of the matter is Darwin created a structural framework, that literally thousands and thousands of scientists have built, rebuilt and filled in. There are so many fingerprints on the theory of evolution now, that saying “Darwin was wrong” is irrelevant. The portion of the theory of evolution that is Darwin’s is but a small part of the whole now.

Education is not limited to human beings, but it is a social activity. While “students” can go away for a time and in solitude, consult educational technology (the most successful ed-tech so far is something called “books”), they must come back and interact with other human beings to clarify understandings, compare opinions, and justify arguments. Students are learning how to learn and participate and think in groups. They learn to write so other humans, not in their locality in either space and time, will understand them.

The problem with the voucher faddists, the charter school purveyors, and the ed-tech peddlers is that they think education is something that can be analyzed using a spreadsheet, with the most important column being “profit.” If you compare their approach with what is being done in, say, Finland, you will see what is wrong. In Finland, they are working to improve the ability of teachers and students to interact as directly as possible. Their classrooms have almost no “tech” in them. Children get out and play between classes because play is important, it is important to learning how to work with other human beings.

Everybody I know went to school. If they think about it for just a minute, they will recognize what I claim above is true. Which makes it even more shocking that so many of these “reforms” are being supported around the country. Are we that venal? Or are we that distracted (Oh, Facebook!)?

I do not know about you, but I have just deleted my Facebook account. The reason? No social ROI, just distraction, distraction, distraction.

April 12, 2017

That Light at the End of the Tunnel …

Filed under: Economics — Steve Ruis @ 8:15 am
Tags: ,

…  is either a bit of light in the darkness … or an oncoming train. There is a glimmer of hope for the former over the latter. I strongly recommend the following: Finally, a Breakthrough Alternative to Growth Economics



March 13, 2017

We Have Met the Enemy … and It Isn’t Us

We have met the enemy and it is … our corporations. Consider first a couple of examples:

You have heard, I am sure, of the so-called “skills gap,” which is that American workers just do not have the skills needed for “today’s marketplace,” so we need to issue more foreign worker visas to fill the necessary jobs. One of the fields clamoring for more of these visas has been Information Technology (IT). IBM, a quintessential American IT company, hid the facts for many years but now it is clear. Between 2003 and 2010, IBM fired so many American IT professionals and hired so many engineers and computer programmers in India that the workforce of IBM India is now larger than that of IBM USA. IBM India had a mere 6,000 workers in 2003 but by 2010 had somewhere in the range of 100,000-130,000 workers. How did IBM manage this into the teeth of the worst global recession ever? It did it by firing over 30,000 workers here in the U.S.

IBM calls this “cross border job shifting,” which sounds ever so much more like a transfer than people getting fired here and others getting hired there. And IBM is not alone in doing this, so how can there be a shortage of IT workers in the US when there are so many Americans who used to hold the very same jobs that are claimed are “going wanting?” What is the real rationale for the demand to be issuing more visas for foreign workers? There is no shortage of highly qualified IT workers. This is simply a classic wage-suppression tactic. Bring in foreign workers and pay them less than you would American workers with the same qualifications. This makes it very much harder for Americans to get wage increases here and also harder to form unions that would look into such practices. Foreign workers do not want to anger their employers because if they lose their job, they lose their job sponsor, and it is back to India for them. They will not join a union, period.

Now, consider another quintessential American company, Ford. Can there be a more American story involving business that the creation of the Ford Motor Company from scratch? But in the late 1990’s, Alex Trotman, Ford’s then CEO, admitted “Ford isn’t even an American company, strictly speaking; we’re global.”

And if American companies like these do not consider themselves “American companies,” how much can we expect them to act on our behalf? When I was a young man, many corporations had multiple stakeholders. These corporations considered their customers to be one, along with their workers as another, and their communities, too. And, of course, also their shareholders. Modern business practices, spurred along by quack economists like Milton Friedman, had reduced the number of corporate stakeholders to one: the shareholders. Well, just one stakeholder if you do not count the executive’s self-interest in their own remuneration, which has skyrocketed while worker wages have been experiencing trickle-up growth.

As a union officer in the 1980’s and 90’s I participated in an experiment with management of our enterprise ($150 million annual budget) on creating a more cooperative governance structure. Part of that effort was coming to an understanding of relationships between and among the two groups. One facet of that learning was that “workers” (we all worked for the company) we all tended to imbue our work relationship with trust, that is we put our trust into our employer to some extent. This was not earned trust but, basically, we trusted our employer because we wanted to have a job in which we could trust our employer. This wishful thinking trust usually had no repercussions, but when something happen that a worker or workers did not like, they felt betrayed by someone they had trusted (trusted to do what was never specific, usually it was “the right thing”). Such “betrayals” existed in collective memory for decades. (I know this as when I was hired into this company I heard “stories” from other employees. I found out later that some of them were almost 30 years old.)

We are making that mistake now. We are told by representatives of these “American companies” that we should “trust the marketplace” and “trust them.” But their actions indicate that not only are they untrustworthy but they are not even American companies. Imagine how you would feel if a foreign company, say from China, wanted to come into your community and build a plant, one with a bit of pollution associated with it. Then think how you would view that intention were is an American company? Would your response be the same? Yet, these American companies no longer consider themselves to be American, and have acted accordingly for decades now, but we still “trust” them more than we do others.

These companies have no issue with firing you and hiring a replacement from overseas and ask you to train your cheaper replacement (happens all the time, happened to my ex-wife). These companies have no problem with going through bankruptcy to eliminate their obligation to pay into their worker’s pensions. These companies have no problem with manipulating our tax laws so that they pay no taxes, with the burden to make up the difference shifted to you and me. These companies have no problem in bribing our public officials to do their bidding instead of the people’s. And if you want to know why our recovery from the Mother of all Recessions was so weak, with employment struggling to get back to anything approximating normal, realize that business leaders see every crisis as an opportunity and in this crisis they used the opportunity to outsource even more jobs. They were hiring, just not in the U.S. That is how much loyalty they have to their bottom line and how much they have to you and me.

Ironically, we have just elected a corporate businessman President to fix this mess (drain the swamp). If this were not so ironic, so funny, I would be crying. When are we going to wake up? When are we going to invest our passion and our votes in organizations, like labor unions, that have proven track records for countering these un-American corporate interests?

Wake up people! It is very close to “too late.”

March 3, 2017

The Utter Failure of Economics and Politics to Prevent the Ravaging of the Rich

I ran across this rather incredible graph recently:


The data are from the UK so I looked to see if I could find any similarities to data from the US, and yes, they are there.

The graph shows the growth of worker productivity from the years 1800 to 2010. Since all of the values are positive, productivity has trended upward in general. But you can see four distinct trends on this graph: first there is a strong increase in productivity from 1800 to about 1870, then a general decline in the rate from 1870 to about 1900 (while still being positive, the amount of increase dropped period by period). Then there is another long period of productivity increase improvements from roughly 1900 to the mid 1970’s, followed by another decline in the rate of increase from 1970’s to the present.

What do these periods in which productivity changes steadily decline in magnitude correlate with? Ah, the period 1870-1900 is often referred to as the “Gilded Age.” And the mid-1970’s to the present started with Reganism/Thatcherism and is the second great period of wealth transference to the few in this entire time period.

We have been told over and over that the accumulation of wealth by the few in our society is a good thing. The wealthy are the “job creators,” the movers and shakers who get things done. But the reality is exactly the opposite. The people who have been telling us that wealth inequality is a standard feature of capitalism and a “good thing” are just the PR men for the wealthy, trying to avoid pitchforks and torches showing up in the gated communities of their rich paymasters. That so many of these flacks are economists should be appalling to the intellectual community. (Maybe we should disbar them and transfer academic economic departments to become part of the marketing programs of schools of business.)

All of the data show that periods of extreme wealth accumulation by the few devastate economies instead of facilitating them. The steepest upward portion of this graph takes place between the end of World War 2 and the arrival of Reganism/Thatcherism and anti-unionism. Productivity grows the fastest when the wealth is shared more fairly.

Please note that there were rich people during this post-war period. There were many people getting rich for the first time. They weren’t, however, getting filthy rich by distorting the political systems in their favor. Becoming rich through your own skills is one thing. Becoming obscenely rich by hook or crook, though, hurts all of us.

February 23, 2017

Why Do Conservatives Want to “Let the Markets Rule?”

It is axiomatic that conservatives want there to be as little government regulation of economic markets as possible, because they claim that “the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace (Adam Smith)” guarantees the best possible outcome and the more we interfere with that, the poorer the outcome will be.

Conservatives say this as if it were a fundamental truth of economics.

Recently a prominent economist died (Kenneth Arrow) and his work is often held up as part of said proof of the infallibility of markets. As the obituary writer put it “Professor Arrow proved that their system of equations mathematically cohere: prices exist that bring all markets into simultaneous equilibrium (whereby every item produced at the equilibrium price would be voluntarily purchased). And market competition puts society’s resources to good use: Competitive markets are efficient, in the language of economists.” (Amen!)

But to prove that particular economic theorem a certain number of “assumptions” had to be made. Here are some of those:
•  all markets are perfectly competitive (all buyers and sellers have perfect information, no buyer or seller is big enough to influence prices)
•  markets in different locations are different/separate markets (so the market for milk in California doesn’t affect the market for milk in Illinois)
•  all markets contain “forward markets” as futures markets in which you can contract to buy anything, for example pork bellies (to make bacon, we hope), for any future year … forever
•  plus, of course, everyone has perfect foreknowledge of those futures markets, too.

This work is considered foundational in economics, earning the authors Nobel Prizes, etc.

Now, what that work actually proves is exactly the opposite of what is claimed. The work shows that markets are perfect and benefit society only with those pre-conditions. Of course, no such markets exist or can exist with those elements in play. What they proved was that the conditions for the trust people place in markets to “do the right thing” are only available in Never-Never Land.

Think about it. If one had perfect information of the future of the prices of pork bellies or any other commodity, why would trades be made? Currently, futures buyers buy future goods because of price uncertainty. The thinking is “I am going to buy now when the price is reasonable because I think the price is going to go up.” You certainly wouldn’t “buy now” if you knew the price was going to go down. And why would a seller sell to you at the current low price if he knew he could get a higher price by just waiting?

All of these assumptions are bogus. You cannot say that the local market for celery in California is unconnected with the local market for celery in Illinois when virtually all of the celery in the U.S. is grown in California. Similarly (and if you hadn’t been around for the past 50 years or so) we couldn’t get tomatoes or fresh fruit in the winter months (or lettuce, etc.) and we made do with substitutes (cabbage for lettuce, etc.) until the fresh, local harvest came in. Now, all winter long we get produce from Mexico, Peru, Southeast Asia, etc. We can have tomatoes and lettuce all winter long. Many of these markets are global making them most definitely not local.

And, then we have advertising to make sure that seller and buyer do not have the same information. (If you think advertisers are trying to share information, wake up!) And so, in no market is there “perfect information” for both buyer and seller.

So, getting back to the original question: why do conservatives want to “let the markets rule?” They actually do not want this. What they want is minimal or, better, no regulation of what they are allowed to do to make money. The “free markets” economics is just a smokescreen for “Do not tell me what I can do!” Further proof of this is the fact that these same people are trying to get advantages for their business written into law: tax breaks, labor favors (labor unions are disadvantaged in “right to work” states), and if they can pull it off: monopolies. Of course, these people say “competition is good,” but basically they want none of it.

If you want a case history of this in action, look at the U.S. automobile industry over the last 50 years or so (post WW2). At the beginning of that period the U.S. car market was dominated by Detroit Iron, mostly in the form of huge, heavy vehicles that got very poor gas mileage (even into the single digits of mpg). Foreign imports began to trickle in in the form of small, gas thrifty cars like the Volkswagen of Germany and Japanese imports (Honda, Subaru, Suzuki, etc.). The major U.S. manufacturers looked down their noses at these vehicles: they were small, had little power, and even less chrome details. But then there were the gas crises of the early 1970’s. All of a sudden, having a gas thrifty car was quite desirable. Sales of “imports” skyrocketed and American manufacturers started bringing out “economy models” to compete. But if “competition was good” Detroit was having none of it. It sought and got protection from the federal government which limited the numbers of cars that could be imported. Japan, previously content to be sending smaller, cheaper cars to the U.S. saw an opportunity. If it could import only so many cars, those cars should provide more profit than the small economy models, so they started importing higher end vehicles (still not luxury models, like the Lexus, but higher end vehicles). These vehicles were much better made that U.S. vehicles and offered much better gas mileage, too, so people snapped them up in droves. Having their numbers restricted also drove up prices because there were only so many around. (This resulted in the cars available being snapped up close to ports of entry, so people in Middle America didn’t notice this at first, but the coasts were bristling with imports.

So, the reaction of Detroit? Going back to Congress and asking for more protection.

At the same time, automotive safety standards were being introduced at the federal level. I remember watching the hearings regarding having a “5 mph bumper.” Detroit’s “Big Three” auto makers said such a requirement (that a car would survive a 5 mph collision with little or no damage—5 mph is a brisk walking speed) would bankrupt them. All of these manufacturers supported this claim. Then a witness, a “shade tree mechanic,” testified that he had a 5 mph bumper, all tested, and available for license that he had made that cost just about the same as what Detroit was paying for bumpers then. These whinging, uncooperative titans of industry certainly lost credibility in front of Congress, which hurt their efforts to get protection from their competition.

So, these claims of markets and competition are “good” are just smokescreens for what they really want: a guaranteed path to make as much money as they wanted to with no interference, certainly not regulations on fuel economy or safety. They preferred to compete on the basis of which cars had the most shiny bits, so as to impress your neighbors when the car sat in the driveway.

Granted, there are some conservatives who probably believe the economic BS (they aren’t a particularly bright group) but that doesn’t make their beliefs true. The real problem is the public has been brought to a similar belief because of the repetition of the false claims over and over and over. I used to carry a spray can of bullshit repellent for just such utterances, maybe I should produce those for sale. The market should be strong.

January 31, 2017

Why Conservatives Hate Unions, Part 3451

So, which state in the U.S. has the largest, most thriving economy, right now? Silly question! It is California. Governor Brown has eliminated their massive budget woes, while dealing with a massive drought (a really big problem in an agricultural state), and dealing with the after effects of the Great Recession. Employment is way up. Wages are up. All is good.

One other thing that California leads the country in is … wait for it … union jobs. The number and percentage of union jobs lead the country.

But … but … wait, conservatives have been telling us for years that unions are bad for the country, bad for us, bad, bad, bad … and they still are saying it (the President never fails to mention how bad teacher’s unions are when he addresses education).

Gosh, do you think they might have a hidden agenda?

Golly, I guess I am kinda curious about why they would oppose in a blanket fashion, organizations devoted to helping working people. All unions are bad, they say, there are no good unions and bad unions, all unions are bad, bad, bad.

I wonder what they could possibly have against working people?

May I suggest one answer to that particular question: they dislike the fact that they have to pay workers for their labor. They would be much happier if they did not. And failing the return of outright slavery, their idea of a minimum wage is just that: wages should be the minimum that could possibly be paid. The idea that it be illegal to pay below the minimum wage makes them cry. And the idea of raising the minimum wage makes their head’s explode. Why, why … paying more to laborers would reduce profits and you know how bad that would be!

Really, how bad? Maybe the Walton kids would have one billion less to split. Or the Koch brothers wouldn’t be able to afford all of the Congressmen and senators they wanted to buy. It would be really bad!

And California? Don’t look there, say the Conservatives. They’re all freaks. They even like unions!

January 22, 2017

Fueling the Economic Engine of the U.S. … Not

The U.S. emerged as a major economy in the later 1800’s and then grew from there. A certain source of that economic growth came from having a capable workforce. Consider the following points:

During the mid-nineteenth century, America surpassed the impressive enrollment levels achieved in Germany and took the lead in primary (grammar, elementary, or common) school education (Easterlin 1981). But by the turn of the twentieth century, various European countries had narrowed their educational gap with the United States (Lindert 2004). As the high school movement took root in America, however, the wide educational lead of the United States reappeared and was expanded considerably to mid-century.”

“In the first several decades of the twentieth century, the United States pulled far ahead of all other countries in the education of its youth. It underwent what was then and now termed the “high school movement,” a feat most other western nations would achieve some 30 to 50 years later. We address how the “second transformation” of American education occurred and what aspects of the society, economy, and political structure enabled the United States to lead the world in education for much of the twentieth century.”

“From 1910 to 1940, America underwent a spectacular educational transformation. Just 9 percent of 18-year olds had high school diplomas in 1910, but more than 50 percent did by 1940.

Quotes are from “Why the United States Led in Education: Lessons from Secondary School Expansion, 1910 to 1940” by Claudia Goldin (Harvard University and the NBER) and Lawrence F. Katz (Harvard University and the NBER)

Now, in addition, in the 1960’s in what is certainly a third transformation of American education, the U.S. expanded college attendance hugely at both four-year institutions and in a fast growing population of two-year colleges. We now find in a major report issued last week (available here) that many colleges are engines of moving students out of the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder to higher up that ladder.

Gosh, could American schools be like, you know, a major cause of economic prosperity? If so, what should we do?

According to the neo- and ordinary conservatives, we need to cut education funding. Heck, students don’t vote and all those teachers are pigs at the public trough, locked slavishly to their unions, and mostly vote Democratic, too. So what if we diminish a major driver of economic success, rich people will still be rich and as the majority of Americans get poorer, they’ll look even richer.

January 19, 2017

But When We are Wealthy …

But when we are wealthy … well, the song has the same notes but the lyrics change when countries go from poor to rich.

I have made the point in previous posts that “free trade” is a weapon used by the “haves” against the “have nots.” (Free Trade’s basic function is to prevent the have nots from competing with the haves by selling them our more cheaply made stuff so they cannot develop a capacity to make that stuff for themselves and become our competitors.) China’s President just stated that China is committed to free trade. Therefore China has left the Club of Have Nots and entered the Club of Haves.

A similar dichotomy occurs within nations between those who are now “rich” and those who are “poor.” One often hears from the plutocrat’s representatives (pretty much all elected representatives now) that we can’t solve our problems by printing money. To do that would cause rampant inflation! Plutocrats do not like inflation because they are debt holders and they do not want those debts being paid with dollars worth less than when the debts was created.

And while simply adding dollars to the nation’s balance sheet can cause inflation it doesn’t have to, consider the $16 – $29 trillion the Federal Bank “printed” in the wake of 2008 financial sector meltdown to fix the frauds of the financial sector. Have you noticed the rampant inflation caused by this? No? Neither have I because there was none.

This yuge amount of money is four to seven times what Social Security would need to remain solvent … forever (depending on whose estimates you choose to use). Or a similar amount of money could have been printed to bail out all homeowners or student with onerous loans, but if one were to suggest any Social Security insolvency to be solved this way (there is no such thing currently, of course) or an effective homeowner/student bailout this way, you will hear the plutocrat’s representatives cry loudly that “We can’t solve our problems by printing money. To do that would cause rampant inflation!”

In other words, to solve their problems, it is okay. To solve our problems it is absolutely forbidden.

Note The money isn’t actually printed as $100 bills or any other kind of currency. Here’s how it works. If the Fed gives a bank $10,000,000 and it is required to keep a 10% “reserve” by law, then most dweebs like you an me think that the bank can load $9 million of the $10 million, keeping one of the ten in reserve. No, fool, that $10 million becomes the ten percent and the bank issues $90,000,000 of loans. So, $10 million just became $100 million. Note that the bank never handles any printed money in these transactions, they just add numbers electronically to accounts. Easy peasy.

January 7, 2017

A Thought About the Universal Basic Income, Feminism, and “Family Values”

I just had a massive collision in my mind while reading about the possibilities of having a Universal Basic Income. It was caused by three things colliding simultaneously (a very rare feat, even in physics): the idea of a universal basic income, the feminist idea of a wage for “homemakers,” and a smattering of conservative family values.

As you may recall, conservatives have this ideal family meme that appears to be out of the 1950’s. Mom and Dad live with their two children, a boy and girl, in a lovely home with green grass and a white picket fence defining its perimeter. Dad goes to work, Mom stays at home, raising the kids and caring for the home and Dad. They go, of course, to a protestant church and the kids attend good schools and all is well.

This ideal had a massive dent put in it during the reign of … wait for it … President Ronald Regan. It wasn’t exactly his fault, but Presidents get more of the credit and so get more of the blame, so that principle applies. The lifestyle of middle class Americans had become so eroded and RR had increased taxes enough on everyone (to pay for the tax cuts for the rich)—many people forget about Reagan’s massive tax increases, especially in payroll taxes (which do not affect the wealthy much)—that many “homemakers” found themselves in the workforce and no longer “at home moms.”

Feminists, on the other hand, showed us that women were trapped in this model family, in a role of caretaker for husband and children, with little power over their own lives and family directions. (Studies showed that as women earned more and more money starting in the Reagan years, they had more and more say over the family money.)

So, if conservatives really wanted to support their so-called “family values” (that is, were that support not a scam), why not give all women who have “under 18” children at home, a Universal Basic Income? This would recognize important work the government, that is all of the people, want done well—raising the next generation of citizens. It would clear a lot of people out of the job markets who really would rather not work (at least during this time), which would expand employment opportunities for other people. It would provide for the possibility of the better raising of kids, and it would reduce the wear and tear on mothers, eliminating their need to work, while allowing them to work if they wish but not requiring them to work, if they wish.

This would be “universal” only in that it would apply to all mothers.

And, yes, I can hear the conservative’s heads exploding that such a system would incentivize the lazy and shiftless to keep popping out babies in order to continue on the dole. Obviously, some standards of care for children need to be applied to avoid obvious abuse, but such situations would be rare, very rare, and the idea itself is colored by the imaginations of conservatives, because when they think of such hypothetical people, they are invariably black or brown. They will need to get over this and come up with useful ways to avoid having children abused for economic gain, something conservatives reserve for their charter schools.

Make it work, people! You can do it!

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at