Might formal versions of basic income become part of our future? While I believe an open ended or non reciprocal approach would be counterproductive, I do advocate for "basic" income levels which can support new forms of mutual employment - especially those which take place via non hierarchical means. Indeed, we are entering a historical moment when many individuals could benefit from new paths of economic experimentation such as this. All the more so, since many citizens and communities now lack many production options which prevailed when more labour was still necessary in our tradable sectors. Non hierarchical services formation would mean good deflation in income expectations as well, for the low income groups which need services access the most.
Just the same, basic levels of income have been with us all along - even though low income groups are all but ignored in the costly market requirements of our non tradable sectors. Why haven't these groups received more respect or acknowledgment from the providers of (largely) non discretionary markets? Chances are, one of the best ways to preserve economic stability and long term growth, is by making market design more receptive to what many businesses enterprises and individuals have been able to pay their workers and employees, all along.
By no means is the issue of small income representation, one of just younger workers or else older employees who lose stable employment with benefits. Future contributors to market design also need to take retirees into account, especially those in the U.S. which rely mostly on Social Security. Not only do many present and future retirees lack private pensions, their savings also don't go far enough in a low interest rate environment. If this weren't enough, new retirees (such as myself) need to take into account the expected losses in revenue for Social Security in the next 15 years. How will we adjust our lifestyles in the meantime? What should many individuals expect to forego in the years ahead? Will we as a country be prepared for future Social Security losses? It's time for our supply side to step up to these challenges.
I continue to hope for a concerted market response for the millions who live much of their lives with limited income realities. Even though governments are not well positioned to tend to these issues, fortunately there are many others who could craft productive responses. Often, the best way to do so is simply start from a clean slate via new and flexible communities. When it comes to housing and other building needs in particular, start with interchangeable building materials which are not only water resistant and easy to put together, but also relatively impervious to insect infestations. Such options are especially important for people as they age, since traditional housing materials become less reliable in the very years when aging homeowners already dedicate more time, energy and money to the care of their own bodies.
At first glance, tiny homes or RV living appear to provide affordability options. However, both are - even when only indirectly - too dependent on the same traditional infrastructure settings which pose problems for community maintenance in general. Consequently, many existing communities are not comfortable in making room for either option, especially since low income groups can't sufficiently contribute to existing tax bases. Only consider this added wrinkle for retiree budgets, especially given what they can now expect in terms of average healthcare costs. Not only do we need extensive production reform in services generation, we also need substantial innovation in physical infrastructure, so that new communities need not depend on high income level groups to create and maintain local physical infrastructure.
As an aside in all this: When it comes to building more flexible forms of new community, shared goals, aspirations and intellectual challenges are also basic needs for individuals and families alike. What we have yet to explore in current versions of property ownership, are platforms which make it possible to better align common interests and aspirations among neighbors. All too often, when neighbors lack any commonality other than physical proximity to one another, they aren't necessarily happy in having to live so closely together, possibly for a majority of their lives! Indeed, what does this example of limited commonality suggest for the larger picture of segregationist impulses if - unfortunately - a substantial fraction of white neighbors scarcely get along with or trust one another? Granted, this personal observation on my part (as a white person) is no excuse for any extreme expression of racism. Still, we might get better societal results, by making the future ownership of group association less about monetary income or privilege, and more about where common aspirations and goals find economic platforms in which to flourish. I believe time arbitrage and flexible ownership are ways we could make this happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment