There seems to be a lot of debate among intellectuals about the cost of a Universal Income. There seems to be a mentality of $1,000 a month. $12,000, which is even less than what Walmart pays it employees.
$22,000 a year means worker theft, prostitution, crimes of varied potential will still exist next to homelessness, poverty, and managed lives by the government.
There is that American dream nonsense about being born in abject poverty, being poor yet happy, then go to College and raise to the ranks of CEO. Most people wind up in prison, or the military, or the street. The endless cycle of poverty means the endless cycle of exploitation and people trapped in miserable substandard lives.
As we see with the massive failure of Obama Care, millions of people are going to loose affordable health. Co-ops, Med Facilities, and people out of jobs in the millions. Anther political football, another lost game for the people. And these issues will last for decades. That and the Republican War against Social Security and low paid social security cause senior distress.
We lost the New Deal and Great Society programs because those fighting for the cause settles for less. Nothing remained permanent as the Liberals have lost all there battles and Socialism is far away from the horizon.
How do we fight a system that refuses to recognize that work that’s done? If you are already starting from a mindset of disrespect and your government agencies have very little involvement in the implementation of how the grant monies are spent who do we fight? If you are advocating for your place in a system where management does not consist of social workers, but MBA alumnae whose mindset is to make money and keep it to one self, then who are you fighting for higher pay from? In fact, how do we advocate for higher pay when the agencies themselves refuse to follow the salary standards?
In recent years, many low and middle income countries have initiated social protection programs in order to reduce poverty, vulnerability and inequality. Many evaluation and impact assessments have been conducted that provide evidence on the positive short-term impacts of social protection interventions on the lives of recipients. As such non-contributory social protection interventions, such as Social Cash Transfers, have often been seen as safety net for the poor and vulnerable which is considered as a pure expense of the government and its funding partners.
While there is yet limited empirical evidence, scholars and policymakers have however made ‘the economic case for investments in non-contributory social protection’. Specifically, it has been suggested that in the long run non-contributory social protection contributes to inclusive growth indirectly and through various proximate, intermediate and ultimate pathways.
This would be impossible with a low income from the UI.
A Social Economy he creation of institutions, both legal and social, that can sustain the development and growth of the social economy independently of any political party that is in power. This means the reform of co-operative and social economy legislation, the creation of financial instruments for the social and ethical financing of social economy organizations, the establishment of educational and training institutes for the study of the theory and practice of co-operation, reciprocity, and service to the common good that are fundamental for a new political economy and the advancement of social and economic development.
Example: If I where a musician and needed to create my own job, I could not do that on a meager income. Through the use of software, and musical ability, I can release my musical compositions online and make public appearances. I can have live virtual concerts. This allows me to create my own job. With a Meager Universal Income I may as well stare into space. I could use my mind.
A Report is now developing a Co-op of media reporters. He and his Co-op partners would need a office in a downtown area. They would make there own employment. With a UI, they would be paid fro their jobs and work. Stimulating the economy. Other economic adventures could have downtown establishments rented also. This means less slum like conditions and improvement of neighborhoods. There would be more to contribute to the town economy.
The social economy can help. But it is obviously not able to act as an engine of recovery on its own and without the support of an astute government that understands its strengths – and limitations. The danger here is that false expectations of the social economy will set the stage for failure and disappointment. In the past, unrealistic expectations arising out of ignorance of how social economy organizations work, and to what ends, have provided ammunition to those who like to criticize the “inefficiency” and “utopianism” of co-ops and the social economy when they fail to do what they were never meant to do. (They conveniently ignore the fact that the survival rate of co-ops is more than twice as high as that of private companies).
Austerity, slums, lack of economic stimulation requires a high price for the Universal Income.