Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Income

Equal ownership of natural resource wealth will promote economic justice and sustainability.

Minimum wage laws distract us from a conversation about minimum income.

Minimum wage laws appear to help those who have jobs that pay near the defined minimum level. Such laws also help those who make and sell machinery that replaces low-skilled workers. Minimum wage laws do not help those who might earn below the legally-defined limit but who have not yet developed skills or experience sufficient to garner a higher wage. Minimum wage laws harm everyone if the rising cost of labor causes employers to choose a method of achieving their goals that leads to more pollution or more rapid depletion of natural resources than what an alternative, more labor-intensive method would cause.

We cannot create wealth through legislation. But we can alleviate poverty by ending the current practice of allowing theft of natural resources from the people. We all own the air and water. We all have an equal right to use the air and water and to say what the limits on pollution levels should be. We also have an equal right to access the shared mineral wealth of Earth, and a right to share in deciding overall limits to the rates of taking of resources. (Some people may recognize these basic rights as a function of natural law, while others may see our right to breathe air and drink water as flowing from God's grace, but these different views may not be mutually exclusive. In any case, we have a corresponding duty to create a political system that ensures that equal claims to air and water and other natural wealth are respected in practice.)

We could attach fees to the taking of resources and the release of pollution. This would allow us to measure the value of natural resources and services used by industry in pursuit of profit, and it would discourage unwanted and potentially harmful environmental impacts. We could adjust the fees to whatever level necessary to ensure that only the amount of pollution and rate of resource extraction that the people deem permissible will be deemed profitable by industry. (Industries would not be able to afford to pollute so much as the cost of doing so increased. The most polluting industries would shrink. All industries would strive to reduce their impacts on the environment.) The fee proceeds could (and should) be shared among all people--or all adults--equally. [The portion of natural wealth that belongs to the youngest members of the community (who are too young to know how best to spend their money) could be used to fund schools, public health programs, public parks, museums, perhaps, that will contribute to the wellbeing of society (and will benefit those children) for years to come.]

Proceeds from environmental impact fees would be a monetary representation of the value of resources owned by all but taken by industry in pursuit of profit. Public policy should assure not a minimum wage, but a minimum income.

When all people have some income separate from work income, all workers will have greater latitude to decide what work they want to do. Those with fewer skills will realize the greatest benefit when (an economic measure of) natural wealth is shared equally, because they are generally in the most precarious economic position.

If we look beyond questions of air and water quality and minerals management, we can see that this policy of charging a fee or rent to those who cause adverse environmental impacts could be applied to the management of other commons resources. The number and diversity of fish in the sea is decreasing. We could attach a fee to the taking of those species that are threatened with depletion. We could attach VERY HIGH fees to the taking or killing of any member of a species that we do not want anyone to take, so that no one will see that activity as profitable.

What we should do can be determined by a random poll. If most people surveyed say that rates of taking this or that kind of fish from the ocean should be reduced, then permit prices for that type of fishing could be raised. Surveys can ask what percent change would be best, so that the average of all responses can tell us how much we should reduce (or increase) a particular kind of environmental impact. (Many people will not have an informed opinion, but if the method of polling allows some time for research before a reply is expected, respondents could look to see what others who are more informed have to say on the topic. This system will effectively delegate decisions to those experts who are most trusted by the people.)

Biodiversity is being lost at a truly astounding rate. Considering the current rates of desertification and loss of topsoil; considering the pace of forest destruction, the speed of encroachment on and paving of wilderness areas, the increasing threats to coral reefs, and our ongoing assault on climate stability; one might wonder whether we even care what kind of world we will leave for our children. If we were to decide that protecting biodiversity and promoting ecosystem health are worthy public policy goals, we could charge a fee for any land use that disturbs wildlife habitat or decreases biodiversity, from  monoculture to asphalt. The fee could be greater for those activities that produce more harmful impacts on the Earth or that are more disruptive of ecosystems.

With citizens voting (through random-sample surveys) on whether the amount of paving, rates of taking of resources, levels of pollution, etc., are acceptable or should be higher or lower, we would have a system wherein we could all share in sculpting the overall human impacts on Earth. We would shape the world to match what we want it to be. Our economy would function in a way that would achieve a balance between supply of and demand for produced goods and services, AND it would achieve an appropriate balance, as defined by the people, between the need to conserve natural resources, preserve environmental quality and promote ecosystem health on the one hand, and the convenience and necessity of availing ourselves of natural resource wealth in pursuit of human goals on the other hand.

The amount of money collected through fees on the release of pollution, the taking of resources and destruction of habitat would be substantial. We may not be able to afford to adopt such a system while also keeping the current system of taxes on income and sales. We may want to eliminate those taxes,  or substantially reduce them. (Some sales tax might be appropriate, to cover the cost of policing the marketplace, for example.)  We could fund community services from the various environmental impact fees. The proceeds from resource user-fees could be shared among all people equally. Each of us could spend an agreed-upon fraction (perhaps half) on community needs (e.g.: libraries, schools, public health, police and fire protection, etc.) and spend the remainder to meet our own personal needs. We would all share in creating the kind of social environment that we would choose. We would share, in a more direct and obvious way, decisions about what our community priorities should be. And no one would live in abject poverty.

This paradigm sees the role of government   as an arbiter between the individual and community. It recognizes no authority of government to initiate the use of force against citizens. Only those actions (by individuals or corporate entities) that adversely affect others would come within the purview of government. In fact, government per se would not exist as we know it. Many of the decisions of government would be dispersed, decentralized, vested in all the people. This "public realm only" focus for government action is an important point because a profound change in the political culture cannot occur except through the active support of the people.

Many people subscribe to the libertarian view that the government ought not initiate the use of force against peaceful citizens. Libertarians will likely embrace this alternative paradigm if they believe that it appropriately draws the line between regulated or restricted actions (those that adversely impact others or the community) on the one hand, and actions which are the free choice of individuals (private behavior) on the other hand.

Some people believe that the prevalence of outdoor advertising signs and billboards is too high to allow for an aesthetically pleasing visual landscape. Is the prevalence of outdoor lighting so great that our ability to see the stars has become too-severely diminished?

We may want to adopt a few "lights out" nights, to remind ourselves that there are stars out there. If enough people want this to happen and demand that industries account for their side-effect costs, then this vision can be borne out in reality.

Maybe someday the power to decide these questions (and others) will be vested in the people. This power will be in the hands of the people if we care to shape our society toward these ends. If we say that this is the world--if we say that this is the democratic society--that we want to make.

Equal Sharing of Natural Resources Promotes Justice and Sustainability.

More security for the least secure means more security for all:
- A Capitalism-Communism Synthesis

More security for the least secure means more security for all - Shorter, older version