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.
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.
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
1 comment:
Quality concept !! Thank you for your insite -G GREGG
Post a Comment