A Response to Sam Sternad’s “Wasteful”: How to Radically Curb Poverty, Hunger, and Various Other Social and Economic Ills

           Thursday, Sam Sternad blogged about the wasted food at the CDR — wasted food, she argues, that could go to the surrounding impoverished Springfield community. I agree with Sternad; it is indeed, as she terms it, a “crime” that people go without food — a morally outrageous crime committed by one of the wealthiest nation in the world.

            However, in addition to curbing food waste, I think there’s a more comprehensive way we can address this issue. Because food insecurity — and its cause, poverty — are problems created by public policy, I offer a policy-driven solution: the Universal Basic Income [UBI].

            The UBI is a program in which the federal government cuts a yearly check to every resident citizen — no strings attached, no questions asked. In other words, it is like Social Security for all.

            While some people may scoff at this policy as radical, or even crazy, if implemented, it would undeniably reduce — and potentially end — poverty. According to Demos economics blogger Matt Bruenig, cutting a $3,000 check to each individual would halve poverty. This would certainly curtail a great amount of the hunger that Sternad addressed — both in Springfield, and in the U.S. at-large.

            Along with reducing poverty, a UBI is constructive in various other ways. First, a UBI would promote autonomy among those in the labor market. A recent ABC poll shows that over half of those who are employed feel overworked; nearly 70 percent say they dream of having a different job. For those holding multiple jobs and/ or working more than 40 hours a week, a UBI would allow them to cut back on hours, or even quit a job — and, in turn, spend more time with family, more time bettering their employment prospects through higher education, or more time being artistically creative.

            Moreover, for us college students, a UBI would mean less pressure to settle for unwanted post-undergrad jobs. For instance, we could use our UBI money to pay down our loans, start an entrepreneurial venture, or supplement the income of a postgrad job that doesn’t compensate well enough, but is one that we really wish to have (e.g., AmeriCorps, The Nation, etc.). A UBI would even allow us to partake in the infamous unpaid internship without the risk of starving.

            Ultimately, no matter one’s circumstances, a UBI would allow one to rent him/herself for less time to undesirable employers.

            A UBI wouldn’t only promote autonomy for workers, but it would also do so for women who are involved in physically and/ or psychologically abusive relationships. Many women stay in abusive relationships because they wouldn’t have enough financial resources to support themselves — and, in some cases, their kids — without their husband/ boyfriend. A UBI would thus help many women separate from an abusive partner without risk of financial disaster. Therefore, because it helps facilitate a path of social and economic self-determination for women, the UBI program is also feminist.

            Furthermore, the UBI would also serve as a supplement for domestic work — which is disproportionately practiced by women — that we don’t typically consider compensable labor: most namely, child rearing. Raising a child is certainly labor, and it undeniably profits society at-large, but we have yet to institutionalize a way to compensate for it — the UBI is our chance.

            Finally, a UBI would stimulate the economy. Placing an extra $3,000 in the pockets of each individual would undeniably create greater consumer demand and spending — especially among those inhabiting the lower wrongs of the economic latter, of whom spend the greatest amount of their income. The UBI is thus not only a morally sound, but also economically constructive.

            Beyond theory, and to address practicality, $3,000 per individual is about six percent of our national GDP. This is quite a bit of money, but the revenue can be raised through various avenues that would not adversely affect the economy: raising the current capital gains tax, levying a financial transaction tax, creating a public sovereign wealth fund, and/ or ending corporate welfare. In short, with political will, it can be done.

            Poverty, hunger, and economic exploitation are some of the worst facets of the American experience.  It is certainly not a lack of imagination that is stopping us from ending them — evidenced by Sternad’s post. Rather, political apathy is stopping us. We can curb, if not eradicate these injustices with a single policy; let’s get to work.