MLK's Other Dream: Economic Justice and a Guaranteed Annual Income

Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of racial equality is close to being a reality. Racism still exists and people of color still face many obstacles, but as our first black President's approval ratings soar after his masterful response to the shooting in Arizona, it is MLK's other dream, of economic equality and justice, that is the dream deferred.

The richest 1% of Americans earn about a quarter of all US income. Corporations had a record year--$1.2 trillion in profits. Wall St. bonuses are up 17%. All while 1 in 6 Americans has no job, real wages haven't increased in 20 years, and someone files for bankruptcy every 20 seconds.

The best way to honor Dr. King may be to take a closer look at a solution to economic inequality that King championed as part of his Poor People's Campaign: the guaranteed annual income.

In MLK's final book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), he declared the guaranteed annual income to be the key to abolishing poverty:  "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."

The guaranteed annual income was indeed a "widely discussed measure" in the 1960s. In 1968, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and another 1,200 economists signed a document calling for Congress to introduce a system of income guarantees and supplements. President Lyndon Johnson appointed a National Commission on Income Maintenance Programs, which recommended a "universal income supplement program" to "provide a base income for any needy family or individual."

In his last presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1967, King said:

"We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income...We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operations of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will...We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available. In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote in Progress and Poverty:

"The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by the task, by the taskmaster, or by animal necessity. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished."

Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes who have a double disability will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts among husbands, wives and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on the scale of dollars is eliminated.

Now our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth."

Today the idea of a guaranteed annual income has evolved into the concept of a basic income for all. In addition to eliminating poverty, it would transform life for working class Americans by providing economic freedom and security independent from work and jobs.

To keep MLK's dream of economic justice alive and support the movement for a basic income for all, join the US Basic Income Guarantee Network by emailing us at Karl@Widerquist.com or visiting www.usbig.net.

New Jobs Report Shows We Need to Re-work "Work"

The new jobs report is disappointing. Well, what else is new? Here's a reality check: There's not enough jobs for everyone. There never was, and there never will be. The problem is exacerbated now during this deep recession, but there have always been millions of people who can't find work.

We need to re-think the whole concept of having a job, and we need to re-work "work" if we are to win real economic justice in America.

Job losses will only get worse as the 21st Century really gets going. Global capital will continue to move jobs to places on the planet that have the lowest labor costs. Technology will continue to improve, eliminating countless jobs.

The trend toward part time work will continue, as well as treating workers as independent contractors. The days of having one job with one company for the majority of your life are long gone.

Service sector jobs, which account for 77% of all American jobs and 96% of all the jobs that will be created in the next ten years, are mostly bad jobs that don't pay enough to raise a family on, don't provide affordable benefits--and don't even think about retiring.

The real problem seems to be that the nature of jobs and work has been changing over the past 30 years, but we are still stuck in a 20th Century system of work where the vast majority of people are reliant on their jobs for all of their income and most of their benefits.

We desperately need jobs, but they don't need us. Or the corporations that create jobs don't need us. We need to adjust to this fact if we are going to have any semblance of economic justice and equality.

Jobs and work still dominate American life. We need to bring "work" down a notch or two, from an institution that takes up most of our waking hours and our energy, to something that we do less of and need less but still do a lot and still get a lot of satisfaction from.

We need to change work from an all or nothing operation. Right now either you have a job (or two) that provides you with all of your income, or you are on unemployment, where you get a check from the government for not working, and that check stops coming if you get a job.

Instead of that all or nothing, 20th Century system of work, we should establish a basic income--enough to at least get by on, just above the poverty level--for all working people. This basic income would establish an income floor, and we would work for whatever amount of income we want on top of that.

A basic income would provide economic freedom and income security to working people. We'd have to freedom to work less if we wanted to, or work the same amount and save or spend that money.

It would provide a direct stimulus to the economy, which would help create more jobs. More jobs + less of a desperate need for jobs = a reasonable adaptation to our changing global economy.

We could pay for this by eliminating all of the old all or nothing, 20th Century programs like unemployment, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc., and by making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, taxing carbon pollution, closing loopholes that allow hedge fund managers to be taxed less than their secretaries, etc.

Think of it as the opposite of trickle down economics, where we gave huge tax breaks to the rich and corporations, and cut programs for the rest of us. Rise Up Economics makes the rich pay their fair share, and provides income directly to the rest of us.

Or you could think of it as a trust fund for working people. There could be some requirement to pay into it for 5 years before you're eligible. Or you could do it through the tax system, everyone who has worked and paid taxes for the previous 5 years would be eligible.

Or it could be through Social Security. Instead of paying into it all of your life and only getting some of that money when you're 65, you could start getting that money back after 5 years by lifting the cap on the amount of income that's taxed, and all the aforementioned program cuts and tax increases.

There are plenty of ways to set it up. The bottom line is that we need to change the way our economy is organized to adjust to the changing nature of work and jobs. We can't remain reliant on jobs that either suck or aren't there or won't be there in 20 years.

They don't need all of us to work. We need an economic system where we don't so desperately need their jobs.

MLK and the Dream of Economic Justice for All

Great op-ed in Monday's Los Angeles Daily News by Al Sheahen, a long-time advocate for the guaranteed annual income: http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_11486358?source=email

Sheahen writes:

"In his 1967 book, "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" the Rev. King wrote, "I am now convinced that the simplest solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income. A host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from wide-spread economic security."

The concept of a guaranteed income is not discussed much anymore, especially in light of our current financial crisis. But it remains, as the late economist Milton Friedman always maintained, the most practical and sensible way to end poverty in America and provide economic security to all Americans.

President Obama is on the right track with his economic stimulus plan. Give the money directly to the people, not just to the big banks and corporations.

But don't stop there. Keep the stimulus coming. Every year."

Great op-ed. Yes, while one of MLK's dreams came true yesterday, his dream of economic justice is still years away. Obama can help get us closer by keeping the stimulus coming, every year. A permanent stimulus fund that goes directly to the people would provide income security for all and the realization of King's economic dream.