Binghamton shooting
The shooter’s poverty is central to the story. He had been laid off, was unable to find a job, was living on $200 a week in unemployment insurance.
Could this tragedy have been prevented if we had a guaranteed income? Very possibly, especially if it was a true basic income, income security for all, with the baseline of economic justice and economic equality that will come with this approach.
Similar circumstances are part of the story in just about every instance of someone suddenly shooting up a workplace. Poverty is also a factor, typically, when people kill spouses, children, and other relatives, though in such cases the family drama may be more compelling.
Such events incur massive costs, incalculable costs because so many costs are delayed and diffuse. Costs to the individuals involved, extended families, police, hospitals, other businesses in the area when people miss work to attend funerals, and so on. Costs to victim’s family members and friends who live elsewhere. Costs to our nation as a whole, including the well documented fact that such incidents often provoke copycat events.
Unemployment insurance cannot accomplish what we’ll have with income security for all. UI stigmatizes and comes with coercion to find a job. ISFA will end the stigma, coercion, and other social and psychological complications that come with any conditional benefits. UI also requires some large bureaucracy to monitor recipients. ISFA is universal and therefore can be implemented with minimal bureaucracy and government intrusiveness.
There will surely be more such shootings. When they occur, we should note the economic circumstances of the shooter and the costs to the communities and our nation.
Steven Shafarman
Tags: jobs, personal matters, poverty