Income security and the pursuit of happiness
Income security and the pursuit of happiness.
It’s good to pause at times and think about what it means when people talk about “the pursuit of happiness,” particularly when we assert that it’s an “inalienable right.”
Income security may, in fact, be a prerequisite for happiness. That’s one conclusion I draw from a short article by Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard:
Psychologists and economists now know that although the very rich are no happier than the merely rich, for the other 99 percent of us, happiness is greatly enhanced by a few quaint assets, like shelter, sustenance and security. Those who think the material is immaterial have probably never stood in a breadline.
That’s from an op-ed in today’s New York Times, here. (At the end of the piece is a link to video of a 21-minute talk by Gilbert about his research into how people synthesize happiness. Though not directly related to the topic of income security, it’s worth watching, important ideas, nicely presented.)
Security is vital for happiness, Gilbert asserts, with evidence from psychological research, while insecurity and uncertainty thwart happiness.
That’s because people feel worse when something bad might occur than when something bad will occur. Most of us aren’t losing sleep and sucking down Marlboros because the Dow is going to fall another thousand points, but because we don’t know whether it will fall or not – and human beings find uncertainty more painful than the things they’re uncertain about.
That last sentence is compelling. We “find uncertainty more painful.” Even a basic level of income security would reduce or relieve much of the pain of the current economic recession.
Here’s the final paragraph in Gilbert’s piece:
Our national gloom is real enough, but it isn’t a matter of insufficient funds. It’s a matter of insufficient certainty. Americans have been perfectly happy with far less wealth than most of us have now, and we could quickly become those Americans again – if only we knew we had to.
It must be income security for all. That’s clear if we really believe that the pursuit of happiness is truly an inalienable right.
Citizen Dividends, a basic income for every adult citizen, would greatly enhance our individual and national happiness. Even if the income amount is fairly small, say $800 or $1,000 a month, the certainty will be real.
Thomas Jefferson called for income security even more concretely and specifically than in the Declaration of Independence. In early 1776, while serving as a delegate to the Virginia legislature, he proposed giving 50 acres of public land to any propertyless individual willing to farm it. That was the first homestead program, subsequently copied by other states. Homesteads became national policy in 1862, under Abraham Lincoln.
More history about income security is here. Millions of Americans supported the idea of guaranteed income security in the 1890s and 1930s, and in 1970 a plan to provide a guaranteed income passed in the House of Representatives by two-to-one, but was blocked in the Senate.
The complete plan to update these ideas, the benefits, and how we can make it happen, is in Peaceful, Positive Revolution,.
Additional information is on the home page and elsewhere on this web site, IncomeSecurityForAll.org.
I hope you’ll also comment on this blog. And please help spread the word about these ideas. It will happen if enough of us demand it.
Steven Shafarman
Tags: happiness, income security, popular support, poverty
May 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Nice post Steve, and great work on replacing the Welfare State with Friedman’s negative income tax (basic income). As with the national sales tax debate, though, we libertarians won’t join you until the Welfare state first is abolished. Otherwise, as almost happened – as you mentioned above – we’ll get yet another Welfare entitlement on top of all the others bankrupting us and our progeny.
If progressives acquiesce to abolition of their bureaucratic welfare model, then we libertarians might consider capitating welfare payments to the poor, maybe even the middle class. But we’d still be holding our breath, as such annual payments inevitably would grow larger as programs always do (as Jefferson, of whom you alluded, said with that famous quote about the incremental steps by which liberty is smothered).
Also, to sell the minimum income we really would need Rich Cook’s replacement of central banking/fiat currency with the private bank cross-guarantee system combined with gold-backed currency. This is necessary to protect the income packet from debasement (loss of purchasing power).
I can easily imagine a paradise with your basic income plan. I could get my income, with protected purchasing power (from free banking and gold currency), with a national sales tax taking only a small portion (as all other taxes, except for taxes on unimproved property) are abolished.
No regulations would remain to interfere in job creation or acquisition, and foreign affairs would return to free markets and free trade, not War.
That’s my paradise, and your plan can be a part of it, and maybe I’d even enjoy that basic income so I could just relax and not work so hard – maybe even quit my awful public school teaching job.
Cheers Steve.
Charlie