An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a book called Utopia For Realists by Rutger Bregman. I finished reading it last night.
Bregman is a popular Dutch author and historian, who has written other books about the future, utopia and creating a better world. In Utopia.. he makes the case for how the three concepts he advocates for the most, a 15 hour workweek, universal basic income, and open borders, could create a world without poverty, with much less crime, and with far more productivity than we have currently.
I reread a few of the posts I created along the lines of The Future, and have provided links to two of them.
Utopia and the future.
I must confess, I have allowed my outlook to degrade in the past few years. I say this because I found a number of past posts I had written with forward looking, positive outlooks for the world, humanity, but far less with such an optimistic viewpoint in the more recent past. I often remark that I believe that some of the negative attitudes emanating from people in their 50's and above, are the (natural) result of nostalgic thinking that is so easy to revert to as we age, as well as the obvious but often ignored fact that death is much closer than we want to admit.
Whether this generalized outlook has also effected the tone of my posts, is certainly debatable. The phrase, just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean there aren't those out to get them, may be appropriate in regards to the recognition that sad and angry making news seems to attract more viewers, more clicks, more attention, so perhaps I have begun to succumb to that trend as well, even while I remain happy in my life, although more sad in regards to the world around us.
While I have certainly begun to believe that our democracy is already dead, is it simply because I am avoiding the obvious, that I am closer to death than birth, or just a reflection of the awful politics that is prevalent at this point in time?
Utopia For Realists, offered me a chance to put aside the cheerlessness of such thoughts, and to read about a perspective that not only believes in the progression (for the better) of humanity, but offers ideas as to how to accelerate that trajectory.
A few times in the past, I have discussed with friends, the concept that many women who stayed at home to raise tomorrow's adults, fulfilling what has traditionally been the ultimate goal and purpose of a woman as wife and mother, were sold a bill of goods that has proved detrimental to their later adult lives.
Whether through divorce or death, there are far too many women in their 50's and above, who find themselves with far too few resources, especially in the form of their social security checks, because they did not earn any money outside of the home during those years when they were performing the most noble of tasks, raising and caring for their children.
When discussing the problem of older women who live in poverty, my standard reaction is that, recognizing this issue, we should develop a program whereby women (and men) who stay at home with their kids are credited with an amount of money towards their future social security earnings. This amount could reflect the average cost of daycare in the state where one resides, or the income which equates to the poverty level for one person. Regardless of the metric, women would at least have an extra safety net to counter events that force them to sell their homes, or take menial jobs to make ends meet, when their only crime was staying at home to raise their children.
Bregman takes this concept to the next level however, proposing a universal basic income for all people. It is an idea that, while certainly not mainstream, is actually being discussed in reasonable tones, and is being experimented with in various iterations in a few countries, and especially as a way to end homelessness. Bregman cites all kinds of studies which demonstrate that giving people cash is far more effective than any of the standard, traditional methods of assisting those in need.
As part of this argument, Bregman agrees with those who rail against the various "helping" programs that exist, not because he believes we should only advocate for "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" which he finds immoral and inhumane, but because there is not enough proof behind the efficacy of so many of our current attempts to address the ills of poverty and homelessness, and that too much of the resources applied to the problem are wasted on administrative costs related to oversight and evaluation and fraud prevention.
Whether universal basic income is actually the norm in 25 or 50 years, it has been documented again and again that giving people in need an infusion of cash, especially the homeless, propels them to correcting their situation, and saves future expenditures related to policing, prison, and welfare. It is an investment that almost always returns more than it costs.
The 15 hour work week, on the face of it, seems unrealistic. How can the wheels of industry continue to turn if people only work 15 hours a week, and, what will people do with all that free time?
The latter question has always been offered as a reason by employers and other institutions as to why people need to work. And, frankly, given the rise in suicides and drug overdoses that occurred during the lock downs related to the pandemic, I can see why most people would shrug off such a concept.
But, using a situational instance such as the pandemic is not a good evaluation of a program, since we were thrust into the changes that marked our attempts to save lives, whereas working towards a 15 hour work week would entail a progression of steps to get us there, not a sudden change.
Also, there is something to be said for the belief that it is the very nature of our workaday world, the financial stress of always seeming to be just a bit behind, the jobs that provide little or no fulfillment, the pressures of holding ones tongue when presented with abusive co-workers or supervisors, that contributes heavily to high drug use and suicide rates.
Don't get me wrong, I am not convinced even after reading the book, but if there is a way to reduce the sheer number of unhappy people who kill themselves, or drown their sorrows in alcohol, then I am willing to try a new way.
Since Bregman's book was written in 2014, and re-released in 2017, there has been a real sea change in how we work as indicated by the meteoric rise in at-home work. Of course, there has been push back from some business owners, CEO's, certain politicians, but there is also growing data that people are more productive when working from home even if they put in less than the traditional 40 hours, since they work without the stress of a commute or the hovering of a supervisor in a safe, comfortable environment. Is this an indication that moving towards a 15 hour week is already upon us, or at least, less crazy a concept that even just five years ago?
The last concept in the book is open borders. Again, this was written before the demonization strategy of a certain politician who brainwashed a significant percentage of Americans that immigrants were evil people. I can't even begin to imagine any politician from any party or ideology, advocating in public for an open border today.
As it is, I see the phrase open border used in conjunction with Biden multiple times every day, even though that is far from the truth. An open border is not defined as detaining and returning to their home country hundreds of thousands of people every year. The very existence of ICE and other border patrol agencies, the existence of an asylum program for those escaping religious and political persecution, and the need for agents, lawyers and judges to operate those various programs, belie the daily use of the term open border.
Ironically, many of the ancestors of those very same people most vocal about open borders, came to America when we truly had an open border policy.
As far as I know, the Pilgrims were not detained at Plymouth Rock when they arrived. While, perhaps, the indigenous people of the time should have required references, or proof of a skill, or familiarity with the prevalent culture, from the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620, there was an open border to the "New World".
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and most of the founders took advantage of the open border of the day, and, maintained that concept during the infancy of the United States. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the first restrictive immigration bill was enacted as a way to restrict Chinese immigrants to America. Racist? Certainly.
It wasn't until 1924 that the United States initiated immigration restrictions that were not prejudiced, at least not on its face. That law restricted to 2% the number of visas issued for each nationality as reflected by their population from the 1890 census. We can debate the latent prejudice involved in the use of the 1890 census as opposed to the more recent 1910, or even 1900 census, but suffice it to say that the influx of immigrants from certain countries between 1890 and 1910, inspired the use of that 1890 census so that the 2% number was far less, meaning less of "those" people would be allowed to immigrate.
So, in other words, the United States indeed had an open border for the first 150 years before its founding, and then another 150 years after its declaration of independence. Only in the last 100 year has there been restrictions on immigrants, and those have always been based on prejudice.
Bregman, again using all kinds of statistics, attempts to prove, that, once again, our current methods of addressing immigration by providing support for the country of origin of those wishing to come here, has not been proven to be effective, whereas allowing those people to come here, unencumbered, will be better for them as well as the country at large. I would recommend you read that section for yourself to test his logic and points.
Interestingly, Bregman reminds us in this section of the book, that goods and ideas are allowed to migrate from country to country, across borders without checkpoints. Of course, it is no surprise that most people are for free trade, as it is a staple of the entire capitalist system.
But think about ideas. Is there anything more dangerous than ideas that counter the norms and rules of society? We have a history of labeling certain thoughts as dangerous, sometimes using the phrases immoral or anti-social, and we obviously discourage ideas that are associated with communism and socialism, yet we generally allow discussions of those concepts in the name of free speech.
Yet, a poor immigrant mother who walks hundreds of miles with her children are denied entry to America because she is some kind of threat to our way of life.
I have said it before, and will say it again. America is as great as it is precisely because we have accepted people from all over the world, because we enjoy the diversity of culture and experiences, and because we seek equity in opportunity for all people, those who did nothing to earn the blessings of our country other than being born here, and those who take great risk, leave everything they know, and come here for a better life.
Frankly, if you even pretend to believe in the phrase "all men are created equal", working towards more reasonable immigration laws which recognize the humanity of those seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while providing a process that provides a safe, legal pathway for them while easing the anxiety of those natives who worry about how their country might change, should be of the highest priority. Anything short of that, any words such as vermin and invasion when talking about immigration are not only saturated with prejudice, but fly in the face of what has made our country great.
Whether Bregman's advice for us to return to the open border policies of our past which created the foundation of our country is followed, remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment