Parenting and a Living Income Guaranteed

How does the lack of parental economic support affect our societies? How would Parenting change in a society where our basic needs are guaranteed as a Human Right? What effects will securing the livelihood of mothers and fathers bring to our society at large? What needs to change in society and economics to make parenting a successful and satisfying part of our lives and those of our children?

Join us in our discussion with Equal Life Foundation’s very own Leila Zamora Moreno & Gian Robberts, sharing their perspectives and experiences thus far in relation to parenting and how we can change the ways it is lived to build a world that is best for all.
You are welcome to place comments and questions for Leila & Gian in the comment section of this video.

Hosted by: Marlen Vargas Del Razo

Read More

Perspective on ‘A Basic Income for Everyone is Not Affordable’ – Part 1

In my previous post I shared an article by Belgian economist Paul De Grauwe who came to the conclusion that a basic income would only work if it were limited by giving it to those who need it, rather than providing it to everyone unconditionally.

The article raised some eyebrows, but more importantly, generated cool discussion. The universal basic income concept is only one of the many basic income ideas that are suggested, discussed and promoted around the world. Ideas and concepts differ in name, in scope, in amount, in funding method, etc. – but all have the same goal in sight: to eradicate poverty, to stimulate economic growth and to secure human rights.

The Living Income Guaranteed proposal is one of these particular concepts or ideas. One of the points that sets it apart from other proposals is that it doesn’t suggest to provide a basic/living income to everyone unconditionally. Herein, I’d like to place the article by Paul De Grauwe into more perspective – or rather, the publishing of the article – I will not presume to speak in his name.

But firstly, keep in mind that the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal is not ‘against’ providing everyone with a basic income.  The consideration here is the affordability within doing so – and where affordability is theoretically possible, is it also practically feasible? The basis for the argument of universality is often found within the idea that everyone has a basic right to life, therefore everyone should receive enough money to live off. Sure, sounds good, but then we also have to consider that within the current economic model, many are able to satisfy this right for themselves adequately without the need for a supplementary income. Two other, perhaps more significant arguments, play a role within advocating unconditionality. The first consideration being the reduction of the labor force and the strengthening of the unemployment trap. If one receives a basic/living income without having to lift a finger – what is then the motivation to invest in education, develop skills and take up employment? The effects of providing a basic/living income to only those who need it then takes on an unintended punitive dimension to those who do work. Unfortunately – we have defined ‘receiving something’ as a ‘reward’ and ‘not receiving something when another does’ as a ‘punishment’. Providing a basic/living income to everyone is one way to prevent these adverse effects. The second consideration is the cost of administration. With everyone receiving a living/basic income – a check is written out to every adult citizen in the country, and that’s that – there is no bureaucratic lump-slump that is cost and time inefficient.

The Living Income Guaranteed proposal has a different suggestion to mitigate the adverse effects on employment. Rather than providing everyone with a living/basic income, the suggestions is to set the minimum wage at double the living income. Setting these conditions within the labor market makes employment attractive, because even in the lowest-paying job, one will be far better off than when living on a basic/living income.
Administration would still be simplistic as the proposal suggests, especially at on-set, to stick to providing a living income to those who are unemployed or retired. In other words – those who would usually receive ‘unemployment benefits’ or ‘pensions’ would instead receive a living income. Herein there are no strings attached from the perspective that there is no expectation that a living income recipient should find employment soon. Working/not working becomes a personal choice, but a choice that entails the consideration that when one is not economically productive, it is reflected in one’s income.

So – before looking at the affordability of a universal basic income, it is worthwhile to remember that: even if it is not affordable (in practical terms), that’s okay too – the same goals can be achieved in different ways.

In my next post I’ll lay out some concerns in relation to funding a universal basic income through tax revenue.

Read More

Day 8: Consuming Children as Commodities

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to blame economic theorists for treating children like consumption goods or commodities within their theoretic models, while empirical studies actually show that this truly is how parents make their decision in terms of having a child or another child - where children are treated as any other consumption good.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise the implication of this point; that parents plan to consume their children in order to obtain personal satisfaction.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that a child is not something to be consumed and that the decision of having a child should not rest on the expected satisfaction I'll be able to derive from having a child.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that having children has always been selfish - to fulfil the parents' life, to gain more satisfaction, to have a feeling of accomplishment, etc - without even considering if you would want to have yourself as a mother or a father - only ever considering my wants, my needs, my desires.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise the craziness of the current economic system where the whole system spins based on individuals attempting to satisfy their wants, needs and desires - up to the point where children are but another way of attaining a sense of fulfillment.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to be abhorred at the idea of child trade, where children are traded like an item on a market - not realising that in the very decision to have a child, a parent does the exact same thing, treating a child like a commodity, where a parent tries to answer the question of how much the child is worth to them and what they're willing to trade in order to have a child.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that making the decision to have a child in this way, is actually supporting the manifestation of child trade in this world.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to value everything and everyone within my world and the world in general in terms of how much I'm willing to pay for it and how much benefit and personal satisfaction I would be able to obtain from it - always making value-judgments from a self-interested perspective, not realising that life is inherently valuable, independent of me.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to be surprised when the actual experience of having a child is disappointing, while this shouldn't come as a surprise because an expectation was created based on a desire in terms of how well the child would 'quench a thirst' within self and in the same way where if we buy something it is always expected to be 'more' than what the actual experience is of obtaining, using or consuming the good, where we eventually get tired of the item and want to move on to something more exciting - the experience of having children won't correspond to what we had expected.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that if I make the decision of having a child based on how well the child will satisfy my personal wants, needs and desires, I shouldn't have children in the first place - because the actual experience of having a child will be nothing like what I had expected it to be - yet, contrary to stuff that you buy and get tired of after a while as using or consuming it doesn't provide you with the same amount of satisfaction that it initially did - you can't just toss children in the garbage can or bring them back to the shop for a refund.

I commit myself to the redefinition of the word value, where value is no longer defined in terms of the expected satisfaction, fulfillment and gratification something will yield me, but stands in relation to the value of life itself.

I commit myself to creating a world where the decision to have children will no longer be limited and determined by money.

I commit myself to educating parents and prospective parents so that they may see and understand that children are not just commodities with which to fulfill oneself, but are actual beings that require your support and your assistance to develop themselves as effectively as possible to be able to live a fulfilling life of their own.

I commit myself to show how humanity has accepted and allowed children to become part of the definition of life that has been presented through consumerism as that which is acquired through money as but an external representation of completion / fulfillment / purpose for the individual that give the individual an experience of completion / fulfillment / purpose, where having a child / raising a family has become but part of the consumer's process of the pursuit of happiness which is the pursuit of acquiring goods / things such as a home, a car, a husband / wife, an education, a bank account, a retirement plan, a vacation home, a lifestyle, a social group, so that one can view one's self in comparison with others as having accomplished the 'building of a life' -- where, in this process of the pursuit of happiness as 'building a life', one was so consumed with consuming the pursuit of happiness / building a life that one lost sight of the fact that one brought into this world a living being that had the opportunity to grow into the best possible human it could be that could take responsibility for this world -- an opportunity that was stolen from the child by the parent when the parent passed on the pursuit of happiness / acceptance of the consumerist system to the child.

I commit myself to stop accepting and allowing myself to consume life in my own pursuit of happiness, and stop accepting and allowing everyone else to consume life in the pursuit of happiness.

I commit myself to show how through the media in movies, TV, commercials, life is presented as the pursuit of happiness as the accomplishment of building a life through consumerism and that this presentation / definition of life is used to brainwash humans to occupy themselves with the pursuit of fulfilling a picture in their mind of what life is, to distract them from the abuse that goes on daily in the name of profit for the few.

I commit myself to show how the human allows itself to be brainwashed by the media to occupy itself with feelings of accomplishment and achievement through consumerism because it is too afraid to stand and stop allowing abuse - and to show how the parent then passes on this pattern to the child, producing another consumer engineered by those who abuse life in the name of profit.

I commit myself to value Life instead of the pursuit of accomplishment as it has been presented to me through the media / consumerism as the acquisition of goods.

I commit myself to re-define accomplishment as the creation of a world that is best for all, and to give a world that is best for all to my child so that my child can fulfill its potential as a responsible being that cares for life.

Read More