The Government of Distributism

[Peeps]

I think that one of the problems with ANY economic system here in the United States is that, whether we want to admit it or not, there is a group of people that do not want to work and will not work no matter how many opportunities they receive.

Free school, free job training, free health care, lots of job openings, free transportation, free child care, free elder care, free housing, free food, more police presence in their neighborhoods to cut down crime…all this, and many people STILL don’t work!

Some of this is due to various addictions, and some is due to mental illness or some type of developmental impediment that occurred because of poor nutrition during childhood or a childhood illness or injury. As Christians, we are asked by our Savior to help people rather than condemn them.

But some work avoidance is due to upbringing over several generations. What are we to do about this? In the U.S., we keep giving them more freebies and more charity in the hopes that they will change their ways. Is that really the charitable thing to do?

Will a distributionist form of government help people like this to break out of their aversion to working? Or will it merely distribute more freebies (Property? Really?!) that give them even more reason to avoid working?

 

[Annie]

I think you make some good points, but I think that you are missing the fact that, in the US at least, all that aid is structured in such a way as to make it very difficult for people to move up.

I don’t know how it is now, but what I knew about best was Medicaid before the ACA. A poor person who was trying to work could get a raise which would render him making too much to receive Medicaid but which was not enough to allow him to pay for his own medical expenses, especially if there was a medical condition involved.

This is a disincentive to working hard and moving up. Thus, the safety net to help the poor is a barrier to their moving up out of poverty and perpetuates the feeling of discouragement among the poor.

 

[Peeps]

I think you make some good points, but I think that you are missing the fact that, in the US at least, all that aid is structured in such a way as to make it very difficult for people to move up.

I don’t know how it is now, but what I knew about best was Medicaid before the ACA. A poor person who was trying to work could get a raise which would render him making too much to receive Medicaid but which was not enough to allow him to pay for his own medical expenses, especially if there was a medical condition involved.

This is a disincentive to working hard and moving up. Thus, the safety net to help the poor is a barrier to their moving up out of poverty and perpetuates the feeling of discouragement among the poor.

I agree with you that the government aid structure, along with many of charitable outreaches, DO make it difficult to move up because you lose the little bit of aid you are getting if you “fail to qualify.”

However…maybe you don’t know anyone who manages to avoid work (school, training, employment–ANY kind of work, including taking care of their own government-supplied property, clothing, food, etc.!).

But I DO personally know people like this, who actually had many of the same advantages I had growing up (two parents, a house in a small town, both parents educated (Bachelors’ Degrees), both parents working but not to excess, healthy mentally and physically etc.–but now that they are grown up, they simply will not work. They start a job and quit after a few weeks, citing “exhaustion” or “too much time to get to and from work,” etc. And they spend their days watching TV, eating junk, and smoking–lots of smoking.

What are we to do with such people? As Christians, are we really helping them when we provide their basic needs with no strings attached?

Would a distributionist form of government help such people? If so, I would be all for it! But I don’t think it would make any difference, other than to possibly provide them with even more reasons not to work.

 

[Annie]

Would a distributionist form of government help such people?

Distributism is not really a form of government; it is an economic ideal for a society to aspire to or implement. It would take some government oversight, etc.

The issue of helping the poor is not a government concern per se. Used to be that help for the poor came through monasteries, which often received resources from the rulers but also from other sources and all voluntarily.

Well, along came Anglicanism and Protestantism and the consequent breakdown of the monastic safety net, so the government (which had committed the destruction) was looked towards.

And here we are.

Who knows about those such as you describe? The one person I knew who was like that turned out to have a medical condition which at a minimum contributed to his attitude before he found out about the problem. He also had bunch of other issues.

Three medical people have told me that they believe people who still smoke are self-medicating, which may be why psychological medicines help them quit. It may be that many of those you describe are suffering from some as yet unknown problem.

I like the idea of distributism, but I am not sure that each and every person is cut out to own his or her own business. This may or may not be taken care of by including worker-owned cooperatives such as the Mondragon cooperative.

 

[alcuin18]

Will a distributionist form of government help people like this to break out of their aversion to working? Or will it merely distribute more freebies (Property? Really?!) that give them even more reason to avoid working?

It’s important to clarify that ‘distributism’ does not mean ‘distributing free stuff to people’. That is more of a governmental policy. The reason it’s called ‘distributism’ is in the sense of ‘as wide a distribution of property and means of production as possible,’ rather than most of it being in the hands of the few wealthy or the government. Government programs for the poor is a separate issue, but definitely related to my overall discussion.

As I said in my last post, the purpose of government is upholding and defending human rights. According to the Church, this includes foods, water, medicine, etc. This isn’t absolute, so work requirements and such are valid, and we should try to figure out the best way to encourage and raise up the poor out of poverty. But we also can’t allow the abuses of some to cause other poor people to be deprived of the necessities of life which businesses have made too expensive for them to afford. Also, this doesn’t only apply to the unemployed - there are many, many people, and I have been one of them for some time, who either can’t work for legitimate reasons, or do work but still can’t afford to live, especially if they have a family. To uphold the right to these necessities, the government should provide aid.

I think the benefit of distributism for helping the poor is that wealth, salary and work would not be concentrated in the hands of a few. People would be directly responsible, in general, for their own livelihoods, not receiving an arbitrary stipend from a capitalist or the government. Rather than a few billionaires, money would be more widely distributed because more people would own the means and products of industrty. This would also increase happiness, I believe, because people could be satisfied and proud of what they make themselves and in cooperation with others, rather than slavishly working for the wealthy with no real connection to things themselves.

Not everyone would need to own a business in a distributist government, but it would be the ideal. Some would work for others or for society, such as medical people or teachers, and there would be an apprenticeship system where people would work for masters in a trade in order to learn the trade and eventually have their own business. Families would also frequently work together, thus making families more important and keeping them together, rather than individualism of modern states.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Today it’s not real free market because govt is involved in economy (bailing out some not others, giving tax breaks to those who donate to politicians etc)

Don’t forget the government enforced patent system, which in some cases allows unlimited price increases, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Here’s the problem the way I see it. Some types of workers are getting paid pretty well. For the companies to pay these workers, they HAVE to raise their prices to made good profits (which allow them to reinvest in the company and being cutting edge). By raising the prices, other types workers who work in other companies and who buy these products can’t afford them (lets agree on a few of these products that workers need: a place to live, transportation, food, healthcare insurance, electricity, gas, telephone, tv/radio, water/sewage and I sure I’m missing a few others but you get the gist).

Now companies need their workers to produce their product but can’t pay them what they are really worth, those companies pay them what they can and hope that the workers will agree to work at that price because people need jobs to buy those above listed items. Lets make a system where the worker CAN get paid what he/she worth (so they can afford the above products) and it doesn’t break the company in paying the workers. Here’s how it goes. The companies can still have a scaled pay system whether by seniority, or amount of work or anything else but a outside (neutral) body determines the amount of money a particular type of job will get paid (and it will be enough to afford all the above products). The company has a separate paying system that pays workers these wages (since pretty much everything is done electronically, the weekly or biweekly payments would be distributed into the worker’s bank account). Any money the company makes from its product is put back into the company to make the company better for its clients, its workers). The money it makes from its product does not pay the workers. This money is created by the company (but regulated by a neutral outside body so that it is not abused by the owners of the company). This system pays all workers a wage that they can survive on and allows the companies to maintain their business without going bankrupt.

Now for companies that absolutely no one wants the products, yes these companies will go under as they should, there is no demand. Those owners can either start a company that has a product in demand or they can join a company and become a worker.

Our society already has most of the infrastructure in place to do this economic system all we need to do is create the neutral body, determine the wages for each job position, and set up company payment control instead of the federal government. Oh, and one last detail, we have to convince the world this will be okay. Although the US is pretty self sufficient but I’m sure countries we buy (that we really need) will want to make sure our money is good.

 

[Annie]

The company has a separate paying system that pays workers these wages

Where will this money come from?

 

[hvizsgyak]

This is where you have to think outside the box. Nowadays most workers have direct deposit of their paycheck into their banking account. The company just creates the money (think of it as a credit card without any interest). The amount of work the worker did times the rate the worker gets paid will be deposited into the workers banking account. Probably 80% of the workforce in America doesn’t care where or how the money is created, they just want to see that after a week or two of work, they got paid. Again though, the companies will be monitored to make sure they are not doing anything shifty. The worker gets paid his/her true worth of their work. The employee doesn’t have to worry about paying too much money to his workers that the company goes broke and everyone is happy.

The only people who won’t like this system are the greedy who feel they need to have more than others. If your a doctor you’ll get paid a doctors salary, if you are a car salesperson you’ll get paid a car salesperson’s salary. There is no gold standard backing up the money. Its created by the company to pay the worker their earned wage.

 

[Annie]

We currently have a system in which, in general, employees can leave for jobs where they are paid more. This means that companies that don’t pay enough are unable to find such good employees, which may work fine for them.

What you are saying seems to be some sort of board which will specify salaries or wages for each economic niche, no matter what anyone thinks about that, and regardless of the “goodness” of the employee.

It is a fact if our human nature that we have individual motivations, some intrinsic and some extrinsic. Some people are motivated by the reward they obtain by improving, and your system does not seem to allow for different capabilities.

 

[tafan2]

The company just creates the money (think of it as a credit card without any interest).

Where did you get this weird idea? If any company could easily creat money, that is a surprise to me. Why would they limit to their labor costs.

 

[hvizsgyak]

We currently have a system in which, in general, employees can leave for jobs where they are paid more. This means that companies that don’t pay enough are unable to find such good employees, which may work fine for them.

We kind of have a system like that where a person can go to a better paying job by going to a different company but that usually involves getting more training and /or education to get that job position. What I’m talking about is if a person’s work ambition is to prepare burgers at McDonalds, The worker should be paid enough to afford those items I listed above on the salary they make. Of course, McDonalds couldn’t afford paying the rightful salary that the person deserves because they would go broke or they would have to raise their prices to such a level nobody could afford their food. But if you separate worker income from profit then you can pay the worker the rightful amount but worker deserves (needs) and still make a profit to put back into the company.

What you are saying seems to be some sort of board which will specify salaries or wages for each economic niche, no matter what anyone thinks about that, and regardless of the “goodness” of the employee.

The employee would still have a step-like pay scale either based on seniority, amount of work, quality of work but there would be a base pay for the average worker so they could afford (once again) those above items that I listed.

It is a fact if our human nature that we have individual motivations, some intrinsic and some extrinsic. Some people are motivated by the reward they obtain by improving, and your system does not seem to allow for different capabilities.

This system is for people who have to work. We are all called to work. Some of us work because we like what we do, some of us work because we have to make money to afford certain things in our society. Some of us work because we don’t know what else to do with ourselves. But we all need to work. From the most interesting jobs to the most mundane jobs, these positions need to be filled and the workers should be paid a wage that they can afford the above mentioned items.

Try to think outside the box; throw away your understanding of how the economic system set up today where those who have the most drive and stamina and breaks can be the people at the top (and can afford the above mentioned items) and where the rest only get paid enough to afford some of those items.

 

[hvizsgyak]

I said in my original post that an outside third party would oversee the company’s paying operation (this is where the government could come in)(the government wouldn’t have to create the money, they would just oversee the creation of the money so that the company isn’t creating more money than should be.

I know it sounds different than what you are accustomed to but know that there is a growing number of people who can’t afford the essentials in life. Its time we put our brilliant minds together and come up with a fair economic system for everyone.

 

[Theo520]

I know it sounds different than what you are accustomed to but know that there is a growing number of people who can’t afford the essentials in life. Its time we put our brilliant minds together and come up with a fair economic system for everyone.

the number of people who can’t afford the essentials has dropped dramatically in recent decades, and govt programs deserve much of the credit.

Your posts indicate you are more concerned about reducing the ‘gap’ between rich and poor than you are about the actual conditions.

 

[whatistrue]

but that usually involves getting more training and /or education to get that job position.

Not necessarily. Someone with highly marketable skills can move from one company to another based on what they already know and be paid more because the second company needs or values those skills more.

But if you separate worker income from profit then you can pay the worker the rightful amount

How? Fiat money (which is what you are talking about when you speak of a company “creating” money) is fuel for inflation. If money can just appear from nowhere it has no (or greatly reduced) value.

 

[hvizsgyak]

I am not concerned about the gap between the rich and the poor otherwise I would spout some crazy Democratic slogan like “tax the heck out of the rich” and give it to the poor for Christmas every year". I am trying to offer a solution to paying workers what they are really worth so they can afford life’s essential and still have money left over. And I’m setting the system up so companies can pay those wages without going broke trying to pay their workers the wages. And I’m setting it up to get the government programs ended altogether.

We wouldn’t need government programs if workers got paid enough. And we could get the government out of having to create money. They would just see that companies didn’t abuse the pay system.

It needs so fine tuning but its a win win win for all especially the worker/employer.

 

[Socrates92]

Our society already has most of the infrastructure in place to do this economic system all we need to do is create the neutral body,

So, basically a replica of all the departments and nuetral bodies that the Soviet Union tried to set up to control prices/wages/quotas, etc?

 

[Theo520]

We wouldn’t need government programs if workers got paid enough. And we could get the government out of having to create money. They would just see that companies didn’t abuse the pay system.

Ridiculous, many people can’t work or work at full capacity. The govt programs work and are generally targeted at people in need of assistance.

Your approach seems very socialist, where everyone is given a job by the govt, regardless of their value add. This socialist approach has proven again and again that it reduces GDP creation (wealth), which means there is less to share. The companies generate less money to pay their employees and suppliers.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Not necessarily. Someone with highly marketable skills can move from one company to another based on what they already know and be paid more because the second company needs or values those skills more.

I am more concerned with the person who has only one or two skill. Those who have money, those who are really smart, those who have multiple talents, and those who have a good educational degree will always be able to find a well paying job.

How? Fiat money (which is what you are talking about when you speak of a company “creating” money) is fuel for inflation. If money can just appear from nowhere it has no (or greatly reduced) value.

As I said before, a third party entity would keep things in check and make sure companies don’t abuse their payroll system.

And inflation is something we would have to watch for but it can be overcome if we put our heads together. I will look into it.

 

[Socrates92]

I am trying to offer a solution to paying workers what they are really worth so they can afford life’s essential and still have money left over

You mention two very distinct and potentially contradictory goals. Do you want workers to make what they are worth (and if so, how are you defining “worth”), or do you want salary determined by cost of living plus a bonus("life’s essentials… (plus) some left over). You have to define what exactly you are arguing before we can even begin to assess the desirability and viability of the idea.