Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve May, who is a clinical social worker specializing in addiction medicine and has previously worked in multiple capacities for bleeding disorders health advocacy organizations; he resides in Richmond, where he is also on the town Selectboard.
[T]he Vermont Legislature will consider paid family leave legislation next year, a measure that is overdue by a factor of decades. I hope our legislators will enthusiastically vote for it. After all, every First World economy except for the United States offers some family leave benefit to its citizens. The proposal being considered is not an ideal one. While it provides but a fraction of one’s wage across only a handful of weeks, frankly it is just too little to make a meaningful difference. Sure, it means that our neighbors won’t starve, which is better than nothing. Is living hand to mouth at a time of family crisis the best our elected officials can do for the people of Vermont? We ought to be able to offer one another more than the public policy equivalent of table scraps.
As a society, we too often fall short when it comes to supporting families. We’ve failed to adequately fund family members who have to leave their careers to care for an elderly parent or a sick child. Elder care and child care are both astronomically expensive, to the point where it interferes with the productivity, effectiveness and financial stability of many working Vermonters. This is a multi-generational problem with grandparents being pressed into the role of nanny in many cases. Sometimes this is a joyous imposition, but in many cases Nana and Papa are being drafted out of necessity, not choice, in a desperate effort to keep our families somewhat functional.
Parental leave legislation, like the bill pending in Montpelier, attempts to afford a measure of decency to working Vermonters while recognizing that a healthy work/life balance makes for more effective employees. Upon a birth or illness people should be granted the opportunity “to simply be.” Mourn the ill, support the sick, and celebrate the bounty of new life — we should be able to endure these pinnacle moments without concern for what the boss might do or say. These moments transcend the world of work. It’s about time our politics reflect that reality.
Most of the industrialized world has created a series of defined benefits, like child care tax credit to pay down the cost of nursery school, and paid sick and family leave. Each of these gets its own silo. Dedicated monies set aside to help citizens at a critical time. That’s been the ideal for decades now. The problem is, the benefit is often tied up in bureaucratic red tape. Sometimes the policy barriers are constructed in such a way that payouts to citizens become rare. If and when there is a payout, it is months or years removed from the initial date of application — which is also an issue for many individuals dealing with disability and employment claims.
Having come out of these kinds of systems, our friends in Finland are experimenting with paying every Finnish citizen a basic income — an allowance that’s fully taxed and treated exactly like other earned income. This benefit recognizes that the needs of each person and family are unique to its place inside the life cycle. It would be reasonable to assume that the majority of people will use any financial gains to address their most immediate needs. Granting a single block of income annually to be used at the discretion of each citizen directly allows them to each act in their own best self interest. Basic income proposals have received support from economists across the political spectrum.
Most benefits that have come to Vermont recently, though hard earned, are relatively meager. For example, paid family leave offers a couple of days a year (though the business community would have you think that the cost to productivity presents a clear and present danger to local businesses).
Progressives like the idea because it empowers people to act in their own self-interest. Conservatives like it because it would ultimately lead to fewer programs to administer and a smaller government. But basic income only works when the payment is large enough to provide significant support to citizens in times of crisis, and it absolutely must be available to everyone. That means no means testing and no carve-outs. Only a bill that includes all of this would earn my full endorsement.
Finland is not the only one taking a long hard look at adopting a universal basic income benefit in some form. The Trudeau government in Canada is planning to adopt a version at some point in its first election mandate. Pilot projects around the world from Macao to Kenya to Scotland have been successful enough that the government of Finland has adopted basic income for every Finn. The Norwegian government having discovered oil deposits off its coast placed all of its oil gains from resource extraction into (oil drilling) into a single sovereign wealth fund and interest payments are spun off annually to every Norwegian, and by law it is difficult if near impossible to access the principle.
The United States has a long history with universal basic income, most notably in the form of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). The APF recognizes the shared ownership of Alaska’s oil resources and spreads the wealth it creates annually to every Alaskan equally, with every adult citizen receiving a grant which is treated as income, and is taxed as income by the state of Alaska. Every Alaskan receives this payment, regardless of income, or class or any other distinguishing factor. And while the two examples I have illustrated here are oil dependent, there are many adaptations of a universal basic income model which are not based on oil extraction and could better integrate Vermont values and sensibilities.
Between increased unemployment, significant changes in the labor market due to automation, and a desire to free up entrepreneurs and “creative types” to follow their bliss, basic income has become an increasingly attractive way for policymakers to keep citizens transitioning through a career or life change from becoming destitute. Concepts like basic income stand in stark contrast to the piecemeal approach left to us across this last century, but it may be time to take a long look at how we support the least amongst us. Certainly, this is all very different than the American experience. Most benefits that have come to Vermont recently, though hard earned, are relatively meager. For example, paid family leave offers a couple of days a year (though the business community would have you think that the cost to productivity presents a clear and present danger to local businesses). But skilled labor is hard to come by and extremely costly to train. If human capital is an asset, aren’t people worth investing in? Our policies should reflect that reality.
Politicians spend a lot of time talking about family values. One can’t help but wonder how much time they actually spend reflecting on family. Do they, or we for that matter, really take the time to think about family or the intersection of work and family? If we did maybe, we wouldn’t force our co-workers and friends to set aside the things that sustain their humanity and dynamism in the workplace. Perhaps we’d recognize that the same spark that makes them good sons and daughter, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters also makes them effective directors and managers and co-workers. It’s unfortunate that we ask people to shed parts of themselves because we lack the capacity or will to accommodate them at their moment of greatest need.
It’s the least we can do to adopt a policy that acknowledges that challenging life experiences have value, even if we disagree about how much value. So, in the absence of a solution for the entire problem, I support the imperfect bill awaiting our elected officials, and I urge you to let your legislator know how you feel about this issue.
