Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve May, of Richmond, a clinical social worker who is a 2020 candidate for Democratic State Senate in Chittenden County. He is a former member of the Vermont AFL-CIO executive board, former vice president of Champlain Valley Central Labor Council and a former member of the Richmond Selectboard.
For years, Vermonters have heard about the cost of living in Vermont. We are all too aware of the realities associated with making a life here, Wages are too low, and costs are too high. Buzzwords like “austerity” come out at moments like this. Last week, the state Senate took up an override vote on minimum wage and paid leave failed in the House by a single vote. Economic justice issues are front and center, as they should be.
Central to the argument of many who opposed both bills are concerns over cost. But we should be clear; costs will go up … either way. Costs will go up when sick workers fail to take off because they can’t afford to miss work. And they will rise when workers take time to address illness. But if ill workers are at home, they won’t sicken half the office, costing employers time lost in productivity as even more workers are absent from the workplace. Costs will go up due to lost productivity. Costs will rise. But I believe any increased cost will be offset by value driven consumers and business owners who want to associate with the Vermont brand.
People repeatedly tell us that the Vermont brand has value. There is no reason to believe that a business environment punctuated by family-first initiatives like paid leave and increased minimum wages and subsidized child care would do anything but add to the value people already associate with the Vermont concept that we have created. These policies will create actual value for consumers and entrepreneurs which will deepen the already immense appeal of the Vermont brand.
This is no less true when it comes to wages and minimum wage legislation or subsidized child care, both of which have been hotly debated due to their cost in past years. We will not bridge the economic divide on the back of low wage “race to the bottom” jobs which fail to provide a living wage for Vermont workers. Economic development demands that we invest intensively in next generation industries that will lay a footprint in Vermont for a century, not invest in mercenary remote workers who have no meaningful connections to the state beyond their next tax return.
We need a paradigm shift. Wholesale, systemic change — these few votes belie a kind of economic unreality afflicting the leadership in Montpelier. The “moonlighting in Vermont” economy of some other time is no longer a symptom — it’s the disease. Too many people are working three mediocre part-time jobs in the middle of a booming economy. We are consistently being told that we are at full employment. Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, responsible for measuring Vermont’s unemployment numbers, affirm what the state Department of Labor is already telling us. For all the talk about hiring, there seems to be a disconnect for a wide swath of working Vermonters. Low wage, part-time, sub-standard, menial, uninspired, drudgery — this is not a work environment to be proud of. This is why our children leave Vermont. We have reached full employment, with “Now Hiring” signs multiplying by the day.
Vermont’s economy needs a systemic change. Our economy is changing. The nature of work is changing, technology increasingly is replacing people through automation. This is why I support a universal basic income.
Basic income has been in the press a lot because Andrew Yang, the former 2020 candidate for president, has spoken about it a lot. Like Yang, I believe in starting with a broad-based funding mechanism to support UBI. In fact, most versions of basic income are based on multiple funding sources. A basic income similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund could deliver Vermonters an annual dividend which permits state residents to use monies to address their needs as they see them, placing the responsibility on individual citizens. Alaska derives its funding from oil revenues, returning a check to Alaskans based on a percentage of gross sales annually. Any Vermont-based plan need not be based on a single funding mechanism. In fact, a most robust basic income would depend on diversified funding streams to insulate a dividend program from any financial shocks.
The simple truth is that the American workplace is changing. That change is dramatic and its creating wholesale displacement of workers across our financial system. Vermont is not exempt from these pressures. The gig economy and automation are major drivers in this economic reality. Simply stated, something has got to give. With more automation there will simply be less need for people to labor and the work they perform will be transformed. Basic income is uniquely positioned to place a floor under working families through a period of great displacement. It enables individuals to follow their bliss and pursue work that can feed their souls.
Equally important is the idea that we need to do something transformative in the economy, because our economy is letting down the vast majority of ordinary Vermonters. The problems are systemic. We aren’t just being failed a little bit. We are being failed on a massive scale, in multiple phases and a large-scale rethink is needed in light of the changes confronting the average Vermont worker.
