1. Pulitzer prize-winner Matthew Desmond poured ice water on the debate over universal basic income and a federal jobs guarantee. nytimes.com/2018/09/11/mag…
2. In a portrait of Vanessa (at right, above), a woman who cannot climb the social ladder no matter how hard she works, Desmond wrote that liberals have allowed conservatives to dominate the poverty debate so much they don’t defend anti-poverty measures that work. Instead,
3. Desmond: they find themselves arguing about radical solutions that imagine either a fully employed nation (like a jobs guarantee) or a postwork society (like a universal basic income). Neither plan has the faintest hope of being actually implemented nationwide anytime soon,
4. Desmond: which means neither is any good to Vanessa and millions like her. When so much attention is spent on far-off, utopian solutions, we neglect the importance of the poverty fixes we already have.
5. Desmond: Safety-net programs that help families confront food insecurity, housing unaffordability and unemployment spells lift tens of millions of people above the poverty line each year.
6. Desmond’s article should be required reading for any Democrat pondering a run in 2020. He says we need a new language for talking about poverty. That seems right, and whoever decides to take a crack at the party’s nomination should spend time devising such a language.
7. But I’m not sure about his remedy. He says it’s not enough to say that nobody who works should be poor. “Nobody in America should be poor, period.” Yes, of course, but how?
8. I think the Democrats should pay particular attention to the accepted GOP definition of hard work, and challenge it.
9. That definition not only excludes workers in the gig economy, but also the vast number of people not part of the formal business environment.
10. These people take care of their children, take care of the sick and the old, volunteer at their churches, their civic organizations, and in community affairs. This is work, too, and should be recognized as worthy of material compensation.
11. An expansive definition of work could serve two purposes for the Democrats. One, it would counter the Republicans’ view.
12. If you have to work to get food stamps or other gov't aid, let it be work you’re doing instead of the GOP notion of work that must take place in a business context and therefore taking away from your kids & therefore, forcing you to pay for services you already can’t afford.
13. But more importantly, an expansive definition of work would harness the power of the American dream and the American work ethic and push them in the right direction, politically, rather than seek a replacement for beliefs older than the country.
14. The problem is hard work isn’t rewarded as it once was. Find ways of rewarding hard work, all hard work, and the Democrats find a way back to the promised land.
15. Thanks for reading this threaded version of extra features found in the Editorial Board. For less than a cup of Starbucks every day, you get daily insight sent to your inbox. Subscribe today! stoehr.substack.com/p/the-republic…
