Very few lessons from my grade school years have stuck with me as much as Herman Melville’s short story Bartleby the Scrivener. Whenever his boss gives him an assignment, Bartleby responds with “I would prefer not to.” He is eventually put out of work, imprisoned as a vagrant, and starves to death as he would prefer not to eat.
Kinky economics is big government libertarianism. It is big to the extent that it would own resources and be an active participant in the economy, but libertarian because it doesn’t rely on force (taxation is theft). Instead of forcing business to do its bidding, government can compete with business.
One of the basic tenets of Kinky Economics is employment at a living wage for anyone willing and able to work. Most people would continue to work for private businesses or other positions, but if you needed a job then the program would provide you with one. This does not require make work jobs with nothing to show for it. In a world of unlimited wants, there is always room for productive labor.
Ideally the jobs would enhance skills so that the individual could eventually get a private sector job. The program would act as both a jobs program and workforce development. The job might involve taking classes or learning in demand skills.
The program would also provide jobs that meet the needs of the participants. If there is a child care shortage, they could operate day care centers and train employees. They could own factories, farms, and stores and include jobs in construction, manufacturing, agriculture, service, transportation, technology… Partnerships with businesses might include providing temporary workers or paying a portion of the wages during training so that businesses have an incentive to hire.
The program would partner with businesses, but they would also compete with them. Private employers would have to offer higher wages and better working conditions than the government in order to attract workers. There would be no need for a minimum wage when a living wage is available. The program could also enhance mobility. There may be jobs available out there, but that doesn’t help if you are stuck in a bad situation. Moving assistance would enable people to break out of unproductive situations.
How much would this cost? Arguably less than what we currently spend on the social welfare safety net. If you think that people on welfare are just a bunch of freeloaders, then the program would cost nothing. By enacting work requirements, people would get off their behinds and get jobs.
True believers in socialism would also argue that it costs nothing. The labor done by individuals would generate enough revenue to cover the costs of labor and capital. Work requirements would increase the supply of housing, childcare, food, clothing, … and bring down prices. The only losers would be the rent-seeking capitalists who can no longer expropriate the value of labor.
The real loser would be Bartleby. No longer would he be able to get benefits because he’d prefer not to work. Economics are full of tradeoffs. If you prefer not eating to working, then the choice is yours. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.