The Detroit Free Press relates the results of a report by Wider Opportunities for Women and the Michigan League for Human Services summed up here:
The Basic Economic Security Tables for Michigan, a study that analyzes the cost of essential needs for singles and families across Michigan, found the cost of providing basic necessities — such as shelter, food and transportation — far exceeds minimum wage and the paychecks of people working full-time in low-paying job categories.
Well, I suppose if one can’t live on minimum wage, there is not much preventing those struggling so mightily from giving up on the idea of living completely.
But, as a matter of economic health, we wouldn’t want every consumer who is struggling to remove themselves from the money stream in an irrevocable way. However, it would be helpful if consumers with the least amount of spending power were culled. This would allow the remaining earner/consumers to use freed up income to purchase goods from corporations owned by those that deserve all income streams to flow their way. In case you hadn’t guessed, I’m talking about the wealthy.
How exactly would we accomplish this worthy goal? Well, after a bit of research, I came across a historical precedent that might prove instructive.
A fellow named Jonathan Swift was writing on a similar subject in 1729 and provided this Modest Proposal, which can easily be re-purposed for this modern crisis.
For Preventing The Children of Poor People around the Globe From Being A Burden to Their Parents or the Broader Economy, and For Making Them Ultimately Beneficial to The Deserving Wealthy
Here is the best of his suggestions. Simplicity itself and easy to implement immediately.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
More studies provided at WOWonline