Critical Analysis of How to Save the Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay by Peter Barnes

Peter Barnes’ “How to Save the Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay” shows a flawed dividend system in a poorly supported article. Barnes begins by explaining the Alaskan dividend system in which each citizen receives $1,000 to $3,000 a year funded by North Slope Oil. Barnes then goes on to question how this system would work on a national level, despite this, Barnes doesn’t lay out his national dividend plan until three pages into the article. 

Barnes explains in his section “How Would It Work Nationally?” that distributing dividends is the easy part of his plan. Barnes says that citizens could enroll online and then receive the money electronically costing pennies per transaction which is a well thought out plan. Collecting the revenue to fund this system, though, is much more difficult. Barnes expresses that the bulk of the money would come from “selling a declining number of permits to dump carbon into our air.” The thought is that permits for air pollution would become more expensive and as a result the government could put that money into universal dividends and people would invest more into renewables which would reduce climate change. This is a good thought until you consider the amount of climate change deniers and doubters in congress. Why would someone who does not believe in the effects of pollution vote for this plan? The answer is, they wouldn’t. There are 139 elected officials in congress currently that are climate change doubters which means there are 139 officials that would vote against this plan. Barnes also mentions that “households that use a lot of dirty energy would pay” towards the dividends and those who don't, wouldn't pay. Barnes mentions this point with no explanation on how his plan would separate the dirty households from the clean. What would keep lower income households from paying for dirty energy in dividends? Why would Barnes create a system meant to help the lower class while also including rules that can further exploit them? These are some of my many concerns. Barnes also seemingly throws this idea at the end of his climate change point with no care which makes him seem like he hasn’t properly thought out his plan. This unsupported idea breaks his ethos and puts doubt in his plan. 

Barnes focuses heavily on the effects of his dividend plan and how the country would benefit from it. Barnes claims that with his plan each American citizen could get $5,000 a year. The middle class is shrinking because jobs today are paying employees less for entry-level positions than they used to. Barnes says that $5,000 a year “would add 25 percent to the income of a family of four earning $80,000 a year” and because of this dividends are the clear solution to this problem. I disagree. I believe that this dividend plan trivializes the exploitation of people by claiming that they can be paid off with as little as $5,000. I will not deny that $5,000 yearly would not change some people’s lives and I do see this as being a positive solution for issues like homelessness but marketing this plan as the savior of the middle class is despicable. What people really need is to be paid a living wage with proper benefits, not to be given a consolation prize for not being the billionaires that caused this problem in the first place. This idea has the potential to slow down or stop any other beneficial legislation under the guise that people will and should be okay with making $5,000 a year. Barnes also mentions that his plan can solve the economic stagnation problem that America has struggled to fix. Barnes believes that a $5,000 guaranteed income would motivate and allow people to spend more willingly and often. I agree with the thought that more financially stable people spend more money because I simply can not, it's a fact. I do disagree, however, that awarding people money is not the way to go about stimulating the economy. Barnes says it in his article “tax cuts for the rich have benefited no one but the rich,” so why are dividends the solution when the obvious answer has been laid out in his own article. The solution is taxing the rich, or at the bare minimum stop the tax cuts. Barnes shows the reader that he hasn't considered the obvious option which undermines his point and leaves the reader wondering if his plan could be lacking this obvious consideration. This also causes the reader to question his ethos, not only his overall plan.

Finally, Barnes explains that political favor is the major selling point of his plan. Today’s social and economic solutions are trapped between two parties that are majorly divided. Barnes expresses that his plan would bypass this turmoil by saying “[p]oliticans in both parties sing [to dividend’s] praises, as do the state’s voters.” I believe that this thought is premature and ignorant. Politicians enjoy the idea because it is just that, an idea. The Alaskan dividend plan is something that has only been done on a small scale at the expense of our environment, for most, that's all it is. There has not yet been a drafted dividend plan brought to congress and the idea itself has not been properly thought of as an option which is why the critics have not come. Once the public see this as a proper option, many will curate the same concerns I have laid out in my paper along with more. At the end of day, no policy can exist in America without some divided views, it's ignorant to believe otherwise. It’s this ignorance that further breaks Barnes’ point. Any reader who is educated on today’s political climate would know that nothing gets passed in congress without some back and forth. This drives home that Barnes did not completely consider his argument and was ignorant on his point. The reader can then apply this to his whole plan, what parts of his plan were ignorant delusions and which would work? The reader is now left to question the entirety of Barnes’ article

Work Cited

Barnes, Peter. “How to Save the Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay.” 88 Open Essays, pp. 56-60, https://www.oercommons.org/courses/88-open-essays-a-reader-for-students-of-composition-rhetoric/view  

Drennen, Ari, and Sally Hardin. “Climate Deniers in the 117th Congress.” Center for American Progress

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/30/497685/climate-deniers-117th-congress/.