The Poverty Prerequisite
The last few months, ultra-rich conservative US politicians keep forgetting that voters like it when they at least appear to believe in the dignity and value of work. If they don't, then how will we maintain our illusion that one day we too might be ridiculously wealthy, with our own menial labourers to look down upon?
The statements by Kevin Hassett, Wilbur Ross and Larry Kudlow towards the end of Trump and McConnell's US government shutdown were spectacular. They forgot to even pretend that workers deserve to be paid. Now Ivanka Trump has fit an entire leg down her pretty white throat. Apparently, "people want the ability to be able to secure a job" and "people want to work for what they get." Wouldn't a federal job guarantee make certain that people do work for what they get, and ensure that they are able to secure jobs? I suppose Ivanka thinks it's fun to be sending résumés into black holes while your bank account dwindles.
This is what all that money sloshing around in politics leads to.
There's something we could do to assure that public officials will have more understanding of and empathy for the public they serve: institute a poverty prerequisite.
Every candidate for a public office -- elected or appointed -- that governs large numbers of citizens ought to first serve an educational term of poverty. Since the mid and long-term effects of poverty are what we most need them to understand, I suggest that the initial term be at least half of the term of the office sought, with a minimum of 1 year. (For those seeking offices in charge of justice, the poverty prerequisite should also include some time as a prisoner.) Candidates with direct experience of poverty can have that experience assessed against the prerequisite, and then complete any outstanding requirements. Additionally, every decade or two, officials should serve another year of poverty, as a form of continuing education.
This poverty prerequisite should apply to heads of political units, such as presidents, prime ministers, governors, and mayors, to representatives of the people in legislatures, and to cabinet members, such as the ministers or secretaries of government departments. Maybe this will bring more working-class people into politics. Maybe after a decade or two of this program, there will be the political will to implement more programs that reduce inequality and broadly benefit the public, because it would directly and personally benefit the officials too.
how it could work
I feel it's very important that during the term of poverty, the candidate must live similarly to their less fortunate future constituents, and give up access to the resources, connections, and gifts they might otherwise have or receive. If they truly want to serve the public, they'll be willing to freeze their assets and cap their income at a level that requires them to live paycheck to paycheck. Their income will be low enough that they will need to sign up for at least one government assistance program. One of the defining experiences of being poor is having to prove your level of need, fill out at least one invasive report or questionnaire, and wait in long lines for an overworked agent to (not) help you. Going without, because they were refused aid on the grounds that they are not quite poor enough, is also worth course credit.
A candidate's spouse and dependents should not be punished by the poverty prerequisite, but we cannot let the candidates themselves evade the prerequisite. One option is that the candidate's family could live at a comfortable middle-class standard during this period, with any additional income, gains, and assets held in trust until the term of poverty concludes.
During the term of poverty, candidates must live in a dwelling that a person living at the local poverty line can afford. They must pay rent or a mortgage; they cannot own it outright. I haven't decided how that budget is altered for candidates with spouses and/or families, where the family is willing to move with the candidate. If living separately, the family may freely eat or sleep over at the candidate's, but the candidate may not eat or sleep over at the family's more than a few times a year. One way or another, candidates will learn about the realities of affordable housing in their area.
Next candidates will hunt for a job that a constituent with just a highschool education could get -- preferably retail, janitorial, or call-center. It must be non-union and without benefits. It will probably have bad hours and no security. Their bosses will be required to treat them just like any other employee. They'll commute with public transportation, or a vehicle that a person at that income could afford to buy and run. For at least a month, they must rely entirely on public transportation and walking.
what they would learn
Candidates will learn what it is like to have trouble covering rent, utilities, and food. To decide whether they can afford to stay home sick or get healthcare. They won't have paid sick days, and they'll be pausing any health insurance better than what their least fortunate constituents are guaranteed. Note that I say "pausing." For extra credit, they could cancel their health insurance entirely, so that they too can have a pre-existing condition for their next insurance application.
To those sputtering at these requirements, I remind you that many constituents everywhere live under these conditions every day. We can't get out of them. Some of us live worse. After a year or more of this, every candidate will understand, down in their gut, how important every paycheck is. How precarious prosperity is. How elusive opportunity can be, when you don't have so many advantages. Most of all, candidates will learn how much it matters for employers and institutions to treat all of us with fairness, dignity and compassion.