An Annotated & Illustrated Collection of Worldwide Links to Mythologies,
Fairy Tales & Folklore, Sacred Arts & Sacred Traditions
by Kathleen Jenks, Ph.D.

Common Themes, East & West:
Money, Wealth & Treasure

Selections from Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
on a Guaranteed Annual Income
(An Attachment to my Common Themes: Money Page)
* 17 February 2011: there is now a new companion page:
President Obama's 2011 Budget. What an eerie contrast between these two men!

Photo by T. W. Collins

All selections come from:
A Testament of Hope:
The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.
(James M. Washington, ed., Harper & Row, 1986).

This first selection is from a 1967 speech,
"Where Do We Go From Here?,"
Dr. King's last and most radical SCLC presidential address;
 pp. 247-248:

        ...We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income.  Now, early in this century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation, as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's ability and talents. And, in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operations of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will....

        The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available. In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote in Progress and Poverty:

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they may get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased.

[Note: this version of the 1879 quote came from chapter 5 of Dr. King's short 1967 book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?  There are several differences between the book version and the SCLC address, but the book version is better -- it will be found on pp. 615-616 in A Testament of Hope. The SCLC address now continues, although revised portions of these passages are also in the aforementioned brief book]:

...[W]e are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes who have a double disability will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

        Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably wil result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts among husbands, wives and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on the scale of dollars is eliminated.

        Now our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth....

The next selection comes from a "Face to Face" TV interview,
first broadcast on 28 July 1967;
p. 409:

KING: [Responding to a question from the audience]: Let me say this: that I'm not guaranteeing -- I mean calling for a guaranteed annual wage as a substitute for a guaranteed job. I think that ought to be the first thing, that we guarantee every person capable of working a job. And this can be done in many, many ways. There are many things that we need to be done that's not being done now. And this could provide the jobs.

        I'm speaking of a guaranteed annual wage as a minimum income for every American family, so that there is an economic floor, and nobody falls beneath that. And of course, there are definitely going to be people all along, people who are unemployable, as a result of age, as a result of lack of something that failed to develop here or there, and as a result of physical disability. Now these are the people who just couldn't work. Certainly they have a right to have an income. If one has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then he has a right to have an income.

        Now, this may mean a radical, in a sense, redefinition of work. Maybe we've got to come to see that a mother who's at home as a housekeeper or as a housewife is working. Maybe we've got to see now that the fellow who drops out of school and later needs to go back to school is working when he's studying and he couldn't get back to school, maybe, if he didn't get some money. So maybe we need to redefine work....

Final selections are from the aforementioned chapter 5 of the book,
Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?,
pp. 614-617:

... There is only one general proposal that I would like to examine here, because it deals with the abolition of poverty within this nation and leads logically to my final discussion of poverty on an international scale.

        In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike.

        Up to recently we have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development. The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty.

        While none of these remedies in itself is unsound, all have a fatal disadvantage. The programs have never proceeded on a coordinated basis or at similar rates of development. Housing measures have fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies. They have been piecemeal and pygmy. Educational reforms have been even more sluggish and entangled in bureaucratic stalling and economy-dominated decisions. Family assistance stagnated in neglect and then suddenly was discovered to be the central issue on the basis of hasty and superficial studies. At no time has a total, coordinated and fully adequate program been conceived. As a consequence, fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.

        In addition to the absence of coordination and sufficiency, the programs of the past all have another common failing -- they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else.

        I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.... [We] know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty....

...Though there have been increases in purchasing power, they have lagged behind increases in production. Those at the lowest economic level, the poor white and Negro, the aged and chronically ill, are traditionally unorganized and therefore have little ability to force the necessary growth in their income. They stagnate or become even poorer in relation to the larger society....

        Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not at the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline. If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would have to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.

        This proposal is not a "civil rights" program, in the sense that that term is currently used. The program would benefit all the poor, including the two-thirds of them who are white. I hope that both Negro and white will act in coalition to effect this change, because their combined strength will be necessary to overcome the fierce opposition we must realistically anticipate.

        Our nation's adjustment to a new mode of thinking will be facilitated if we realize that for nearly forty years two groups in our society have already been enjoying a guaranteed income. Indeed, it is a symptom of our confused social values that these two groups turn out to be the richest and the poorest. The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however miniscule, through welfare benefits....

        The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

        The curse of poverty has no justification in our age.... The time has come for us to civilize outselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.


Back to Myth*ing Links' Main Page for
Common Themes, East & West:
Money, Wealth & Treasure


Please note that I cannot help with homework but if you have comments or suggestions,
you'll find my email address at the bottom of my home page.

This page created with Netscape 4.7
Text and Design:
Copyright 2009 by Kathleen Jenks, Ph.D.
(except for all quotations from Dr. King).
Selections typed and formatted 9 October 2009, noon-3pm.
Unofficially launched 6pm, 9 October 2009
(official launch will be when the main page is complete).
17 February 2011: added link to new companion page on President Obama's 2011 Budget.