Article from last year shows how much things have changed in 18 months

Last year Rolling Stone ran a piece titled "5 economic reforms Millenials should be fighting for.  Although it's old, I wanted to show how much the author's ideas and recommendations have become policy in barely 18 months.

In essence the author recommends that the U.S. adopt full-on Communism.

Of course you think I'm kidding.  Wish I was.  For a couple of minutes I thought maybe the author was doing satire but his bio indicates he's serious. 

He lists "things we might want to start fighting for if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us."

"Economic hellhole"?  Well it's certainly true that the country's gone downhill a LOT after five years of King Obozo's misrule, but even with the socialist emperor running things I'm not sure the U.S. is ...how did you put it? an "economic hellhole"?   I'll bet this whiny prick hasn't actually been to a real hellhole or he'd realize the U.S. is a relative paradise.

But some people are slow learners.  Anyway, here's what this prick is pushing:

1. Guaranteed jobs.  He thinks the government should guarantee that everyone who wants to can earn a "decent living" in the public sector.  He compares this to the WPA under Roosevelt.  Somehow I don't think he'd consider WPA-level wages a "decent living."  Enough to stay alive, but scarcely more than that.  But comparing his proposal to Roosevelt's WPA reassures readers that this isn't a new or scary or expensive idea:  "Yes, the WPA was good, and helped everyone!"

"A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices..."  

First you need to know that "living wage" is socialist code.  Whatever you think that number is, think higher.  They've already demonstrated for fifteen bucks an hour.  So what does the author mean when he claims doubling the minimum wage will "anchor prices"?  If he means it would "anchor" a burger at McD's at ten bucks, somehow I don't think a lot of folks will be thrilled.

"...and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed."

Like most of the article, this is nonsensical.  Does he really think raising the minimum wage to $15/hour will result in hiring lots and lots of new servers or cleaners?  It sounds like that's what he wants to claim, but follow me here, Sparky:  If there aren't enough jobs now, what in the world would make millions of new jobs magically appear if the government simply orders businesses to pay double the current minimum wage?

Of course I don't expect this argument would slow him down for a moment--because the guy isn't trying to map out a feasible economy, but simply asserting a feel-good idea, without regard to outcome.

Then, having argued (badly) for jobs for everyone, he suddenly does a U-turn:

"But let's think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs."

Wait, didn't you just argue that the gummint should create jobs for everyone?  But now you say jobs "blow"?  Then why did you take the time to argue that gummint should create one for every person?

"What if people didn't have to work to survive? Enter the simple idea of a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month. 

Ah yes, those simple ideas are the best, eh?  He calls this "Social Security for All" since everyone knows and loves social security, and isn't scared by it.

A universal basic income would provide everyone "time to cultivate new needs for pleasures, activities, senses, passions, affects, and socialities that exceed the options of working and saving, producing and accumulating."

This guy's too, too precious.  Yes, exceeding the options of working sounds cool.  And for the payoff pitch:

A universal basic income could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary...

 Short version:  "Y'all need to give us everything we want.  Period.  So we don't need to work."

"3. Abolish private ownership of land."  (And everything else, apparently.)
Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve.
   Think about how stupid that is. The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public. So why don't the community and the public derive the value and put it toward uses that benefit everyone? Because capitalism.

4.  Abolish private ownership of stocks.  (Or as the author disarmingly puts it, "Make Everything Owned by Everybody.")

There's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that it's called a sovereign wealth fund.  Alaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.

5. A Public Bank in Every State
You know what else really blows? Wall Street. The whole point of a finance sector is supposed to be collecting the surplus that the whole economy has worked to produce, and channeling that surplus wealth toward its most socially valuable uses. It is difficult to overstate how completely awful our finance sector has been at accomplishing that basic goal. Let's try to change that by allowing state governments into the banking game.

This is what passes for sound thinking in the world of Rolling Stone, NY Times and the Left.