Disclaimer: I'm not a Jordan Peterson fanboi, but he makes some sense from time to time. I take the common sense approach and leave the political bullshit behind. I belong to no party or group, I would simply like to do what's best for all of us and provide uninhibited opportunity to everyone.
Having said that, I was watching this video where he argues against basic universal income which is an idea to offset the widening income gap seen between the general masses and top fractional percent of citizens:
I wondered what a functional solution to this income gap might look like if universal basic income wouldn't work as intended. I think it might be necessary to reframe the problem at hand, and that is that the poorest of the poor do not have the basic fundamental resources to survive and do not have much opportunity to gain some sort of foothold back into society. Additionally we see blue collar jobs further taken by automation and the need for this type of labor diminishing. We equate these types of necessary resources as they relate to money since it's the most liquid asset available; with money you can buy basic amenities such as clothing, or food, or a living space, so it might at first make sense to simply give them money to buy these things. Though this feels as though it's throwing money at a problem that may be more fundamental than simple access. With money they would simply be perpetuating their own existence and the tendency for abuse exists in high risk neighborhoods where the money may be used for things other than what was intended.
The proposed alternative is to directly connect those more unfortunate and low income families with the tools, land, and training to sustain themselves with the very things they need. Build our own homes we may then live in, grow our own food organically that we can eat and share, integrate sustainable alternative energy sources to power the homes. With a roof over their head and a sustainable method of growing crops for consumption, much of the financial burden is alleviated. Additionally, as Peterson notes, it gives function to those who feel hopeless and disconnected, or as though they are not productive members of a social group. This may be the purest way to give back to a community that I can think of, and they would be learning skills along the way which they would also use to train others on how to perform these tasks.
Since feeding a group of people is a project of scale, there would need to be neighborhood cooperation which would naturally lead to a sense of community and trust.
Of course, this is a very idealistic approach and there would be many industries impacted who would lobby against it to keep people dependent on these very resources. But I stand by the idea that putting a chunk of resources up front to feed and house ourselves in a bid for self-sufficiency solves several problems in one fell swoop. It doesn't need to be limited to any cross-section of society either. Learning to grow and feed ourselves naturally would also promote physical well-being and can help offset many of the health-related epidemics currently being experienced. From the business side, we could integrate with much of the government subsidized or even private farmland to optimize the determined necessary output.
What do you all think? Could a future state of economic prosperity come down to returning to our roots to bridge a resource gap to provide stability?