Monty Winton’s letter from Dec. 8, 2025, opens by claiming that a guaranteed livable income (GLI) “determines how much you should be allowed to earn to live.”
That is not what I proposed, nor even close. A GLI sets a floor, not a ceiling. It does not limit earnings, ambition or advancement. Framing it that way suggests either a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea or a reflexive reaction to the phrase “guaranteed income” without engaging the substance.
He then notes that businesses exist to make a profit, not to ensure employee wellbeing. On this point, I actually agree, and it's precisely the problem. When survival depends on taking any job at any wage, businesses are not incentivized to hire the best candidates. A capable, outspoken employee who asks hard questions often costs more, both financially and politically, than a disengaged one who keeps their head down.
That suppresses wages, rewards mediocrity, and drives talented people out of roles where they could add the most value. We see this everywhere: experienced workers passed over because they “cost too much,” understaffed departments stretched thin because turnover is cheaper than retention, and industries built on burnout rather than productivity. It's simply inhumane to deem this as acceptable, just as long as the business is reaping massive profits.
Our system often rewards cutting corners over competence, loyalty over merit, and compliance over innovation. A labor market built on desperation and gatekeeping does not produce efficiency; it produces stagnation, lower morale and disengagement.
Mr. Winton argues that capitalism has made us the wealthiest and freest nation in history — perhaps in aggregate. But for whom?
Wealth and freedom are meaningless if they are inaccessible to most people. Being “free” to choose between two jobs (if one even has that choice) that both fail to cover rent is not a meaningful choice. While other countries may be “poorer” by GDP standards, many are healthier, happier and offer greater stability, better work-life balance, and less fear of financial collapse from a single misstep or decision made outside of one's control.
The idea that grocery store shelves filled with thousands of products prove economic success misses the point. Abundance of choice is irrelevant if most people can only afford the cheapest option. In practice, we’ve created parallel markets: premium goods for those with means and inferior ones for everyone else. That is not market efficiency; it’s economic control disguised as choice.
Finally, Mr. Winton attributes economic distortion solely to government interference. Even if one accepts that premise, it ignores reality. Government routinely intervenes to rescue banks, auto companies and institutions deemed “too big to fail,” while individuals are left unprotected. If interference is the problem, it’s worth asking why it’s acceptable when it protects institutions but not people.
Mr. Winton would have us believe what worked before is the only way forward. But change is not only inevitable, it’s necessary. Refusing to acknowledge that isn’t strength. It’s denial.
Jordan Slach
Longview
•••
Letters To The Editor
Readers are encouraged to express their views by writing to the editor of The Reflector. Letters are limited 500 words. Deadline is noon Thursday. Writers are limited to two letters per calendar quarter. All letters must be signed with name, address, plus phone number for verification. Items submitted are subject to editing and will become the property of this newspaper. Opinions expressed in the Letters to the Editor section of this newspaper do not necessarily reflect those of The Reflector or its staff.
Email: letters@thereflector.com
Mail: The Reflector, Attention: Letters to the Editor,
209 E Main St., Suite 121, Battle Ground, WA 98604
