The Allied People's Union

Category: Policy

  • Locked Out

    I spent my formative years without a plan. Always so interested in the future, but my own future just did not occur to me. The reverberations of that of that are still impacting me today. I didn’t do college, get a degree, find a career and thus I now find myself in no position to buy a home.

    While I operated my life without emphasis placed on my future, I did always wistfully picture having my own house. The sense of stability that must come from owning a home must be an exceptional feeling, and my own home would serve as a proud marker of my success in life. But primarily, for me, a house is the ultimate project. You can just keep fucking with it until you die. It is the eternal project. The project from which a million projects are born. That’s my idea of a good time.

    It wasn’t until very recently that it’s begun to dawn on me that my dumb-dummy choices of yesteryear not only prices me out home ownership, but that lack of essential middleclass wealth is going to lock me out of the most probable path for upward mobility. Oops.

    That is to say; without a owning a home I will likely always be a little poor.

    I could probably stand to be a little less hard on myself. I am not alone. Far from it.

    It used to be a lot more attainable to own a home and that was just a couple of short generations ago. Even since 2000, wages have increased by 18% but home prices have increased by an approximate 145%. The reasons for the meteoric climb in prices are varied, but a contributing factor and consequence is that home ownership has become an investment tool of the monied class and corporations alike, with 1 and 7 new start homes being corporate owned.

    Like our democracy, home ownership simply isn’t for the average citizen anymore. It’s another thing that they’ve been edged out of.

    I’m listening to “Abundance” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which seems to argue that the most direct path to solving our housing affordability crisis is by simply building a lot more housing with a lot less regulation. I do love simple solutions that appear to cut through the proverbial gordian knot, but I’d argue that entire production process has grown too rotten to just “do it more.”

    I’ve been investigating alternative home models to traditional home ownership since I created the People’s Accord, which has prescriptive measures listed in the article about the right to quality and affordable shelter. I’ve come across some interesting ideas, but a lot of them remove the wealth building advantages of owning a home and while I’m an enthusiastic progressive, I’m not trying to remap the pathways of the middleclass economy. That, and I don’t want roommates, even if we’re working for a common goal and all those noble purposes.

    What I’ve found are Community Land Trusts, which right away conjures images of life by committee, but its actually about separating the land ownership from the home ownership to make housing more affordable up front, and as a feature, affordability is maintained rather than quickly escalating.

    That’s the basic idea of a Community Land Trust (CLT): take the land out of the equation, put it in the hands of a nonprofit trust, and let people buy the homes that sit on it. You still own your home, you still get a mortgage, and you can still paint your front door whatever color you want. But you lease the land underneath it from the trust, which keeps things stable and a hell of a lot more affordable.

    The whole point is to treat housing less like a hot stock and more like what it actually is: a place to live. The trust keeps the resale prices in check, usually with some kind of formula that limits how much profit you can make when you sell. That way, the next buyer can afford it too—and the cycle continues. It’s a kind of anti-gentrification magic trick.

    And yeah, at first blush, that sounds like a tradeoff. Less upside if the market goes wild. But also? Less downside. Less chance that you’re priced out, bought out, or boxed out of ever owning at all. For folks like me, who’ve missed all the traditional on-ramps to middle class wealth, this starts to sound less like compromise and more like salvation.

    Now—if you’re a wonk like me or just someone trying to squint down the road to the future—you might ask: okay, but what about equity? What about actually building wealth, even if it’s not obscene Zillow-fueled windfalls?

    Enter: Community Land Trusts with Enhanced Equity.

    These models still put community stability front and center, but they loosen the cap a bit. They let homeowners keep a larger share of the home’s appreciation when it’s sold. So, you’re not flipping it for profit like some HGTV fever dream, but you are rewarded for improvements, for tenure, for the basic principle that you lived and invested in a place.

    Some of these enhanced models even use shared appreciation formulas—like, say, you and the trust split the increase in market value 60/40 or 70/30. Or they let you pocket the added value of that new bathroom you paid for out of pocket. It’s equity with a conscience. You’re not getting rich, but you’re not stuck either.

    It’s still not perfect. If you’re a “house as investment vehicle” person, this isn’t your model (and you’re a dick). But if you’re someone like me—who wants roots, who wants a place that’s mine to tinker with until I croak, and who doesn’t want to be punished forever for not getting a head start—this looks like a real path forward.

    And more than that, it’s a collective strategy. A different way of imagining ownership in a system that’s increasingly stacked against the un-rich. CLTs are a patch on a broken system, sure. But they’re also a crack of light.

    They’re not the whole solution. But they’re something real, something now, and something that works.

    Three very fun words for my future house: Secret Bookcase Doorways.

  • LIbrary+

    A People’s Ledger argument for news as public infrastructure · Draft · March 2026

    The Moment

    You’re reading the news. Something catches your eye — a scientific announcement, a policy shift, a corporate move that feels significant. You click the link. Paywall. You try another source. Paywall. You find a third. Paywall. You move on, slightly less informed than you should be, and the story you wanted to follow quietly disappears into the news cycle’s next 24 hours.

    This happens to everyone, every day. And it is not an accident.

    The Enclosure

    Journalism costs money. That part is real and worth saying clearly — reporters, editors, fact-checkers, legal teams, travel, time. Quality journalism has always required sustained funding, and the internet broke the bundle that paid for it. Classified ads moved to Craigslist. Display advertising moved to Google and Facebook. Local newspaper monopolies evaporated. What replaced them was the paywall — a new bundle, rebuilt around individual subscriptions.

    The paywall isn’t villainous. It’s a survival mechanism. But survival mechanisms have consequences, and the consequence here is the slow enclosure of the information commons. Journalism that was once available to anyone — in a library, at a newsstand, on a public website — is now available only to those who can afford the right subscriptions, in the right combinations, at the right price points.

    The New York Times. The Washington Post. The Atlantic. The Wall Street Journal. Wired. Bloomberg. Reuters. The Guardian. Each one a separate subscription. Each one a separate login. Each one a wall between a curious person and the information they need to be an informed participant in a democracy. The full stack costs more per month than a utility bill.

    This is an information enclosure. The commons got fenced.

    Apple Already Solved This. They Just Own It.

    In 2019, Apple launched Apple News+. For $12.99 a month, you get access to hundreds of publications — magazines, newspapers, digital outlets — through a single subscription, readable in a single app. The bundle works. Millions of people pay for it. Publishers get paid. The journalism gets funded.

    Apple News+ is, structurally, a news cooperative. It pools subscriber revenue and distributes it to participating publishers based on engagement. It proved that people will pay for bundled news access at a reasonable price point, that publishers will participate when the terms are fair enough, and that the technology to manage it is not complicated.

    There is only one problem with Apple News+: Apple owns it. The surplus goes to Apple. The container is Apple’s app. Your reading experience is Apple’s interface, Apple’s algorithm, Apple’s terms of service. You get access — but only inside Apple’s walls. You cannot bring your Apple News+ login to another reader. You cannot use it in a tool you chose. You cannot take it with you. It is not your credential. It is Apple’s product, and you are a user of it.

    The cooperative model works. The question is who runs the cooperative and who benefits from the surplus.

    What You Already Have and Don’t Know About

    Here is something most people don’t know: your library card probably already gives you free access to major newspapers right now.

    Through services like PressReader, Libby, and ProQuest, public libraries across the United States have negotiated bulk licensing agreements that give cardholders access to thousands of publications. The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post. Local papers. International papers. Academic journals. All of it, already paid for, available to anyone with a library card.

    Your tax dollars already fund this. It already exists. The problem is that almost nobody knows about it, it’s buried in library websites designed in 2009, and it requires you to think ‘let me check my library’ when you hit a paywall — which nobody does, because the entire product design of the modern internet has trained you not to.

    The infrastructure of public news access already exists. It is underfunded, underpromoted, and completely disconnected from how people actually read the news. What it lacks is not a legal framework or a licensing model — those exist. What it lacks is scale, investment, and a product experience that meets people where they are.

    The Library+ Proposal

    Library+ is a public cooperative news access model, administered through existing library infrastructure, funded by modest voluntary membership tiers, and built on a single non-negotiable principle: your membership is a credential, not a container.

    This is the distinction that changes everything. Apple News+ gives you access inside Apple’s app. Library+ gives you a login — an authentication token that travels with you, that you bring to your own tools, that works in the reader you chose, the app you prefer, the workflow you built. The library doesn’t own your reading experience. It underwrites your access to it. You read where you want. You organize how you want. The credential is yours.

    The Tiers

    Individual membership: $5/month. Full access to the participating publication network via portable login credentials. Household membership (up to 6 accounts): $20/month. Same access, shared across a family or household. Community tier, student discounts, and means-tested free access administered through existing library card infrastructure for those who cannot pay.

    These price points are not arbitrary. $5/month is below the threshold of a single publication subscription. It is achievable for most working people. It is not free — because news has to be paid for, and the cooperative model only works if the cooperative is funded — but it is close enough to free that cost is no longer the barrier it is today.

    The Surplus

    Here is where the model becomes something larger than a news subscription service. Libraries are in crisis. The United States Postal Service is approaching insolvency. Both are foundational civic institutions — the library as the public’s access to information and knowledge, the post office as the nation’s physical communication infrastructure — and both are being systematically defunded at precisely the moment we can least afford to lose them.

    Library+ is structured so that revenue beyond operating costs and publisher licensing fees flows back into the cooperative’s civic infrastructure: library programs, staffing, digital services, and post office sustainability. A $5 membership that funds your news access also funds the library that hosts the cooperative and the post office that still reaches every address in America. The surplus doesn’t go to a corporation. It goes back to the commons.

    Why the Library and Why Now

    Libraries are the only public institution in America whose explicit mandate is free public access to information. They already negotiate bulk licensing. They already manage digital access programs. They already have the legal framework, the organizational infrastructure, and the public trust to administer exactly this kind of cooperative. They are not a new institution being asked to do something unfamiliar. They are an existing institution being asked to do more of what they already do, at a scale that matches the problem.

    The post office’s role is different but complementary. Its mandate is universal reach — every address, every community, urban and rural alike. A Library+ cooperative that uses the post office’s existing civic infrastructure for account management, physical credential distribution to underserved communities, and operational support gives the post office a digital services mandate that could help sustain it through the transition away from physical mail volume. These institutions need each other. This model needs both of them.

    And the timing matters. Trump administration funding cuts have put both institutions in genuine crisis. The argument for Library+ is not just philosophical — it is urgent. We are watching two pillars of the American information commons get dismantled in real time. A revenue injection model that serves both institutions simultaneously, funded by the people who use them, is not a think-tank abstraction. It is an answer to a crisis that is happening right now.

    The Deeper Argument

    Paywalls are not just a business model. They are load-bearing for a particular kind of power. When important journalism is expensive, it is most available to people who are already informed, already resourced, already powerful. The executive who reads the Financial Times, the lawyer who subscribes to every major outlet, the policy professional with an institutional login — they are not missing the story. The person working two jobs who gets their news from whatever’s free is missing it. And the powerful rely on that gap.

    An informed public is a governance problem for people who benefit from an uninformed one. The defunding of libraries, the insolvency of the post office, the fragmentation of news access behind dozens of paywalls — these are not unrelated trends. They are a consistent direction. Library+ is a consistent pushback.

    We are not proposing to end paywalls or to make journalism free. We are proposing to make access to journalism a public good, funded collectively, administered through institutions that already exist, at a price point that is achievable for almost anyone. The journalism gets paid for. The publishers get funded. The surplus goes to the commons. And your login is yours — portable, sovereign, usable in whatever tool you choose.

    Apple proved the bundle works. We’re proposing the public own it.

    What Comes Next

    This is an argument, not yet a policy proposal. The next steps are to find the people who can make it one: library associations, postal worker unions, journalism advocacy organizations, municipal governments willing to pilot the cooperative model, and the publishers who would benefit from a stable, publicly-funded subscriber base that doesn’t require them to individually acquire and retain millions of customers.

    Published by The People’s Ledger · Co-authored by Atom + Claude · March 2026

  •  The Formula for Regional Cost of Living Index

    Why It’s Time to Tie Wages to Local Realities

    Even people who agree with the principle will quibble over the important distinction of a minimum wage and a living wage. I believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage.  A minimum wage is not intended to be the average wage, or even the operating wage of business, but it indicates the very least that can be offered and accepted. I believe that if a person works a full time job, the very least, in the richest country in the world, they should be able to afford food, to see to their housing, to ensure their safety and protect their future. So, in this paper I’ll use minimum wage and living wage as interchangeable phrases that mean the same thing.

    When I was first introduced to the concept of the minimum wage tied to the regional cost of living, I was at once struck by how obvious it was, and immediately enamored with the way the formula was both simple, yet quite considerate of on-the-ground conditions.

    It is obvious that ten dollars goes further in some places around the country than others. The blanket application of one rate as a living wage is as short-sighted as it disingenuous as an honest attempt to provide a reasonable income. What is quite reasonable in Toledo, Ohio would be an unsustainable struggle in San Diego, for example.

    The calculation is less a single algebraic formula and more a basket of goods and services methodology that accounts for variations in  local prices. The core idea is to calculate the minimum income needed to cover basic necessities for a given household size in a specific geographic area.

    Here are the key components that typically go into such a calculation:

    • Housing: the largest and most variable component. Housing, for a living wage, will generally include the median cost of rent for an individual, utilities (electricity, gas, water, internet). This is where regional differences are most stark.
    • Food: Costs for groceries, accounting for a healthy and sufficient diet. While food prices vary less dramatically than housing, there are still regional differences.
    • Transportation: Costs for commuting to work and other essential travel.
    • Healthcare: Costs for health insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by insurance. This can be highly variable.
    • Childcare (if applicable): A massive expense for families with children. Childcare costs vary wildly by region.
    • Other Necessities/Miscellaneous: This category covers a range of essential non-discretionary expenses like clothing, personal care items, household supplies, telephone/communication, and a small buffer for unexpected emergencies or minor discretionary spending (sometimes referred to as a “modest living” or “basic needs” buffer).
    • Taxes: Federal, state, and local income taxes, payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), and potentially sales taxes on goods.

    To ground this concept in real numbers, let’s compare two very different cities using data from MIT’s Living Wage Calculator for a single adult (no children) paying rent. We compare estimated monthly costs and required wages in Portland (Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro metro area) and Toledo (metro area). MIT breaks living expenses into categories like housing (rent), food, transportation, healthcare, etc., and computes the hourly living wage needed to cover them. Let’s focus on after‐tax take-home pay needed for these expenses.

    Category (per month)

    Portland, OR

    Toledo, OH

    Housing (rent)

    $1,635

    $744

    Food

    $396

    $333

    Transportation

    $803

    $783

    Healthcare/Medical

    $209

    $289

    Civic/Other Essentials (clothing, personal, etc.)

    $299

    $261

    Internet/Phone

    $180

    $154

    Total (after-tax)

    ≈$3,521

    ≈$2,564

    The table shows that a single renter in Portland faces much higher housing and some higher food/other costs than in Toledo. In Portland the total needed take-home pay is about $47,010/year (≈$3,918/month) , versus $34,883/year (≈$2,907/month) in Toledo . In other words, MIT finds the living-wage (pre-tax) rates to be roughly $27.47/hr in Portland and $19.50/hr in Toledo . These gross wages account for taxes, since multiplying $27.47 by 2,080 hours (full time) minus taxes yields about $47,010 after-tax income , just enough to cover Portland’s expenses. Similarly, $19.50×2080 minus taxes gives ≈$34,883 after-tax for Toledo.

    And while that gives you your hourly rate to determine a regional cost of living, I think it becomes even more elegant when you calculate an national average cost of living  (e.g., $40,000 take-home for a single adult renter), and then each region adjusts relative to that. So you create a transparent index that states simply that some place like Portland would be 1.31 x the national average while Toledo’s cost of living would be  .97 the national average.

    In this instance, it would be that the regional minimum wage equals base minimum wage (national average) x cost index.

    It simplifies the comparison and is easier to explain to the public, unions, and employers: “This city costs 20% more than average, so the wage is 20% higher.” This also helps smooth out extremes. A national base wage prevents ultra-low minimums in rural areas while still respecting the high cost burdens in places like New York, L.A., or Portland.

    Example Using Real Numbers:

    Say the national average take-home expenses for a single renter is $36,000/year.

    From earlier:

    • Toledo: $34,883 ⇒ Cost Index ≈ 0.97
    • Portland: $47,010 ⇒ Cost Index ≈ 1.31

    If the base national minimum wage is $18/hr (based on national cost), then:

    • Toledo wage = $18 × 0.97 = $17.46/hr
    • Portland wage = $18 × 1.31 = $23.58/hr

    We get slightly different but perhaps more moderated numbers than the first formula. It’s thrilling to compute and imagine. It’s simple to calculate, easy to explain, and incredibly fair. We’ve debated the minimum wage for decades—but what if we just tied it to what life actually costs? What if we stopped arguing over whether $15 or $20 is enough and simply said: wherever you live, full-time work should cover the basics. Period. That’s what a living wage is. That’s what a regional minimum wage does. This isn’t abstract economics—it’s rent, groceries, and your heating bill. We have the data. We have the tools. Now we just need the will to say: in this country, no one who works full time should live in poverty. Let’s make that our baseline.

    We need policymakers, union leaders, and the public to get behind this common-sense reform.

    • Workers: Start asking your representatives where they stand on regional wage policy.
    • Unions: Push for local wage indexing in your bargaining agreements.
    • City and state officials: Conduct cost-of-living studies and consider minimum wage ordinances tied to local indexes.

    Let’s raise the floor based on what life actually costs. Let’s make fairness our formula.