Log in

View Full Version : The Job Guarantee: A Government Plan for Full Employment



Die Neue Zeit
9th November 2011, 03:45
It's a bit short and fluffily biased towards progressivism, but it's a great article compared to all the other reformist or faux-reformist "Re-Imagining Capitalism" articles: http://www.thenation.com/article/161249/job-guarantee-government-plan-full-employment



By L. Randall Wray

There is no economic policy more important than job creation. The private sector plays an invaluable and dynamic role in providing employment, but it cannot ensure enough jobs to keep up with population growth or speed economic recovery—much less achieve the social goal of full employment for all Americans. Thankfully, there is an alternative: a job guarantee through a government-provided “employer of last resort” program offering a job to anyone who is ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage plus legislated benefits.

In recent decades full employment has been wrongly dismissed as not only impossible but economically counterproductive. Though the Employment Act of 1946 committed the government to the goal of high employment (it was amended by the 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which targeted a measured unemployment rate of 3 percent), we act as if full employment would ruin us, destroying the value of our currency through inflation and depreciation, and weakening the labor discipline that high unemployment maintains through enforced destitution. Through the thick and thin of the business cycle, we leave tens of millions of Americans idle in the belief that this makes political, economic and social sense.

It doesn’t. The benefits of full employment include production of goods, services and income; on-the-job training and skill development; poverty alleviation; community building and social networking; social, political and economic stability; and social multipliers (positive feedbacks and reinforcing dynamics that create a virtuous cycle of socioeconomic benefits). An “employer of last resort” program would restore the government’s lost commitment to full employment in recognition of the fact that the total impact would exceed the sum of the benefits.

The program has no time limits or restrictions based on income, gender, education or experience. It operates like a buffer stock: in a boom, employers will recruit workers out of the program; in a slump the safety net will allow those who lost their jobs to preserve good habits, keeping them work-ready. It will also help those unable to obtain work outside the program enhance their employability through training. Work records will be kept for all participants and made available to potential employers. Unemployment offices will be converted to employment offices, to match workers with jobs that suit them and to help employers recruit staff.

All state and local governments and registered nonprofit organizations can propose projects; proposals will be submitted to a newly created office within the Labor Department for final approval and funding. The office will maintain a website providing details on all pending, approved and ongoing projects, and final reports will be published after projects are complete.

Participants will be subject to all federal work rules, and violations will lead to dismissal. Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year. Workers will be allowed to organize through labor unions.

The program will meet workers where they are and take them as they are: jobs will be available in local communities and will be tailored to suit employees’ level of education and experience (though with the goal of improving skills). Proposals should include provisions for part-time work and other flexible arrangements for workers who need them, including but not restricted to flexible arrangements for parents of young children.

All participants will obtain a Social Security number and maintain a bank account in an FDIC-insured bank. Weekly wages will be paid by the federal government directly to participants’ accounts. The government will also provide funding for benefits as well as approved expenses up to a maximum of 
10 percent of wages paid for a project (to cover the cost of administrative materials and equipment).

Estimated spending will be 1–2 percent of GDP, with economic, social and political benefits several times larger. Net program costs will be much lower, since spending on unemployment compensation and other relief will be reduced—this program will pay people for working, rather than paying them not to work. The promise of increased national productivity and shared prosperity should far outweigh any fears about rising deficits. To fulfill this promise, we need to put Americans back to work.

Judicator
9th November 2011, 06:10
By "full employment" ... is he disregarding the concept of a natural rate of unemployment basically thinking an ideal world is one in which nobody spends any time looking for jobs at all and takes the first one they're offered on day 1 of unemployment?

In other words, does he think unemployment should be 3-5% rather than 9%, or 0% rather than 9%?

Die Neue Zeit
9th November 2011, 06:14
He's writing about zero structural and cyclical unemployment. Make what you will of frictional unemployment.

RichardAWilson
14th November 2011, 22:23
I like the idea of a national jobs program.

We need to be spending $2.2 trillion in infrastructure over the coming decade (According to the American Society of Civil Engineers) just to maintain our standing.

Imagine the high-paying construction and manufacturing (via Buy American Materials Contracting) that can be created from such an initiative.

The long-run economic benefits are obvious. Billions of dollars worth of gas and time are wasted on our congested roads and highways.

Billions of dollars more are wasted when you consider the benefits of mass-transit. (I.e. Less money used for imported oil and more money for saving, investing and spending, cleaner air and fewer health problems correlated with air pollution, etc.)

Furthermore, such a program could be expended to provide more focus on our electrical grid and infrastructure (I.e. the high-tech "Smart Grid," wind turbines, solar farms, fuels from agricultural production and derivatives, etc., etc.)

P.S. Did you know broadband connections are 400% faster in S. Korea than here in America? We could begin investing more in broadband and we could provide free and universal wireless web connections across the nation.)

All of these things would yield a short and long term economic return in the form of less congestion, cleaner air, a reduced trade deficit, more manufacturing, job-creation, etc., etc., etc. With interest rates on treasury bonds nearing an all-time low, we could even afford to borrow the money and the return would more than offset the expense.

RichardAWilson
14th November 2011, 22:29
Plus, I do believe Sweden once maintained (for almost a decade) a jobless rate of around 2% without much consumer price inflation.

The American Theory of the Taylor Rule and the "Natural Rate of Unemployment" is hilarious and just another way that Wall St. uses policy to maintain a surplus army of unemployed as a means of suppressing wages and maintaining a revolving-door of pink slips.

Die Neue Zeit
16th November 2011, 01:24
I like the idea of a national jobs program.

We need to be spending $2.2 trillion in infrastructure over the coming decade (According to the American Society of Civil Engineers) just to maintain our standing.

You do realize that the article was polemicizing against typical public works programs, right? "National jobs program" sounds a bit flimsy compared to how Wray phrased his proposal.

RichardAWilson
16th November 2011, 05:13
Yes, I do realize that. However, with so much to do in the public works arena, we need to focus on infrastructure to begin with.

After which, we can focus on employing people in the "third sector" - I.e. Volunteering and Charitable Work and so forth.

These ideas aren't unique and were included in a book written over a decade ago called "The End of Work." It calls for a National Work Program that hires hardworking men and women for the "third sector," culture, etc.

RichardAWilson
16th November 2011, 05:16
I should add that both ideas are Keynesian, although both could become Marxian if they were applied in a socialized economy.

"The Government as an Employer of Last Resort" is as Keynesian as the "Federal Reserve as Lender of Last Resort" and the "Government as Consumer of Last Resort."

RGacky3
16th November 2011, 08:17
My problem with infastructure spending as a solution is it is specifically designed to keep in the status quo while fixing the problems the market creates.

Just finding something the government can do to keep the economy alive, that does'nt touch the actual structure of the economy, is typical light keynsianism.

I think what has to happen is both infastructure spending, FOR ITS OWN SAKE, and a restructuring of the economy, I would MUCH prefer to see a cooperative institution put into place with federal funding for unemployed people to set up coops than more infastructure.

Die Neue Zeit
16th November 2011, 14:28
^^^ So you like ELR, but would rather have some massive coop as the employment-of-last-resort agency?


I should add that both ideas are Keynesian, although both could become Marxian if they were applied in a socialized economy.

Indeed, and I think this was Kalecki's immediate post-revolutionary proposal.


"The Government as an Employer of Last Resort" is as Keynesian as the "Federal Reserve as Lender of Last Resort" and the "Government as Consumer of Last Resort."

Check out this PowerPoint PDF:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-keynesian-microeconomic-t163983/index.html

Anyway, I sorta disagree. There are radical Post-Keynesians and there are Bastard Keynesians. The latter two (lender and consumer) are too tied historically to indirect "full employment" policies and related aggregate demand and money multiplier BS.

RGacky3
16th November 2011, 16:42
^^^ So you like ELR, but would rather have some massive coop as the employment-of-last-resort agency?


I'm not saying some massiave coop, it was actually an American socialist party proposal, providing an institution where unemployed people can get together, start a cooperative idea, and get funding from the state to start a cooperative (or sole propriatorship). Also it may not even be the employment of last resort, it could also be a tool to stop capitalists from driving down wages with the threat of unemployment.

Die Neue Zeit
17th November 2011, 03:08
That's a different policy for a different policy issue area. Worker Cooperatives with State Aid goes back all the way to Ferdinand Lassalle in his valiant struggle against "self-help" bourgeois liberals.

RichardAWilson
17th November 2011, 08:38
I think we should take a three tier approach:

Investments in infrastructure programs - I.e. Public Works Working Progress Admin. - that provides trillions of dollars in new infrastructural investments.

These men and women would paid the average wage in the construction sector.

Furthermore, this approach could create millions of manufacturing jobs if we were to purchase those materials from American factories and distributors.

2. We could form a Cooperative Model with charitable organizations, such as Habitat, which builds safe and affordable homes for lower-income families.

We could hire millions to work in this field: providing substance abuse counseling to those with drug and alcohol addictions, offering mental health counseling, providing mentors for our young people that need a little help with their studies, finding jobs and homes for the homeless, operating food pantries, etc. etc.

Americans employed in this "third sector" of compassion would receive a minimum wage.

Other unemployed Americans might like the idea of launching a cooperative business. We could provide zero-interest loans and financing to start these cooperative ventures.

Marcist
18th November 2011, 23:52
Is the government even capable of this?