I'm a solid FDR liberal Democrat, but even I think that this is whack a doodle. And a political non-starter.
1
Voted in the primary yesterday; some good Dem candidates that may win in November. But now they won't win with my vote. I've watched as Dems have won some unexpected races this year, noting that it was the moderate Dem that was able to get the votes. After reading this and other pieces of current thinking from the progressive side of the party, I will not vote for a Dem in Nov. And I will not believe a moderate Dem and her/his promises as I now see that they only talk the talk, but will walk to the DNC demands. Would rather stay a red state than encourage progressive nonsense. Done!
1
Very sad that this is what Democrats choose to focus on right now. With all due respect to Mr. Booker, single-minded focus is what the Democrats need right now, and that single-minded focus has to be on removing Trump from office and winning the mid-terms. This idea of government guaranteed jobs will absolutely not achieve that agenda.
Today, Republicans plan to rollback Dodd-Frank and essentially unleash prime mortgages back on the poor. Trump is trying to stop his investigation by ending separation of powers between the judicial system and the presidency. Children are lying dead from guns in schools and in the inner city. A female police officer was run over and murdered by a gangster in broad daylight in Baltimore, as she tried to help a neighborhood. Mr. Booker's own Newark is overridden with crime. Mr. Booker, you and the Dems already have a full list for focus. You don't need another thing.
I beg you, do not surrender the mid-terms over this guaranteed jobs issue that is DOA when it arrives in Congress.
The Democrats can not win elections, even when the cards are in their favor, largely because of diversions like these. If only liberals had the single-mindedness of purpose of the Trumpers and Republicans. Everything is the elections.
1
A frightening proposal, especially when it comes at a time when unemployment is so low. My experience and observations in working within the VA System is that local hospitals hire and train new employees and then the VA hires them, promising high wages and life long benefits for just 20 years or less of employment. They do this by burning our tax dollars - every year - and hold no one accountable for their performance (public service unions). That is only a speck observation on a vast and bloated government; one expanded by both parties in recent years. The government doesn't 'produce' it's own money; it's workers have no right to promised employment. No one has a right to promised jobs or income regardless of their output, capabilities, or effort. Ever. This isn't socialism, this is communism. The progressives, like the conservatives, have gone too far in their attempt to right perceived wrongs of society and human nature. Perhaps we should give everyone a PhD at birth and call it quits.
1
Terrible idea. Period.
If the GOP wants Medicaid and other welfare contingent on having a job, there must be a guaranteed job available.
The "mantra of 'less regulation, lower taxes, fewer benefits'" is not really relevant to arguments for guaranteed employment. The problem is not corporate behavior, it's about or should be about, directing the private sector in certain directions to improve society by providing demand for jobs doing things that aren't profitable in and of themselves Infrastructure and environmental protection are glaring examples.
These things have to be done. The government needs to recognize this and make expenditures in these directions. It is governmental malpractice, gross negligence to not address these issues.
Corporations will chase the dollars the government throws (yes throws - much of it wasted because that's the reality of government spending) at these issues.
Corporate behavior is what it is and reforming it involves complicated social and moral issues that will hopefully be addressed by the younger generation after the selfish baby boomers (I'm one of them) and their selfish “me first, me last, only me” behavior is recognized for what it is - destructive to the country, society, the environment and the planet.
Guaranteeing jobs by any company, including the government, will assure mediocrity for decades as there would be no way to get rid of poor workers. Job training programs that include standards and work ethic components are a better use of funds. Giving everyone a trophy doesn’t work.
7
Guarantee jobs does not mean impossibility to fire. You have to be willing and able to work. Job guarantee may involved being paid to go back to school and get training, but that is not enough. Jobs have to be there at the end or training is all waste. Work is not a trophy.
3
As a liberal, committed to a more equal and just society, I beg these folks to kill this idea early.
The real reasons for the imbalance of wealth have been reported, right here in the NYT. This does nothing for any of those.
It does give R's a big stick to hit D's with...this really is socialism...the bad kind...that doesn't build a functional economy (go to Cuba if you've not seen one). Wrong for every reason.
Some temporary localized implementation in places that are already suffering, like coal country, could help...maybe. Am disappointed that these 'hopefuls' signed on to this. I will 'hope' for someone else.
1
Let’s give this a shot at supporting human dignity!
I don't think this is going anywhere (especially with über-corporate sell-outs like Cory Booker pushing it), but let's not pretend there isn't plenty of infrastructures out there in need of building/repair that could keep people gainfully employed for decades.
Throw in a bit of trade skill education (like in Germany) and you could see people leaving government jobs for better ones in droves.
Think of it like UBI that makes people work for the money and provides a skill set.
However, in a country that can't even agree on sensible gun regulation, affordable healthcare, or free college, what are the chances of this actually happening?
I'm on the left on the topic of wealth and income inequality. This is a terrible idea. If you want poor people to have more money, just give them money. If they want more money on top of what you give them from a state program, they can sell their labor on the market.
Guaranteed jobs programs are a bad idea for a number of reasons. They're a bad idea economically because they lock up a whole bunch of labor into meaningless busywork. They're a bad idea politically because you just created a constituency that becomes a concentrated special interest that you have to dance for every election season.
Most importantly, how could we possibly afford it ?
With the 2.2 trillion hand out to the ultra wealthy, and 5.6 trillion spent in un-needed wars.... gosh we just don't have the funds.
1
In today’s daily briefing, it was not the employment ideas that were highlighted, but rather former corporate lawyer Anne Kim’s unanalytic (and unanalyzed) conclusion that this is not a solution. Really, Ms. Kim? Those of us who remember our history know full well that it was government employment that saved the USA and its ordinary (white male) citizens from the Great Depression in the forms of the New Deal and WWII. Ms. Kim’s alternative suggestion - that we “need to figure out wage stagnation” - is pretty risible. Does she not understand why the corporations who relentlessly lobby both parties in Congress to avoid substantive increases in employee pay and benefits have also managed in many cases to avoid increasing their wages appreciably in years? Who at the Times decided that her unexplored naysaying ought to be the lead for this piece in the Daily Briefing? They need to revisit the basic concepts of journalistic integrity.
Channeling FDR in getting the country out of the great Depression with CCC, etc. We used to do great things in this country and still can if the dems would go to the people instead of big money for support.
I see the dubiously named Progressive Policy Institute is performing its function of taking any remotely progressive policy grinding it down into into Third Way acceptability. What you are left with is mildly progressive phraseology that describes unfettered capitalist policy. You know, the Bill Clinton model for saying your policy will do one thing and it does something something entirely different, like say, welfare reform or NAFTA.
"Democrats’ Next Big Thing: Government-Guaranteed Jobs"
But do the employees have to really work at these guaranteed jobs, or just state present?
While I'm glad to see a story on this subject, The Times still needs to do a serious piece on the coming impact of AI and robotics on the U.S. Labor market. As some have noted here, the projections for large scale structural unemployment are quite startling. At the same time, many experts pooh-pooh those warnings as unreasonably pessimistic and predict that the AI revolution will create millions of new jobs and prosperity all around. Given this country's dismal track record in protecting employment for middle class and lower middle class workers, I would say we have reason to take this subject seriously, and The Times can help.
1
Senator Booker just totally tanked his prospect for ever becoming president of the United States.
1
I think guaranteed employment is a great idea, along with universal healthcare, and universal pensions for our old age!! As soon as you agree to cut Social Security, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, the Farm Programs and the Defense Budget to pay for it, get back to me, I'll be right beside you.
Until then, go away, you are delusional.
2
Silliness!
Our military-industrial complex is bloated and far too powerful — even the great Republican former general Eisenhower warned us of that.
By rolling back the massive tax giveaways to the rich and the corporations, restoring real progressive taxation, removing the income cap on Social Security taxes —and making them progressive, too—and cutting defense spending by a fourth, we could easily cover the costs of such programs.
To say otherwise is being both cruel AND delusional!
"Job guarantee" mean absence of motivation and a surge across the border so large that it will dwarf the millions that have already made it. It is a recipe for corruption, nepotism and inefficiency.
They tried it in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and Soviet Union. Excellent examples to follow.
3
That is if you think that people are motivated by exclusively by ghost of hunger, not by prospect of interesting jobs and/or by bettering their lives. Just because jobs guaranteed, doesn't mean that these jobs are better than jobs that could be offered by the private sectors. It just guarantee that the private sector will have to offer better jobs than it does now.
1
Can we stop calling the Republican tax heist a $1.5 trillion tax plan?
They gave $5 trillion per decade to corporations and their billionaire shareholders, and paid for it with $4 trillion per decade in new taxes on high-tax-state workers. That is not a $1.5 trillion plan. $1.5 trillion is just the amount that it adds to the derby, per decade, under the Republicans rosey scenario. Most likely this tax cuts will hurt the economy, and the deficit will be far larger.
A billion is a thousand millions and a trillion is a thousand billions.
How can we afford $5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, but we can't afford a couple hundred billion to put people to work at a decent salary.
Democrats should run on talking back that $5 trillion dollars and spending half of it on all of the things we were told were impossible because they were too expensive,
Obviously, they weren't too expensive and Republicans never cared about the debt anyway.
2
Oh, good. More waste products with no incentive to actually do any work. It's bad enough dealing with the government workers at motor vehicle bureaus, the board of elections, the housing departments, etc., now we will have armies of government workers with absolutely no notion of customer service and no incentive to work.
3
The private sectors has all incentives to work, but yet the customer service of Internet providers are horrible. The customer service in banks and credit cards may be better, but every call is a torture because of their automated system is very inconvenient and it takes a lot of time to speak with actual person. Sure, you can try to change them, but there are not so many of them and they all deploy same systems.
The 3.9% unemployment number is so contrived that it is useless to determine actual employment. It only measures those actively seeking work, leaving off those who have given up or have accepted part time or contract work that pays only part of their needs. Many place the actual number, when underemployment is included, north of 10%. Even if the number were correct, the logical time to institute such a program is while the demand is low. Waiting for the next recession to roll out such a large project would be foolish. We know it's going to happen, and likely soon.
The concept of demanding employment as a condition of safety net benefits in a reality where the Fed has a target unemployment rate is simply institutionalized cruelty. If you are in a demographic that is traditionally first fired and last hired your effective employment prospects may be close to zero and you have no access to any means to support yourself. If we are going to maintain such policies the government must provide assurance that work is available at a livable wage with benefits offering some dignity. Jobs are only going to get scarcer in the private sector.
1
Sad to see that Democrats here don't want to help working people who have part-time jobs, low wages, and financial insecurity. If we can give billionaires tax cuts and run up debt for that, why can't we use our resources to help "real Americans," which to me means Americans of any race who are not filthy rich. Democrats who oppose this idea...how do you think we will ever win office with small thinking while those who suffered under a sluggish economy continue to struggle? Just because you're doing OK doesn't mean your fellow Americans are. Universal basic income or guaranteed employment is the only way we can move forward in our corporate-controlled country.
2
We read here that Cory Booker says:
Giving people the dignity of work, of being able to stand on their own two feet, there’s such a strengthening element of that.
Why doesn't he in truth say:
“Giving" people the dignity of work, of their being able to NOT stand on their own two feet but to have to rely on the insinuating crutches of the administrative state for something so basic and fundamental to personal wellbeing as work -- there’s such a demoralizing element of that.”
3
What a crazy idea.
Of course, if you consider the government as merely an extension of "community," it's far less crazy. People in the neighborhood try to give odd jobs to those less fortunate all the time: can redemption, yard mowing, leaf raking.
So maybe its not crazy. It's a good, noble idea. It's just logistically - not to mention politically - impossible.
I live in Manhattan and i'm incredulous as I walk home down Broadway and notice all of the empty commercial spaces that once had retail tenants. I like the burgers at Shake Shack but I have to notice that they've done away with cashiers using kiosks instead. Google German steel-maker Voestalpine who produced 500,000 tons of steel with 14 employees. Look at YouTube videos of the manufacturing plants for Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche etc. and you'll see a lot of cars being made - by robots.
We're on the cusp of another revolution and we're still talking about bringing back coal mining. The power of the coming AI revolution is going to decimate existing job opportunities. Self-driving trucks and cars are not in development anymore - they're in testing. We need a new paradigm for how our citizens will provide for their families while at the same time we're destroying our education system that might be our last best hope ...
27
Bring mobile training units to areas still not recovered from the recession. Especially to unemployed coal workers. Give people the tools to find jobs in advanced manufacturing, new age material construction/manufacturing, solar and wind power, CDL’s for driving rigs on long hauls, the trucking industry is having trouble finding enough drivers, construction for infrastructure,and assistance for relocation. Incentivize companies who can not find qualified workers to invest in on-location training. Teach people to fish, stop throwing them fish!
Democrats will not win with the message of guaranteed jobs: old thinking and a band aid approach. Treat the cause not the symptom of low wages and income inequality.
2
So, to spend money on guaranteed jobs is bad idea, but spend money on training programs are better, even if this training doesn't guarantee the jobs or living wages. Hmmmm...
This is a Dem trail baloon. We need to filter new ideas and settle on something new. I am a small business employing 5 people. in a rural small town. We don't need this kind of program in a real job market. What small business could use is a good health insurance program, like the ACA was intended to do.
3
I am not exactly understand what are you afraid from this program. If you treat your workers well, they will stay with you. This program will not affect you. And as employee of the small business, I need the Universal Health care, not the "affordable" health insurance that ties me up to my employer.
Better ideas: universal basic income and truly affordable housing. It’s time to stop pretending that “jobs” are a societal panacea. Especially in light of yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling that gives employers unfettered ability to exploit workers, there is now no reason to keep pretending that virtue is rewarded in the workplace - hard work at low wages will get you more hard work at low wages, period. And we can’t blame employers for embracing automation or wanting to keep costs low when shareholders expect constant growth. Both sides are victims of capitalism run amok and we can’t put that back in the bottle. It’d be cheaper for the government to just give people the basic means to live their lives so they have the time to take care of their families, get the education they need to do the jobs that society actually needs, and be entrepreneurial in their own communities through freelancing and small businesses. This is turn will keep the economy humming because people will continue to have the means to consume. This is not a new or radical idea; even Nixon considered it, and many of today’s corporate leaders are calling for it. It’s disappointing that “progressives” are still holding onto the reactionary fetishization of work.
We already have this program -- The U.S. government is the largest employer in the nation, and that doesn't even count all the state and local jobs.
Government jobs can be a guarantee of great pay and fat perks, but they can also fall victim to the excesses of over-promising politicians. California is on the verge of a huge pension-fund crisis that has already resulted in less hiring of new employees because localities can't afford the pensions for the ones retiring.
Despite what Democrats like Corey Booker seem to believe, taxpayer money is not infinite. Come the next recession, tax revenue will go down again and cuts will have to be made. Politicians will get elected promising to make those cuts. And the first thing they will do is cut a bunch of unnecessary jobs that pay above- market wages.
5
A better choice would be to provide education that truly educates, more trade schools with free tuition, etc. Not everyone needs a college degree or can be a computer programmer.
3
Donald Trump is the new jobs president. Yeah, China people jobs. BTW, has anyone noticed gas is inching up to $3.00 a gallon? Thanks Donald.
Not a single reference to CETA, a very similar program from the 70’s? I can see why Senator Booker did not mention it because its performance was less than optimal, to say the least. It quickly became a funds source for municipal governments around the country that got awarded based on political connections. At one point, one third of the “jobs” were in New York City. Similar to the cigarette penalties and other amounts, the Feds lost complete control over how government spent the funds. At the same time, voters say big signs “Another CETA Project” as they drove by job sites filled with people not doing much. It likely in a small part contributed to Ronald Reagan’s support against government waste because voters saw the poor results every day in home districts. President Clinton tried to fix it by centralizing control, but as typical of government programs, it became unwieldy with more time spent on administration than hiring. Eventually the only worthwhile part, training unemployed workers, got tossed into the other education programs run by Labor. Anecdotal stories exist of individuals that got their start in CETA, but widespread results, other than temporarily boosting employment in large cities were not good. It may have contributed to financial issues in same cities as those workers got dumped onto city payrolls when those cities did not cutback services as Fed funding ended.
Based on the article and comments, it seems we have not learned much in 40 years.
2
When will the Federal government address rampant ageism in America? Job opportunities for workers north of 50 are nearly nonexistent in this country due to age discrimination.
5
That legal marijuana is coupled with foundational societal issues such “Medicare for all,” free college, and less restrictive immigration rules, suggests to me that the marijuana problem has already been taken care of.
2
Never will happen in this country, white men who need jobs view it as a giveaway to minorities!
I'm a lifelong Dem and I think this is a simply awful idea. As a party we have always been good at self implosion and this would guarantee just that. Can we not just focus on healthcare, common sense gun regulation? Then if we want to get really crazy we can try to up the minimum wage. But this will only turn off huge groups of voters.
17
Couldn’t agree more. I am sure most of us that have had to deal with a government agency realizes how bloated and inefficient these union protected agencies are.
Horrible idea to waste even more taxpayer money on government jobs.
I am all for pushing for a livable wage— that is where the Corporate tax cuts should have gone rather than buybacks and executive bonuses.
2
Why not? Republicans guarantee that Banksters can loot the nation's treasury for guaranteed billion dollar bonus.
3
This scheme, identity politics run amuck, and utter contempt for half the nation shows that Democrats truly are lost in the wilderness and will get their hats handed to them in the next election. Thank God...
5
As a lifelong Democrat, I see government-guaranteed jobs as pie in the sky, and most voters will rightly see it the same way. It's a losing proposition. I would not vote for a presidential candidate naive enough to advocate it. The critics are right: It's wage stagnation, stupid.
4
Consider the source: Bernie Saunders, who spent his honeymoon in Moscow in the old Soviet times, and the corrupt Democrat machines who give everyone sinecures and the employees don't even have to come to work, just have the check deposited. What happens when the money runs out, Sen. Booker? Oh, your New York friends will pay the bill, til the money runs out... These people can't even make a $10 calculator function, but evidently they are convinced that humanity is made up of people with lots of energy and willingness to work. If they ever got out of their limos and took public transit anywhere, they might discover otherwise.
2
It's easy to get a job in this economy; it's nearly impossible to get a good job. Part time, temp contracts, and low wages are easy to come by (at least for now, until the next recession when most of our employers will eagerly show us the door). But trying to find a full time job with a living wage? Might as well be unicorn-hunting in most parts of America.
So any politician who promotes a federal good jobs program has my vote. And yes, DNC leadership: any politician means any politician (including a Republican if they beat you to it).
17
I predict that in the next 5-10 years, a huge number of Americans are going to find themselves out of work.
Bezos has already opened his store here in Seattle that does not even have a checkout stand. You just grab the products off of the shelf, put it in your bag, walk out the door, and it magically charges your bank account. I am sure Walmart, Home Depot, Target, et al are closely watching to see how it works. And when the kinks are worked out, there goes quite a few retail jobs. Robots can stock the shelves.
Once Elon Musk gets cars to drive themselves, goodbye truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, and the college kid delivering pizza.
2
As usual the Democrats work hard to get it wrong. Just like in the 1970s when they created useless CETA jobs. There is no need to guarantee everyone a job. There are few jobs left now that aren't being done by immigrants or robots.
What we need to do is accept the idea that it's okay to be paid to stay at home and be a good citizen. In other words, double Social Security payments and make eligibility easier. Pay people to keep their kids in school and not get arrested.
This will pump money into the local economies and make jobs available there that really need doing.
1
Unlike Senator Booker and other leftist demagogues, I have actually lived and worked in a system where all jobs were guaranteed government jobs. It is a total waste of human energy and dignity, and it was a key factor in the eventual bankruptcy of the communist system.
The well-known joke (not to Mr. Booker, apparently) was: “they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work”. I graduated with a degree in Geology and I received, like all other colleagues, a guaranteed job as a Geologist, in in state owned oil company (ALL companies were state owned, of course). The first thing the company manager told me was that they absolutely don’t need geologists, so I’ll work as a foreman in well maintenance. Just five years of college wasted !
And now Mr. Booker, presidential hopeful, dares to talk about guaranteed government employment and “dignity of work”, in the same breath. Is there any outrageous, proven to be failed idea from the Socialist/Communist trash bin that American leftists would not want to pick up these days ? What’s next, the Gulag ?
4
"Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."
Bob Black
4
IF any political party truly wanted to meet the needs of our Country by way of 'jobs' they would revert to mandatory public service for a all persons upon high school graduation OR at age 18. Such public service would be for 3 years, allow the person to chose between military service and non-military service (e.g. renewed VISTA -Volunteers in service to America, or Peace Corps). In all situations training would be provided to teach necessary skills (military is obvious, VISTA/PeaceC would include farming, basic home construction, farming, etc.) and in all situations, mandatory savings to the maximum in an IRA and equal amount to regular savings account - IRA rules applying to both regarding early withdrawal.
All participants would be pushed out of their 'comfort zone' and become immersed in unfamiliar and new situations. The net result would be persons who have learned life skills, have a feeling for being part of 'something' larger than themselves by sharing and learning, and a sense of how others live and view the world. Through the mandatory savings plans, they will learn to prepare for their financial future.
The greater good of our Country demands we take prompt action to reverse the present tide of egocentric behavior and requires our elected officials to lead instead of pandering to their base - a problem that all sides are equally guilty of.
So, with your plan no Americans can begin college until age 21 which puts Americans behind the rest of the world.
Our country does not need any more soldiers. The Peace Corps is wonderful but does not make America better. My buddy spent three years in the Peace Corps. He spent the entire time in a village in the Philippines that had no electricity. He learned nothing from that experience that would make him employable other than to take another government job overseas, this time for years in Africa.
2
Make pre- K mandatory in all 50 states. Supplement salaries and starting salaries of every public school teacher from pre- K through 12 by 15% in all states. Retire all student loans of any public school teacher who has successfully taught or teaches in any public school for more than 5 years . Make public colleges require 5 years for a degree/ teaching certificate with entrance into the final two years contingent upon meeting stringent GPA levels and other requirements. Candidates from private colleges would need to meet the same standards. Raise the federal minimum wage to 15 dollars immediately for full time employees with full time defined for purposes of benefits and wage rate as 28 hours or more a week. Employers with fewer than 15 employees would be eligible for federal subsidies for the first two years after the wage hike . Other employers would be eligible for such subsidies for one year. Subsidies would be based on a declining scale based on revenue and other factors. Fund a Manhatten project for a 100% switch to green energy everywhere in US with all required infrastructure by 2035 with one time subsidies to retire fossil plants and re-employ displaced workers. Fund single payer. Research & fund cyber defense. Pay by taxes on those earning more than 350 K, slashing military spending by 35%, a 35% tax on guns capable of firing more than 6 rounds without reloading, a 7% tax on private ammunition sales, and legalizing marijuana in all states with a 7% tax on sales.
1
lol, here in Washington the excise tax on pot is 37%.
Oy. This seems like a way to make lemons out of lemonade.
Good messaging: We're going to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and encourage productive employment
Bad messaging: Free gubmint "jobs" (read: handouts)
1
Stupid, retrograde and ineffective. Dunderheads. Also, the problem for the Dems isn't class.
And this is why Democrat is just as terrible as GOP.
1
An idea that smells of desperation.
How about identifying the Republican weaknesses and inconsistencies - on trade, prescription drugs, swamp cleaning - and driving them home?
3
It seems to me that everyone can get a job the does not pay very much or have good benefits. The jobs created are nice if you want to stay in the working poor class.
1
If true, this proposal is a perfect example of the Democrats heartbreaking knack for appearing feckless, ineffective and irrelevant. No doubt, the Republicans will smile knowingly. The problem that the overwhelming majority of workers face in this country is not a quantitative lack of jobs but rather a system that favors the employer at all turns in regards to compensation, fairness and power.
Unemployment is at historically low levels yet the rights of workers to bargain collectively and seek judicial redress continue to erode. For most Americans, there is no general lack of jobs. What is lacking are jobs wherein the employee is protected from abusive and discriminatory practices. Forced arbitration in employment disputes, the disappearance of employer funded retirement and reclassifying employees as independent contractors are common means by which businesses reduce workers to a commodity in a market that they control completely.
2
While I'm unconvinced that a guaranteed job bill is needed, I am certain that repealing the recent republican tax dodge and using say a third of that money to employ Americans to repair infrastructure and forgive student loan debt would have immediate, long-term benefits for the economy.
2
Leave it to liberals to come up with new and exciting ways to help re-elect Trump in 2020. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and the left-wing of my party (not including Mr. Sanders, who is not and never has been a Democrat) still has absolutely no clue:
a) why Trump won;
b) what his working-class supporters care about; and
c) how to appeal to them
Just when I thought the left couldn't get any more clueless. They are doing everything they can to help Trump win again in 2 years, and given their track record of helping elect W in 2000 and Trump in 2016, they will succeed.
Onward and downward!
14
@Mike
Don't you get it? Trump won because of Russia.
Russia convinced 60 million -- not to put too fine a point on it, deplorable -- Americans to vote for Trump with clever Facebook ads.
If Russian hadn't meddled in our election every single American would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
She would have won unanimously and none of us would be deplorable!
3
I think this is a great idea, but it seems to be completely opposed to the Democrats no deportation/semi-open borders agenda. How can you guarantee people a job if you are simultaneously inviting the world in and trying to legalize them?
2
It's sad to think that Bernie should have won the 2016 democratic primary essentially running on the same message.
Good luck with the blue wave in 2018.
1
Trump epitomizes the worship of force and the practice of cruel intolerance, an ugly spirit now emerging and taking hold in the US. His grotesque tax cut is the antithesis of securing a national minimum of civilised life open to all alike, of both sexes and all classes, by which is meant sufficient nourishment and training when young, a living wage when able-bodied, treatment when sick, and modest but secure livelihood when disabled or aged. This so-called ‘hallmark’ tax legislation is a shameful dereliction of basic civic duty and social morality.
2
1. With unemployment at 4%, there is no possible need for a jobs program.
2. If you want to increase the wages for unskilled labor, make it scarcer. Stop the uncontrolled flow of unskilled immigrants into the country. Problem solved. You simply cannot have increased wages for unskilled labor and open borders at the same time, unless the laws of economics have been repealed.
3. The jobs program will end up harming industries that employ lots of unskilled workers, by creating a new floor for wages and benefits. Why work in a slaughterhouse or stock shelves at a grocery store when you can get a much higher paying job with far less effort.
4. Government jobs have all sorts of inefficiencies built in. Think workers who cannot be fired, for example. Do we really want to expand the least-efficient part of the workforce? That will result in a net loss of national wealth, not an increase.
5. What in the world would these government workers do that is not already being done? Dont tell me building bridges or "green" power plants. These are jobs done by high skilled workers who already have jobs.
3
Americans, rich and poor, educated and ignorant, united in a common cause and produced their way, with the battlefield sacrifices of millions of ordinary men and women, to a major victory in a two front war which ended in 1945. Was there waste and incompetence in the mix? Of course. No human effort is without waste and incompetence. Yet, smug, unthinking people bought the Reagan con that government is the problem and that if we’d only rely on private enterprise, we’d be living in paradise. No. Government and capital working together can rebuild our society, a society that Reagan’s rightwing ideology and greed have reduced to a shambles. People need opportunity for work and a living wage. My parents’ world was far better off than ours. They had pensions and decent health care. Gradually, with trickle down those just agreements between capital and labor have dried up. Without what our parents left, I and many of us would be a lot worse off. Now people have jobs but can’t make ends meet. The lion’s share goes to capital. This fact is our nation’s waste and incompetence.
2
A better long term fix is free college education. 2 years mandatory military service. Medicare for all. Infrastructure spending. How do we pay? Reverse that tax plan. Cut that rediculous Pentagon budget. 1/2 our GDP going to the military and allowing the rich to pay less taxes is what's depriving the citizens of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are wrecking our country.
1
Yes and they can't account for 21 trillion dollars that
simply dissapeared .The msm isn't even discussing that .
Bad, bad and more bad.Vote buying won’t sway independents.
1
The Democrats need an easily understandable and practical program to fix the problems facing the country but they can't produce one because they are a coalition of interest groups with incompatible goals. A federal job guarantee is boring but it has two virtues: It shows that Democrats are "doing something" while being so impractical that none of the Democratic interest groups will torpedo it. Why torpedo an idea that will torpedo itself?
The democrats buy their votes with the public treasury.
1
If everybody works for the government and the government relies on income tax to pay for every govt employee's income.......who do you tax to make sure everyone is guaranteed an income???
1
Democrats,
Don’t go nuts, and please study economics, especially the work of Thomas Piketty.
You are not republicans.
Look past politics.
And consider this thought:
Economic trends point to a future where capital will greatly outweigh labour as a factor in our economy.
That is, our economy will have little need for physical and intellectual labor because automated machines and intelligent computing will do most of the “work” needed in our future economy.
So the employment question may be not ‘how do we create jobs,’ rather the question may be ‘what do we do when we no longer need jobs?’
So after Trump has already solved the unemployment problem, the Democrats jump in to "solve" it.
Lets see...
Would illegal immigrants be guaranteed a government job? Of course, otherwise it would be xenophobic and racist.
Would convicted felons be guaranteed a job? Of course, otherwise it would be racist.
Would a person who has been repeatedly fired for poor performance be guaranteed a job? How about those who show up at work high on drugs? How about those who repeatedly don't show up for work or show up late?
Did Democrats ever stop and think about who in America can't be hired when we have 3.9% unemployment? Yep. Those people.
And the brilliant Democrats will guarantee them a job building bridges.
What an amazing idea.
1
More free stuff - and these "unemployed" will work on infrastructure? Really? Where I live there are help wanted signs everywhere. Money would be better spent teaching unskilled workers a skill that can't be automated or sent to India. But Democrats equate free stuff with votes.
2
All now defunct or on the way to be there countries like Cuba, former Soviet Union etc all had that feature... It created nothing more than stagnation... But it sure will win votes of those who are now displaced and can't fit into job market... and it's a sizable segment. Full employment is also a bit of a misnomer since there are millions displaced and not looking for various reasons but still would like being employed if could afford re-training.
To bring them out of the depth by allowing re-training for free by charging companies who hire thousands of HB1-ers... requiring those businesses to either train an equal number of displaced/unemployed or welfare recipient or pay say $15-25K toward skill training of underemployed segment
Just thinking... :))
1
Where is the line between a government- guaranteed job and a state-mandated job? Chaingangs for benefits?
1
It's about time. I have been advocating this for years. A guaranteed job, however, isn't enough. We must legislate a wage for the public and private sectors that will support a decent life for working Americans--the living wage that FDR supported. Allowing an employer to pay less for an adult's full-time labor is immoral and must be made illegal.
How to pay for it: End the inefficient, expensive, and humiliating alphabet soup of "welfare" programs. SNAP alone would fund a million public-sector jobs at a living wage. Get rid of them all, substituting them with a right to work (and a responsibility to work). Those who can't work must be cared for; those who can and won't--good luck to them.
Additionally, tax ourselves to pay our way with this program. When everyone is working, everyone is paying taxes and ultimately rates will go down.
We also need a Jobs Program that will confront the stressors on employment represented by automation and globalization. American ingenuity can find new means and methods of employment that will raise revenues and not merely expend them.
This can be done, and if we can't energize our fellows Americans on the left and right with a Big Idea (and this one should appeal to both), we will not wrest our government back from the forces of fascism and oligarchy that hold sway over it today.
Low unemployment? Almost 40% of people in the work force don't work; over half that do earn less than a living wage.
http://alltogethernow.org
1
As a progressive Democrat who fears the BIG government, we-can't-afford-it reaction to "government-guaranteed jobs," I'd strongly recommend a Job Security Act modeled on Social Security where both workers and their employers pay into a fund that will guarantee workers who lose their jobs either to automation or out-sourcing a year's salary along with free tuition at a licensed job retraining facility. This solves the problem of funding and allows workers a choice of job and also provides some long-term employment income that the government has curtailed. Sometimes a "big thing" is just a hot air balloon.
2
This is already being done at the state level in some states. Why not at the state and not Federal level. We don't need more bureaucracy inside the Beltway.
1
Democrats are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There are many conservatives dismayed and embarrassed both by this President and the brain-dead version of conservatism on display by the repub party. Do dems really want to drive this lucrative voting block back into the arms of the repubs?
Here's the winning formula, if dems choose to accept it: dump Pelosi as speaker, act reasonably intelligent, and make fiscally responsible policy proposals. Its that simple.
If you race farther to the left, you risk losing a valuable voting block...and perhaps a chance to actually bring the country together.
9
We've already seen that the winning formula is to speak to issues that directly effect voters and a living wage is a HUGE issue for A LOT people. And your suggestion is to be quiet and go with with the status quo?
This is the lie I hear virtually too many Americans tell themselves - that we have to be LESS bold in tumultuous times. This is the same foolishness as choosing austerity measures in the middle of a recession - instead of building your way out of it, you merely consign yourself to it. It's laying down and admitting defeat for the 80% of Americans who aren't investors and benefitting from this perverted economy. FDR's New Deal was a bold, unprecedented policy action that shaped life as we know it today. And if it is in fact something that the majority of American's need and the rest of America would benefit from, then why call it 'bold' at all? Just call it what it is: the right thing to do.
1
Even as a conservative, I see some room for compromise regarding some kind of job guaranty or job incentive. How different is this really from the EITC which is one of the rare policies that have been supported by both sides of the aisle ?
Depending on how it is structured, it highlights the difference between the New Deal and the Great Society ? Liberals like to lionize FDR as a true left winger - but most of his policies provided support for those who could not work - e.g. SS (elderly), WIC (children), SSDI (disabled). But able bodied adults were required to work in order to receive benefits - e.g. WPA. By contrast, the Great Society changed things so that simply being poor was sufficient to receive benefits.
If this is a return to FDR's idea, then I can live with that. But that begs the question what happens to able-bodied adults who do not work full time but otherwise seek what are mainly Great Society programs - e.g. Medicaid, food stamps, section 8, etc ? At what point is the opportunity to work considered viable (especially given a government guaranty) and we finally decide to stop rewarding the choice not to work ?
6
Better messaging is needed. Guaranteed jobs just won’t fly in the US. But if we created ‘freedom jobs’ similar to past efforts to mobilize workers to build infrastructure, there might be more acceptance.
4
If a primary goal is to fight wage stagnation I suggest making it much easier to unionize workers. In the private sector unionized workers make up about 6%. The goal should be set at 60% within 4 years. Progressive taxation with a top marginal rate of 70% for income (for a married couple) above 1 million would chip away at inequality while providing needed revenue. Government supported child care is important. As is tax supported post-secondary education and universal health care. All that is more difficult, more realistic and more responsible than a program of guaranteed jobs.
6
The Democratic Party needs to be a democratic party. That means having a democratic vision for the future. Defending the dying embers of the New Deal and the Great Society isn't enough. The Democrats need to break free of the 20th century and starting looking toward the 21s. Better late than never. https://madsociologistblog.com/2017/03/09/a-new-deel-for-the-democratic-...
3
There may be many big city type Democrats that this appeals to but those Dems out in fly over that love Trump will reject this.
This appeals to people that have been living in a culture of free-stuff mentality.
Most of them have soft hands, live in big cities, and have no idea what work really is.
11
We now have government-guaranteed race and gender quotas. Next, guaranteed jobs? This is a bad idea on so many levels. Will they be guaranteed by race, gender, academic qualifications, degree major, history of work? This sounds like a vote-getting exercise. Vote for us, and we'll get you a job.
16
What "race and gender quotas" are you talking about? You're about 30 years behind reality with your imaginary quotas.
3
Trump already did this.
3
Yeah, when did this happen? Don’t think so!
1
This would simply become another entitlement program, with runaway costs. It is already nearly impossible to fire a government worker, even for cause. Would these new government employees become yet another layer of unaccountable bureaucrats? Who would hold them accountable for performance, attendance, etc? This smacks of a Soviet style approach, when what is needed is meaningful training programs, apprenticeships and internships to fill jobs in industries experiencing a shortage of labor. Many of our skilled trades are crying for people—welding, automotive technicians, machinists, plumbers, etc—and Bernie wants to create government jobs taking care of parks? We need to train and put people to work in jobs that will strengthen our industrial base and economic well being and this is the best the left can come up with?
27
Who is holding the corporations accountable for what they are doing with their $5 trillion tax cut?
They are accountable to their shareholders. The idea that the government is giving corporations money is ridiculous. The government is simply taking less money from the corporations and US taxpayers. At the end of the day, it is our money to do with as we wish. I can invest it, spend it or donate it. This is a free society. When has government ever effectively held anyone accountable?
Government Guaranteed Jobs and single payer universal health insurance
We had this in East Germany.
35
Rather than invest money in make work jobs that pay a low hourly wage, why not address the real problem? Unemployment may be low, but that is because the "gig" economy has created part time and contract jobs, and people are working two or three part time jobs. We should be investing in educating people to qualify for better jobs that pay well because you are a valuable resource. Give people the opportunity to raise their knowledge and skill levels and become more intelligent members of society. The added benefit is you have more thoughtful voters.
3
Except that even the well educated are now working in a gig economy. Education is necessary for a democracy but it's not going to solve wage compression and part time work.
Education that is not vocational training is not widely valued in America.
I'm a middle to right democrat and will not vote republican.
But considering the extremist stance of the democratic & republican parties, the lack of REAL DIVERSITY in both parties and common sense make me hope a new 3rd party rises from the swamp of socialism and evangelical christian controlled hate.
The USA is no longer a young nation. We have reached the age in human years of about 40 something, the age of ego, selfishness and intolerance of anyone that doesn't hold our viewpoint. Part of the country wants to give it all away without asking what the individual can do for our country in exchange for the kindness offered and the other part wants to keep the spoils for the few that pray, look and act like their twisted interpretation of their bible.
10
Frankly, privatization has gotten rid of lots of government guaranteed or government supported jobs. (E.g. how much work at the MTA in NYC is now done by private companies chosen on the basis of campaign contributions or social relationships - not keeping the subway station floors clean for one....power washing does not elimnate chewing gum and sometimes nothing is done at all -- plenty of e.gs.). Privatization means extra bureaucracy, costs more. Privatized toll roads (Indiana). Charter schools. Meantime, w private companies are given huge tax breaks for providing a few jobs, and government will often pay for required infrastructure. OTOH often it would cost less to give people a fixed income/welfare rather than a pretend job. We do not need people to run subways ,e.g. That should be automated. I am hopeful for all sorts of AI items that will eliminate the need for human labot-- in which case we are back to the population control issue. OTOH, work is impt for mental health..... so ... it's not a simple problem.
1
As a Republican, I would like to beg the Democrats to please do this!
Jobs for everyone, paid by taxpayers. College for everyone, paid by taxpayers.
At a time with record low unemployment, and very high approval ratings for Republicans on the economy.
Oh, and don't forget to get Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton to actively campaign for you.
Thank you, Democrats!
21
A spectacularly bad idea underscoring the desperate straits the Democrats find themselves in. Yesterday it was the breathless announcement the game plan has changed once again with the party now going to focus on the corruption of the Trump administration. Now, this.
It really is about the economy and stagnant wages, stupid.
Instead of "corruption" and free jobs for everyone, why not simply make the case that the Republican tax cuts served their base very well at the expense of workers who will see little improvement in their paychecks. Stress the obvious fact that the cuts allowed corporations (employers) to do what they always do with free money, buy back their stock and pay their shareholders with the profits?
Why not make the case that Republicans have yet to come forward with an infrastructure plan that would actually address the issue of wage stagnation by providing well-paying jobs in industries that will be around for decades?
More minimum wage or low wage jobs are not an answer to the broad spectrum of US workers working multiple jobs and struggling to pay their bills each month. All this latest brainstorm from the usual suspects proves is how divorced they are from the realities of the working Americans the party once counted on as reliable supporters.
4
Great example of progressives' typical tone-deaf 'solutions' that will alienate the very voters the Democrats lost. The idea jobs as an end rather than a means to something meaningful - like rebuilding infrastructure, to name an easy one - smacks of the kind of central-planning, soulless thinking that most mainstream voters reflexively reject. I won't call it communism because that has actually become fashionable in the salons of our short-memory progressive elites, but it presumes that people gain dignity from a job, any job, even if it's fake. That of course is untrue, and the irony is that Marx himself recognized that alienating workers from the fruits of their efforts would destroy dignity. Yes he meant industrial piecework, but at least those jobs were needed. Create jobs that intentionally produce nothing of value and you merely swap one indignity for another.
29
I know people who come from Communist countries: China and Russia. They used to have this type of jobs program. Basically, you get the unaccountable job and sleep there. The wages are low, because the economy has been drained by social welfare.
The Democratic plan, and I think it will eventually happen, is a more like Venezuela's where the jobs and other goodies are targeted to get certain votes.
It's not really government, it's more like organized crime, where you steal from one person to pay off another.
Centralized planning is smart, welfare to buy votes is not
10
Which part of Centralized planning is particularly smart?
Ability to produce the best missile but delivering fuel for it on oxen driven cart?
Or not having indoor plumbing in Gov't provided housing?
How 'bout lack of med. services and medicine...? And all this is for fully employed... on guaranteed Gov't payroll... :)
Sure, that will guarantee Democrats out of government jobs.
9
The bread lines are here, you're just not looking. And the unemployment numbers overlook people who have given up trying to compete in the shark tank. When the private sector has no concern, people who want jobs need our government to step up.
7
"Government-Guaranteed Jobs"?
Well now, doesn't that just reek of "welfare queens"?
What the heck is wrong with the Dems?
Do they NOT want the House of Reps back in November?
7
Please, people, get off these ideological horses of habit and think, like informed and concerned citizens, of your own, your neighbors' and the country's common good:
-It's no secret infrastructure of the US is in dire need of repair--fixing roads, bridges, dams is not an automated job description, nor a private sector responsibility.
-No secret our elderly population, and children of working moms, would benefit from additional care services--another job description not met by automation nor affordable by the ordinary citizen.
-Our parks need cleaning up and maintenance, and our schools additional and better paid teachers and aides--not robots. Public schools, not private, must meet this need affordably.
-Our welfare to the wealthy--tax write offs, multiple loopholes unavailable to the 99%--has never been more generous. This is why our society has so few economic winners and the rest of us treading water despite marked increases in productivity. There is plenty of money to do all of this, and more.
Conclusion: federal programs to meet all of the above, paying living wages, AND, structuring tax reform to return to the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes and a bonus for the privelege of making money off the rest of us. Voila. Lots of jobs, competition for wages nudging the private sector to move higher, and improved quality of life for all Americans. It was called the New Deal under FDR, and ushered in the most expansive economic boon in US history. Bring it on!
11
Government guaranteed jobs and increased immigration seem like a contradiction. If you need to actively spend tax dollars to create jobs, why on earth do we also need to let more people in the country? Also, if everyone is guaranteed a job, why do we need welfare? Maybe we can pay for jobs creation with the money we will save by reducing welfare spending. But my guess is the Democrats will want to increase welfare spending as well. Deficits do matter, just not to politicians.
8
There was a terrific op-ed from Robert Rubin in this paper last year where he made the case for something similar. I'd argue that when the man who ran Citibank is making the case for a federal jobs program, a federal jobs program is not an idea that's inherently left-wing; it's a pragmatic idea.
As many have pointed out there are problems with basic income. Why not give people an opportunity to work themselves up out of poverty with the government acting as an employer of last resort in order to allow them to get their feet in the door? This is what FDR sought to do in the '30s and he was no socialist.
Automation will begin to eat away at large swathes of the workforce sooner than people think, and it isn't just blue-collar workers who will be at risk. American democracy is predicated on a large "middle-class" of property owners. If we cannot find work for people our system will become increasingly divided between the propertied and the growing ranks property-less. It will look feudalistic, and it will spell trouble. Two countries had similar divides at the dawn of the 20th century: Russia and China. Do we want to go down that route?
4
Runaway inflation? Check out Warren Mosler and MMT (Modern Monetary Theory).
Also, no mention of climate change (Letter to Humanity) and the kind of jobs (green energy and yes, nuclear can be a part if necessary) needed at this time in history.
We can't be afraid to speak up for (once again, Letter to Humanity) the future of our civilization. Most of us don't want to live in a Darwinian world do we?
As was highlighted in a previous op-ed on this same subject, this proposal is looking forward to a time when automation will begin to seriously erode the need for workers in many businesses.
It represents a plausible approach to addressing the ongoing deindustrialization of America, specifically the rust belt and inner city.
In the coming age of automation, 21st century society is either headed to universal basic income or this kind of effort - and which do you think is likely to be more marketable to a citizenry still tethered to the Protestant work ethic, and thus generally hostile to the idea of handouts and welfare?
Moreover, I would wager that a strong majority of Americans would prefer to work, with all the potentially positive social interactions that come with it, than merely sit at home and collect a check.
This is a proposal that offers Democrats an opportunity to build a long-term legislative majority - which would then enable them to advance legislation in other areas.
Economies are cyclical, and our current economic upswing is extremely long-in-the-tooth - especially with Trump and his minions doing everything in their power to dismantle the regulations put into place after the last financial crisis, and thus set this nation up for yet another frightening economic downturn.
This proposal is not for today - but for the future, for the 2020s and beyond.
8
Yes, there are plenty of productive things that can be done for pay and we'd all be better off for.
If you'll recall, the WPA even hired artists and such as well as building structures. There are lots of worthwhile things to be done and machines can't do them all despite the brouhaha about automation.
2
While the idea itself may sound good, and there are certainly areas where we could use people, it is still a bad idea. It will be portrayed as a government tax and spend, make work program. Increasing funding immensely for infrastructure will provide jobs as might expanding other non defense programs.
4
We already know what makes a middle class economy boom; tax the rich.
We have a minimum wage, how about a maximum wage?
What maximum wealth limit could be placed on individuals that would provide enough to eliminate the deficit, create Medicare for all, shore up social security and promise those with good grades free education through graduate school?
Someone should do the math.
I’m guessing (I think the real number would shock us all), that if we limited individual wealth to one half billion dollars (500M), we would have enough to do all of these things and more.
Could you get by on half a billion?
20
Yes, wether the top personal tax rate was 70% and the corporate rate was 50% average growth was over 4%.
Over fifty years we have cut these rates in half, and cut regulation and that cut growth in half to an average off barely 2%.
Tax cuts are destroying the country. We been to invest in humans to increase the productivity of humans.
I consider myself pretty left, I like social democracy, and this is a BAD idea. It will look like communism to the people the Democrats want to reach and it will guarantee a Republican majority forever.
The current time is NOT like the Great Depression and our people are not like Americans of that time. Context matters.
19
The Republicans do this all the time, and give it to the rich. It works for them. They own all the levers of power.
1
Stop trying to reach the Reagan Democrats. They left because they are racists that didn't like Civil Rights legislation. They are never coming back.
Give poor people a reason to get our and vote (liked a good paying job) and grow the party from the base up. That is how you win elections.
Thank goodness, the Democrats, have switched to policy oriented campaigns, not just anti-tRump rhetoric. I have wanted them to embrace policies that benefit the people, in general, that will build a more equitable society, Education, health care, foreign policy, immigration reform (the REAL thing,) common sense regulations, that protect the people from odious self-servers and profiteers. It's all good. We can turn this catastrophe around, if we all pitch in.
9
Funny, when government wants to start another war, give Exxon another oil subsidy, or cut taxes on the rich, we just write a blank check.
But when government wants to help people, "How are you gonna pay for that?!"
46
That's right - and it's our money anyway.
6
"Democrats’ Next Big Thing: Government-Guaranteed Jobs"
The "guaranteed jobs" are called senators, congresspeople, and career government employees.
7
Actually this article suggests bipartisan way forward. Gop insists on “work” for benefits, Dems want guaranteed work. Marry the two
7
This article does not suggest how the 'job gatekeeper' problem will be solved. Soon after any State or Federal program is announced, the newly-formed jobs are invariably surrounded by self-appointed gatekeepers who decide whether someone is worthy of the Government's benevolence. My experience with this comes form the engineering world. There are lots of job postings for work funded by the government, but getting one means getting through all the gatekeepers. In this case, it usually means a cadre of 'employment recruiters' who seem to be the only ones who control whether or not someone is offered a position. The companies who do the actual hiring never seem to be involved until all the decisions have been made and everybody is ready to sign on the dotted line. Unfortunately, these decisions seem to be influenced by the color of one's politics, and no doubt by other criteria. In my case, the color of my politics is reflected in my computer security inventions. It also appears that the (relatively small number) of employment recruitment firms are talking among themselves about candidates, possibly through a common database.
4
The GOP and the Democrats are both throwing out smokescreens to cover the real issue we face. The GOP with all its posturing pretends that if we just make the rich richer, get out of the way of corporations, that we are going to see the 1950's again where people can get well paying jobs with benefits for the asking, all the while knowing that more and more they are concentrating the wealth and jobs to the privileged few. The Democrats talks big about job retraining and multipoint plans to train workers for the jobs of tomorrow, the problem is those jobs are going to disappear faster than people can train for them.
Automation and AI are going to replace a lot of people, there is no doubt about it, things like automated trains, trucks, are on the way, the steel plants that might benefit from a tariff are heavily automated and won't hire many new people..
So what do we do in a world where we don't need that big a labor force? How do we handle that universe? Is it Star Trek where people can do what they like to do, and not worry? Or is it Vonnegut's world of "Player Piano" where the managers and technologists benefit from a world where workers have the choice between the army or a massive reconstruction program? Do they think that with zero labor things will cost zero, but then how do the rich amass wealth? And whole will buy their goods and services? The Democrats are right, but their idea is a blast from the past, the real question is the future.
8
Given the realities of job shrinkage (due to technology and export of productive work) and the mess left by a century of industrialism, public works job creation is feasible. We squander much more money on militarism with 23 billion dollars unaccountable at the Pentagon at last measure. We also need a guaranteed minimum income, national healthcare coverage and subsidized education. Corporate Wall Street democrats will not support these but a growing number a crowd-funded progressive democrats do.
6
If this was government-guaranteed jobs for white small town Americans, the entire Congress would go blue overnight.
7
If the government promises a job,would the idle be required to work?
8
No need, let's give jobs to those willing and let the idle be idle. And it's stupid to police the idle and wonder who might have a valid reason for not working like sickness or a family member to care for, lots of dumb overhead there. There are PLENTY of willing people who need and want a job and will be better workers. Employing the willing and paying them decently will improve the country.
10
"How such guarantees would be paid for is still largely unresolved."
Yeah, that's a problem.
The Republicans charged their tax cuts to the national credit card, and deficits and debt are exploding as a percentage of GDP.
The Democrats have noticed that no one seems to care about the deficit and propose charging new spending to the credit card. Who will pay for it? Easy - they'll say the economy will expand and that will pay for it all. Same as the Republicans.
Only GDP is not expanding fast enough to pay for it all.
The upshot? Both parties promise something for nothing, and Americans vote for it. That can't happen, so future generations will pay. But they don't vote, do they?
We're eating our children.
10
The difference is that jobs are productive, whereas tax cuts are not.
1
Yes, our children will be better off if people who would like to do work are doing productive things, just like we now enjoy some of the results of the work the WPA did long ago, and even the transient work benefitted people at that time.
Instead of a government jobs program, why don't the Democrats simply propose to raise the minimum wage to something approaching or equaling the "living wage"? It would be a much more easier plan for voters to comprehend than some muddled employment plan that will inevitably come out of Congress much changed from how it went in. That, plus the single-payer 'Medicare For All' proposal would be a powerful plan to campaign on. Many of us older people are forced to work in certain places because of our need to keep the health coverage going; the Medicare proposal would allow us, and everybody else to be a lot more choosy in selecting employment, which should force wages to rise as employers could no longer rely on the promise of health coverage to attract people for minimal pay.
4
A while back I read about such a system in Egypt. Fifty clerks are required to sign forms for driver’s licenses. Nothing of value is produced except red tape. Splendid idea!
26
I experienced just this when driving a vehicle into Egypt from Saudi Arabia a few years ago. It took 5 hours to garner the required signatures at Suez customs with one person signing twice. Of course each signature required some remuneration.
1
We already have government-guaranteed jobs. For defense contractors and Wall Street lobbyists.
17
The federal government providing jobs that serve the common good? Great idea! Let's improve our infrastructure. Let's educate our workforce. Let's take care of the sick and elderly. Let's cleanup the environment.
Guaranteeing jobs to Americans? Awful. It's putting the cart before the horse.
20
Dems thrashing about for a cause...how about government guaranteed jobs in an era when unemployment has never been lower?
12
Yes, seems strange of us to go for this now. But if you consider many- if not most- of the jobs being created are 30 hrs/week, no healthcare at a buck or two above minimum wage, there may still be interest.
And I would argue that it's not big government, but rather, big government contractors that are inefficient. We have a lot of roads to repair. Let's cut out the middleman contractors and get to work!
7
@joe:
Unemployment may be low, but where are the good paying jobs? Trump ran on a platform that good paying jobs were going to flow, but where are they? A lot of the jobs that have been created or recovered pay near minimum wage with no benefits, these are not good paying manufacturing and other blue collar jobs. Economic data shows that the only people seeing significant gains in income are people who already were....
And while this is tilting at windmills, it is a question we are going to have to answer going down the road. We have gone from a country where a single income household could have a comfortable existence, to one where both people needed to work to be comfortable, and now need 2 people working to just survive....and what happens when automation and AI take away millions of more jobs? What happens when they simply don't need people to do a lot of jobs? No one is answering that, and it is closer then Fox News nation thinks, but they dream that this is the 1950's returning, and it isn't.
9
True unemployment is sky-high. Labor force participation rate for those of working age continues to fall. Even the real unemployment rate is around 8%, double what is most often reported.
The labor department counts you as "employed" if you are working 21 hours a week for $7/hr.
1
Unless one takes the economic statistics of the former Soviet bloc at face value (and one shouldn't), no nations has every effectively guaranteed all its inhabitants a job. Supporters like to cite programs in India and Argentina as models, but it's worth noting that neither of those programs drove those nations unemployment rates down to 0% or even that close to it. Public employment programs also are riddled with waste. This is how "bridges to nowhere" get built and some like the DC summer youth "jobs" program featured the recipients sitting around a gym goofing off.
I can understand the desire to combat Trumpism, but the Democrats won't win by trying to be equally dishonest.
37
Bridges to nowhere get built because we let them get built. We don't need this government, if we would only come together to forge the one we want and deserve.
1
Good piece, but curious that you didn't mention Modern Monetary Theory, which the job guarantee is the centerpiece of. The reason Democrats don't need a way to pay for it is because our country has a printing press and no credible risk of inflation.
Large deficits are a great thing when the government spends productively. Government surpluses, which equal private sector deficits, are a terrible thing that causes crashes, as we learned from the last two attempts in the 1990s and 1920s.
6
Large deficits are caused by Republicans starting wars and cutting taxes on the rich.
25
Correct, those are the two least productive forms of deficit. But they prove that both parties understand that, as Cheney said Reagan proved, "deficits don't matter."
6
I'm glad you mentioned MMT. It is a theory worthy of consideration and debate. "MMT... at its core is the belief that most of us have the economy backward. Conventional wisdom holds that the government taxes individuals and companies in order to fund its own spending. But the government—which is ultimately the source of all dollars, taxed or untaxed—pays or spends first and taxes later. When it funds programs, it literally spends money into existence, injecting cash into the economy. Taxes exist in order to control inflation by reducing the money supply, and to ensure that dollars, as the only currency accepted for tax payments, remain in demand.
It follows that currency-issuing governments could (and, depending on how you lean politically, should) spend as much as they need to in order to guarantee full employment and other social goods. MMT’s adherents like to point out that the federal government never “runs out” of money to fund the military, but routinely invokes budget constraints to justify defunding social programs. Money, in other words, isn’t a scarce commodity like silver or gold." https://www.thenation.com/article/the-rock-star-appeal-of-modern-monetar...
1
"...are embracing a big idea from a bygone era: guaranteed employment." Bygone, as from the old Soviet days, where the most inane jobs were created for the least capable? No incentive to do well or better, creating apparatchik loyal to "the State", etc. It is and was a dreadful idea.
And given the recent thinking of some members of the Democratic party one can only expect that limiting this benefit to Americans would be derided as racist or xenophobic and even illegal aliens would be guaranteed such a boon. What a shambles that will create.
21
OK grey haired liberal here. Really.
But for goodness shakes if you are going to guarantee jobs are you not going to have to guarantee people have to work at them???
Can I get a couple while I stay retired?
Not that it is not a good theory. For example
give prisoners with minor offenses actually work.
Pay them to stay legal and do work.
Ok I'll go back and read the article again I read to fast.
3
Predictable GOP response: Communism, socialism, giving "your" tax dollars to "those people," encouraging dependence, etc.
And their "base," many of whom would benefit from such a program, will respond just as predictably. Even as the GOP does every one of those things in reverse-Robin Hood style by giving welfare to big business and the wealthy.
7
Hmmm. No wonder the Democrats lost the election. Are they going to ban automation in order to create these jobs? The dignity of work sounds great, but not if you're not your own boss. Does it not occur to the Democrats that the economy has changed and social conditions and aspirations have changed radically since the time of the Great Depression? Time for a credible third political party in the U.S. I think. Both the Democrats and the GOP seem to have reached the stage of senility, tired ideas and out of touch with reality.
18
There are plenty of non-automated jobs that really need doing. We don't keep our parks well maintained, or our roads well repaired. At my local university, janitorial staff has been cut back to where offices are only vacuumed once a month. Childcare is not available for many. We would all benefit from more productive activity and I don't see any machines that are going to do the work for us.
1
Right now employers are choosing not to raise wages despite the low unemployment rate. Many choose to higher contract employees so they don't have to pay benefits. There are parts of the country where unemployment is out of control or the jobs are so low paying that people are barely surviving. There's a reason why we have an opioid epidemic and the suicide rate is up.
If private companies have to compete with government jobs that pay a living wage and have good benefits they will be forced to improve wages and benefits. During the recession employers chose to offshore jobs and cut benefits causing many Americans to lose everything. They've used their tax breaks to buy back company stocks. Sometimes it takes government intervention to force change.
Under FDR's New Deal works programs portions of the country that were hit harder by the depression were given a chance to recover until private industry was in a position to offer quality jobs that paid a living wage. Schools, roads, sidewalks, libraries and so much of the infrastructure we use today were built in the decade the programs were in effect until WWII ended the depression. The US needs a marshall plan if we're going to compete with China during this next century. The banks and corporate America got their bailout, now it's our turn.
31
Nonsense. If we are to compete with China, we either need global labor laws OR a low standard of living in the US. Of course that low standard of living would only impact the private sector as that is the way communism works.
In some ways, this might be a useful political compromise between the GOP who want all public benefits to be tied to working, and Democrats who want to ensure that the opportunity to work is available for all. Put the two together and you trade social assistance, health care, food stamps, and income in exchange for work. The problem is that a) unemployment is 2-3% right now, so it's not clear how much of a problem it actually is; b) actually implementing such a program is probably much more difficult than democrats anticipate.
3
It's not reasonable to tie public benefits to working and it makes for a draconian regime.
Loads of people will want to work (if they are able and don't say have to care for a child or parent or are too screwed up or something) if they have the opportunity to do so and they will come out of the woodwork to do so. Let's not be the jobs police, let's just offer jobs and let those willing, who will do a better job, do them.
Ever looked for a job in today's society? I have a professional job now and have for the last 10 years, but there was a period in my mid-50s where I was unemployed and thought I'd never get a professional job again. That period lasted four years and I did all kinds of little jobs like writing exam questions for $35 a pop or working temporarily at a legal records retrieval service (a temporary job I only got because of a personal connection). I couldn't find anything better and filled out a crazy number of online forms with no response, wrote resumes and cover letters, etc.
Many who get sick of filling out online forms and hardly ever even getting an interview would jump at the chance of an actual job. And we'd all be better off for having them spend their time more productively.
1
It’s not exactly government guaranteed jobs, but what we need is government to guarantee it will do its job. That is, get working on infrastructure, rehabilitation, environmental protection, child & elder care, affordable housing...
That requires government because the private sector has no intention of doing any of these things with its mantra of “less regulation, lower taxes, fewer benefits”, rather, the corporate “me first, me last, only me”.
65
The longterm problem to be solved is how to support the able bodied when there are not enough jobs to go around due to automation. Several high income countries, such as Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands, are experimenting with so-called Guaranteed Minimum Income. It would be like Social Security disability income, except the "disability" isn't the inability to work because of health, but because there wasn't enough work. The idea of government-guaranteed jobs (GGJ) is, I suppose, another way of approaching this, in that with our infrastructure crumbling, the government hire workers like with the WPA during the depression, to fix it. But as another comment has said, we already have an income gap in which nearly 40% of the working poor can't make ends meet because wages are too low. Maybe GGJs can tackle both issues?
8
“and silence the naysayers who accuse the party of being devoid of new, big ideas.“
The Dems, trying to gain votes from the unemployable. This IS socialism, and it’s failed everywhere, every time.
8
Is this "socialism's failed everywhere, every time" thing an automated response?
I ask, because folks who make this statement seem to be curiously unaware that places like Germany, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, etc. actually do exist, or that even the U.S., that paradise of guns, god and crony capitalism, has popular and successful socialist policies.
You know dastardly programs like Social Security and Medicare. I trust you've heard of them?
8
To be fair, JRD, those countries you mention pay pennies for national defense (compared to the USA) so perhaps that is why they can afford substantial social programs.
1
Socialism failed everywhere, Everytime according to you. How do you like those roads you travel on? Don't understand the words you throw around, do you?
4
While this sounds good on its face, I do not think that this plan will work in today's society. There is a actually a worker shortage in this country. How can you explain 15,000,000 undocumented aliens being in this country and unemployment at such a low number? We have a 1,000,000 truck driver shortage, 1,000,000 nursing shortage ect... I have many clients that complain to me constantly about the shortage of employees that will actually show up to work and complete basic tasks and can pass a drug test.
14
Tell your many ‘clients’ to pay their workers a living wage and watch the inability to attract good workers evaporate.
If you want good workers, pay good wages.
Guaranteed government employment for all. Free college tuition. Universal no cost health care. Legalized marijuana. An end to immigration laws. This is what Democrats, liberals and progressives have in store for America. All paid for by the evil rich, of course. Even the evil rich do not have that much money, so watch out taxpayers.
25
Pretty much. Funny how such things already exist in most other high income countries with growing economies.
9
Really? In what other most high income countries is there "guaranteed government income for all" or "an end to immigration laws"? The simple truth, even according to this article, is that the former is being tried on a small scale in a few small countries and the latter exists only in the minds of far-left "progressives". Try marching into Canada or Australia or Britain or France without authorization and see how far it gets you.
I suggest you learn something about MMT. Modern Monetary Theory, in fact all members of Congress should also. It will explain where the money will come from.
1
And how many times can one be fired for incompetence and still be guaranteed employment?
Why would we want construction done by people who couldn't care less about the quality of their work, because there will always be another government-guaranteed job available to them?
Maybe I see why Democrats push so hard for gun control - they can't help but shoot themselves in the foot.
45
I'd say three. As I say elsewhere, people who can work but won't will be out of luck. A right to work cannot but be accompanied by a responsibility to work.
1
Your attitude in this post demonstrates the stark difference between conservatives and liberals - you think that people are basically horrible. We think that people are basically good. Of course there are some exceptions but overall you are wrong on the human nature and you are insulting to these people who can't find work for a variety of reasons or who are currently working but are underemployed. I guess you can't help yourself since there are now published scientific studies that point out actual brain differences between conservatives and liberals. But cheer up - there is hope - you can change your attitude and retrain your brain to like other people, even Democrats perhaps!
3
Agreed. Much better solution is a guaranteed minimum income so we can get the incompetent people out of the workforce without relegating them to poverty and homelessness.
1
Ain't nothing guaranteed in this life. And until the socialist democrats can accept that maxim, this nation is doomed.
18
Wow. Good luck getting elected.
6
Excellent! FDR is smiling!
The purpose of government is to care for its people and this measure is a glorious step in that direction!
10
A United Way study just released shows that 40% of US households cannot afford the basics of rent, transportation, child care and a cellphone. The unemployment rate does not account for people who have used up unemployment benefits, or who have given up trying to find a job. Being out of a job more than a few months leaves a stigma in being able to be hired. Also people over 50 have a difficult time being hired. Many jobs are now part-time jobs so people employers do not have to pay benefits.
Our infrastructure in this country is falling apart. The people are available and the money to make this happen in the richest country in the world. If the employers are not going to step up to provide decent jobs and pay then the government should do it. FDR’s job program was a great success.
63
Government hypocrisy negates any pro employment strategy. Issue here is still cheap labor, hiring an American in America is not cost effective anymore. Companies monopolized the job based economy years ago and "farmed out", contracted out these jobs overseas.
FDRs socialist programs made hungry unemployed Americans grateful for government based employment just doesn't work in this era.
3
There are a lot of jobs that need to be done here at home in infrastructure, dependent care, maintenance... These jobs cannot be outsourced.
1
And then again there are all of those jobs that ONLY immigrants will do..including those you listed.. housework, care for dependents, harvesting strawberries, working in slaughterhouses and food plants0, work at hotels, golf courses, etc.... so interesting isn't it?