It's time for Federal Guaranteed Employment

Various Dems have gotten onboard in supporting some type of universal guaranteed employment. Here's Bernie's pitch:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will announce a plan for the federal government to guarantee a job paying $15 an hour and health-care benefits to every American worker “who wants or needs one,” embracing the kind of large-scale government works project that Democrats have shied away from in recent decades.
Sanders’s jobs guarantee would fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals. Under the job guarantee, every American would be entitled to a job under one of these projects or receive job training to be able to do so, according to an early draft of the proposal. A representative from Sanders’s office said they had not yet done a cost estimate for the plan or decided how it would be funded, saying they were still crafting the proposal.

Good idea and about time if you ask me.

Of course, the details have to be worked out....

Pretty much what public-employee unions have been for the past 30-40 years until they were busted. But, yeah, either that or a Universal Basic Income, which we discussed two years ago.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...

.

I guess there needs to be something to rally around if Janus goes as expected in June.

Jackson_Fusion said:
I guess there needs to be something to rally around if Janus goes as expected in June.

 Yeah, one illegitimate SCOTUS appointment goes a long way.  Must be something to feel good about.

Personally, I favor a Universal Basic Income. The days when you could build cost effective infrastructure with some guys and a couple pick axes are over and I don't see much utility in digging holes just to fill them back up.

Capitalism requires consumers and automation will increasingly be replacing workers with machines for the foreseeable future.  If you want to keep capitalism, you've got to come up with some sort of way of keeping consumers.  Even a gluttonous orange quasi billionaire can only eat so many greasy cheeseburgers.

.

Instead of federally guaranteed employment:

How about a tax on bank balance sheets with assets in excess of say $250 billion (lets call it the too-big-to-fail tax)?

See  https://www.bankrate.com/banki...

How about a tax on microprocessers owned, leased or utilized by corporations with 50 or more employees?

RealityForAll said:
Instead of federally guaranteed employment:
How about a tax on bank balance sheets with assets in excess of say $250 billion (lets call it the too-big-to-fail tax)?
See  https://www.bankrate.com/banki...


How about a tax on microprocessers owned, leased or utilized by corporations with 50 or more employees?

 And how would these taxes put cash (in the form of income) into the hands of every Jane and Joe?

RealityForAll said:
Instead of federally guaranteed employment:
How about a tax on bank balance sheets with assets in excess of say $250 billion (lets call it the too-big-to-fail tax)?
See  https://www.bankrate.com/banki...


How about a tax on microprocessers owned, leased or utilized by corporations with 50 or more employees?

 I'm not following you. What's your point?

I think providing jobs is much better than a UBI. UBI provides minimal support - a job provides a usable income. Jobs also appeal to the deeply ingrained work ethic of our culture, whereas UBI can be seen as an undeserved handout.

Yes, many of the jobs provided by the Feds may be ultimately useless, but is it more useless than say, all the money that's spent researching the next brand of makeup? Nothings perfect, but I'm sure a lot of those guaranteed jobs will provide useful stuff - but all the jobs will serve to circulate money into the economy, which is the half the point (the other half being the providing of a reasonable income).

I'm all for meaningful employment but there are few things as demeaning as a make work job.   

 It seems to me that UBI is a starting point but, to my mind, the money that would be spent on make-work employment might be better used providing low interest business loans to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to start their own businesses.  Worst case scenario, you have wasted some money that was going to be wasted anyway and there's a chance that some of those folks might start valuable innovative companies that will employ even more people.

Fund it all with a nominal tariff on imported goods matched by an equal tax on the products of domestic automation and supplemented by a tax on inheritances (the ultimate unearned income).

I (obviously) know that inheritance taxes are politically unpopular but inheritances are my pet peeve.  If the ethical justification for the terrible things that happen because of capitalism is that it gives all folks the chance to benefit from their own hard work and initiative, inheritance undercuts the entire system by rewarding people who have done nothing to earn their good fortune other than being born. 

Klinker said:
I (obviously) know that inheritance taxes are politically unpopular but inheritances are my pet peeve.  If the ethical justification for the terrible things that happen because of capitalism is that it gives all folks the chance to benefit from their own hard work and initiative, inheritance undercuts the entire system by rewarding people who have done nothing to earn their good fortune other than being born. 

Which is exactly why the founding fathers did not want citizens of their new country to have loads of inherited wealth. Inherited wealth and democracy are not compatible.

https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

https://www.salon.com/2015/06/...

Klinker said:
I'm all for meaningful employment but there are few things as demeaning as a make work job.   

 exactly ths. 

NO THANK YOU to Bernie's pitch. As someone who lives in this area and lost a high paying job that required a higher education and decades to cultivate, a job at Mc DOnalds or Walmart would not be suitable. It would not in any way allow me to continue to pay my mortgage, would force me to pay for daycare that costs way more than $15/hour, and rob me of time to find a job of the same caliber that I had. 

I doubt the proposal means that people are going to be forced to take one of these jobs.  

HoBo said:

Klinker said:
I'm all for meaningful employment but there are few things as demeaning as a make work job.   

 exactly ths. 
NO THANK YOU to Bernie's pitch. As someone who lives in this area and lost a high paying job that took years to cultivate, a job at Mc DOnalds or Walmart would not be suitable. 

Actually, neither of those would be examples of make work jobs since both a Walmart greeter and a McDonalds fry cook provide useful services. Paying a person to trade stocks when a machine can do the same job faster, cheaper and better, would be an example of a make work job.

some of you are acting as if we live in a perfect world where everything is shiny and new and there couldn't possibly be any meaningful work to be done.

Just in Maplewood, we could keep a crew of people busy fixing the streets, sidewalks, cleaning the parks, running recreation programs for kids, etc., etc.

Improving everyone's quality of life, even if it's in small ways, would not be "make work." I think it would be terrific if we had funding to pay people to fix everything in our town that's broken, and then keep it maintained.

ml1 said:
some of you are acting as if we live in a perfect world where everything is shiny and new and there couldn't possibly be any meaningful work to be done.
Just in Maplewood, we could keep a crew of people busy fixing the streets, sidewalks, cleaning the parks, running recreation programs for kids, etc., etc.
Improving everyone's quality of life, even if it's in small ways, would not be "make work." I think it would be terrific if we had funding to pay people to fix everything in our town that's broken, and then keep it maintained.

 I would agree as long as the work is being done efficiently.  If streets are to be fixed it should be by people with back hoes, not dudes with spoons.

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
some of you are acting as if we live in a perfect world where everything is shiny and new and there couldn't possibly be any meaningful work to be done.
Just in Maplewood, we could keep a crew of people busy fixing the streets, sidewalks, cleaning the parks, running recreation programs for kids, etc., etc.
Improving everyone's quality of life, even if it's in small ways, would not be "make work." I think it would be terrific if we had funding to pay people to fix everything in our town that's broken, and then keep it maintained.

 I would agree as long as the work is being done efficiently.  If streets are to be fixed it should be by people with back hoes, not dudes with spoons.

 why are you assuming they'd toss a bunch of knuckleheads out there with no training or equipment?

This is why conservatives always win. They've convinced even liberals that if the government comes up with a program it will be run stupidly and inefficiently. 

This is why conservatives always win. They've convinced even liberals that if the government comes up with a program it will be run stupidly and inefficiently. 

 this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ml1 said:

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
some of you are acting as if we live in a perfect world where everything is shiny and new and there couldn't possibly be any meaningful work to be done.
Just in Maplewood, we could keep a crew of people busy fixing the streets, sidewalks, cleaning the parks, running recreation programs for kids, etc., etc.
Improving everyone's quality of life, even if it's in small ways, would not be "make work." I think it would be terrific if we had funding to pay people to fix everything in our town that's broken, and then keep it maintained.

 I would agree as long as the work is being done efficiently.  If streets are to be fixed it should be by people with back hoes, not dudes with spoons.

 why are you assuming they'd toss a bunch of knuckleheads out there with no training or equipment?
This is why conservatives always win. They've convinced even liberals that if the government comes up with a program it will be run stupidly and inefficiently. 

I'm not talking about the government's ability to execute the program, I'm talking about the goal of the program itself.  Is the goal to do "x" and in the process to employ people or is the goal to employ a lot of people and, in the process, do "x"?

You know all the beautiful old post offices? They were built by the WPA.

shoshannah said:
You know all the beautiful old post offices? They were built by the WPA.

 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Klinker said:

ml1 said:

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
some of you are acting as if we live in a perfect world where everything is shiny and new and there couldn't possibly be any meaningful work to be done.
Just in Maplewood, we could keep a crew of people busy fixing the streets, sidewalks, cleaning the parks, running recreation programs for kids, etc., etc.
Improving everyone's quality of life, even if it's in small ways, would not be "make work." I think it would be terrific if we had funding to pay people to fix everything in our town that's broken, and then keep it maintained.

 I would agree as long as the work is being done efficiently.  If streets are to be fixed it should be by people with back hoes, not dudes with spoons.

 why are you assuming they'd toss a bunch of knuckleheads out there with no training or equipment?
This is why conservatives always win. They've convinced even liberals that if the government comes up with a program it will be run stupidly and inefficiently. 

I'm not talking about the government's ability to execute the program, I'm talking about the goal of the program itself.  Is the goal to do "x" and in the process to employ people or is the goal to employ a lot of people and, in the process, do "x"?

 so why do you assume the goal is to employ people without accomplishing any meaningful goals?

Bernie’s goal is to employ people first.

I lived in that country and unless somehow Bernie has figured out what went wrong and put some systems in place it doesn’t last long. I’m with those who are for UBI and encouragement of entrepreneurship.

ridski said:
Bernie’s goal is to employ people first.
I lived in that country and unless somehow Bernie has figured out what went wrong and put some systems in place it doesn’t last long. I’m with those who are for UBI and encouragement of entrepreneurship.

 no doubt. But I don't think anyone needs to search very hard to see an awful lot of productive work that needs to be done. And as I mentioned above, such a program doesn't have to preclude a UBI in addition. 

Tom_Reingold said:

RealityForAll said:
Instead of federally guaranteed employment:
How about a tax on bank balance sheets with assets in excess of say $250 billion (lets call it the too-big-to-fail tax)?
See  https://www.bankrate.com/banki...


How about a tax on microprocessers owned, leased or utilized by corporations with 50 or more employees?

 And how would these taxes put cash (in the form of income) into the hands of every Jane and Joe?

The too-big-to-fail tax would likely cause the banks to break themselves up to get under $250 billion in assets (and reduce the likelihood of another too big to fail disaster). This break-up would only occur if the tax was significant enough to create a financial incentive to break up. While at the same time creating many new jobs in the new banks created from the break-up of these banks.  More jobs in the hands of those who are likely not participating in the job market currently.

A tax on micro processors would provide tax dollars to the US while at the same time creating a cost to eliminating human jobs.  Clearly, the rate of taxation, what types of work should be encouraged, etc would have to be worked out.  I acknowledge that this tax may not be practical to administer.  However, my general take is as follows:  i.) more microprocessors means less jobs for humans;  and ii.)  big corporations have taken advantage of these microprocessors to eliminate jobs and radically improve efficiency.  If you wanted to use this tax to fund a negative income tax, I would be willing to support such a proposal.

RealityForAll said:
A tax on micro processors would provide tax dollars to the US while at the same time creating a cost to eliminating human jobs.  Clearly, the rate of taxation, what types of work should be encouraged, etc would have to be worked out.  I acknowledge that this tax may not be practical to administer.  However, my general take is as follows:  i.) more microprocessors means less jobs for humans;  and ii.)  big corporations have taken advantage of these microprocessors to eliminate jobs and radically improve efficiency.  If you wanted to use this tax to fund a negative income tax, I would be willing to support such a proposal.

I'm not against this per se but it would have to be accompanied by an equivalent tariff on foreign goods or the only result would be to drive US manufacturers overseas.  As things stand now, manufacturers are trickling back into the US because the cost of automated production is cheaper than overseas sweatshops especially when combined with reduced shipping costs.  You wouldn't want to stamp that out just to make a stand for the Luddites.  

An update on Finland’s experiment with universal basic income, which the government has decided to end after this year:

Finland Has Second Thoughts About Giving Free Money to Jobless People (NYT)