Huffingtonpost covered this proposal recently, and it's interesting to see the objections to guaranteeing employment...
According to this story, managing "random flows of labor" somehow elicits skepticism from even "Progressives."
Yet, regarding the CCC..."President Roosevelt promised if granted emergency powers he would have 250,000 men in camps by the end of July, 1933. The speed with which the plan moved through proposal, authorization, implementation and operation was a miracle of cooperation among all branches and agencies of the federal government. It was a mobilization of men, material and transportation on a scale never before known in time of peace. From FDR’s inauguration on March 4, 1933, to the induction of the first enrollee on April 7, only 37 days had elapsed."
As for the cost considerations, somehow we can buy surplus agricultural products (soybeans, cheese), and even buy surplus Wall Street products ("Quantitative Easing" or QE), but buying surplus labor is taboo. According to its own audit, the Federal Reserve extended $16 - $29 trillion in credit to Wall Street to cure its Ponzi schemes. The illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan costs $3 - $7 trillion (say Nobel laureate economist Joe Stiglitz). The Fed still has $4 trillion of Wall Street dreck on its books, thanks to QE. Why can we fund all this other stuff, but not take care of ordinary people? [crickets]
The inflation concern is a complete red herring. Only a bidding war between the public and private sectors would lead to inflation, but who else is competing for the unemployed?
For more, see https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/.../jobs-guarantee-make...
Personally, I'd say the JG is a real game changer. It transforms work from a burden borne out of fear into something desirable. The savings in prisons and social safety nets alone should pay for a lot of it, but I'd suggest the transformation available will increase labor productivity and redirect human activity in beneficial ways.
The resistance will largely come from firms who claim they can't pay $15 (you know, the firms who said seat belts and catalytic converters would put an end to their industry). Even those firms could participate in such a program if government partly funded their jobs (so McDonalds pays $10/hr, and the government pays $5).
The objections are, in short, trivial. The *real* objection is that this would impair "labor discipline." In other words, the objectors in business wouldn't get to boss people around, or threaten job loss, poverty, homelessness, prison, starvation... Remember: Ending this threat would remove the whip from the hands of the plutocrats...and make life in our economy far more pleasant.
According to this story, managing "random flows of labor" somehow elicits skepticism from even "Progressives."
Yet, regarding the CCC..."President Roosevelt promised if granted emergency powers he would have 250,000 men in camps by the end of July, 1933. The speed with which the plan moved through proposal, authorization, implementation and operation was a miracle of cooperation among all branches and agencies of the federal government. It was a mobilization of men, material and transportation on a scale never before known in time of peace. From FDR’s inauguration on March 4, 1933, to the induction of the first enrollee on April 7, only 37 days had elapsed."
As for the cost considerations, somehow we can buy surplus agricultural products (soybeans, cheese), and even buy surplus Wall Street products ("Quantitative Easing" or QE), but buying surplus labor is taboo. According to its own audit, the Federal Reserve extended $16 - $29 trillion in credit to Wall Street to cure its Ponzi schemes. The illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan costs $3 - $7 trillion (say Nobel laureate economist Joe Stiglitz). The Fed still has $4 trillion of Wall Street dreck on its books, thanks to QE. Why can we fund all this other stuff, but not take care of ordinary people? [crickets]
The inflation concern is a complete red herring. Only a bidding war between the public and private sectors would lead to inflation, but who else is competing for the unemployed?
For more, see https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/.../jobs-guarantee-make...
Personally, I'd say the JG is a real game changer. It transforms work from a burden borne out of fear into something desirable. The savings in prisons and social safety nets alone should pay for a lot of it, but I'd suggest the transformation available will increase labor productivity and redirect human activity in beneficial ways.
The resistance will largely come from firms who claim they can't pay $15 (you know, the firms who said seat belts and catalytic converters would put an end to their industry). Even those firms could participate in such a program if government partly funded their jobs (so McDonalds pays $10/hr, and the government pays $5).
The objections are, in short, trivial. The *real* objection is that this would impair "labor discipline." In other words, the objectors in business wouldn't get to boss people around, or threaten job loss, poverty, homelessness, prison, starvation... Remember: Ending this threat would remove the whip from the hands of the plutocrats...and make life in our economy far more pleasant.
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.