Brooks, Jobs, and Education

Posted on March 6, 2015 by Wade Lee Hudson

: helena_perez_garcia / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

After reading “The Temptation of Hillary” in today’s New York Times, I was about to post a comment on his most ridiculous statement: “If we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year.”

But then I saw that in the Comments section, the editors’ pick highlighted at the top a comment that first quoted the same sentence and then reflected: “This proposition holds good only if the demand for ‘college-educated-skills’ also increases by the corresponding number in a corresponding time-frame! Is this a reasonable assumption?”

So I just “recommended” that comment and posted a comment on Facebook, which has elicited the following comments:

Justice St. Rain:

More education just increases competition for good jobs. It doesn’t create any. Demand creates jobs, and it takes income at the bottom to create demand. Simple as that. That is why “redistribution” is necessary, no matter what other factors you consider. Money hoarded at the top will never create demand, and without demand the money at the top will never be spent on new investments.

Valerie Winemiller:

And at the cost of a college education, the increase is eaten up in school loan payments for over a decade. So many holes in this argument I can’t start!

The myth of education as the panacea lives on. Alas.

Conference Call Email

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Wade Lee Hudson

After receiving an invitation from Phil Harvey to participate in the January 30 conference call with the Jobs for All Campaign, I sent the following email to Logan Martinez, who distributed the notice. The first item on the agenda is how to build support for HR 1000, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act, which was introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr and has 56 co-sponsors.

+++

Hello, Logan!

Phil Harvey informed me about the Thursday conference call. I very much look forward to it and hope to help with the Jobs for All Campaign in whatever way I can, especially with regard to HR 1000.

Please find attached the latest draft of “An Open Letter to the Feb. 5 Panel” that I may post and circulate Friday or soon thereafter. It is addressed to the five panelists who will participate in the Feb. 5 forum on “Employment: A Human Right” to whom I will email the letter in advance. It states:

As economists with considerable standing in progressive communities,… you are in position to offer the kind of support for HR 1000 … that grassroots activists need in order to build support for that legislation. I therefore hope that you will not only support HR 1000, but also affirm the two principles – one moral, the other practical – that, it seems to me, underlie that legislation.

The letter then poses three questions:

• Do you support HR 1000, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act?
• Do you support the human right to a living-wage job opportunity?
• Do you believe that if we have the political will, we can handle any inflationary pressures that result from securing the human right to a living-wage job opportunity?

I’m not sure that this approach, especially the proposed SurveyMonkey questionnaire, “Full Employment: A Survey for Economists,” is a good idea, so I welcome feedback, especially recommendations that I hold off on it or suggestions for how to improve it.

If folks have a chance to offer me feedback during or after the call, I will appreciate it. But your agenda looks full, so if that is not feasible, I will certainly understand and still remain available to contribute in other ways.

BTW, as a personal intro, I am the recent author of the Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunities petition. In 1989, I initiated the Solutions to Poverty Workshop, which led to the San Francisco Antipoverty Congress and the Campaign to Abolish Poverty (CAP), and in 1996 I self-published Economic Security for All: How to End Poverty in the United States.

I very much appreciate your excellent work and look forward to collaborating.

The Human Right to a Decent Job

Posted on January 16, 2014 by Wade Lee Hudson

: szeke / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

By Wade Lee Hudson

Most Americans agree. As a society, we should see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job opportunity. When we establish that foundation of economic security, everyone will benefit. Securing this human right is our moral obligation.

Pope Francis may inspire a widespread moral renewal that prompts business owners to pay better wages. The wealthy may someday donate enough money to non-profit organizations to hire everyone who needs a decent job. Until we witness that change of heart, however, the federal government must help.

As citizens, we need not prescribe exactly how the government should assure genuine full employment. The experts can figure that out. Our job is to keep pushing them until they do it. But we can suggest some options.

Without increasing the deficit, we can minimize problems associated with “big government” by distributing federal revenue-sharing funds for public-service jobs to local governments, where citizens can monitor and influence how the money is spent. The jobs created can be regular, permanent jobs that provide needed services, like child care, substance abuse programs, in-home caregiving, and improving our parks – not temporary “make work” positions or jobs only for people who meet certain qualifications. Priority can be given to entry-level jobs in the $12-16 per hour range in order to maximize the number of people who gain employment.

A sales tax on Wall Street speculation can raise $100 billion or more annually, which would also discourage dangerous, unproductive gambling. In addition, we can close loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits offshore, and transfer funds from wasteful military spending. Creating jobs will boost the economy and generate additional tax revenue, which we can use to create more jobs. Savings from reduced food stamp and unemployment insurance payments will also be available.

By steadily increasing funding each year, local governments can prepare for how to use the money, and the governments involved can better deal with any problems that develop. The size of the grants can be based in part on local unemployment rates. Cities and town with more unemployment will receive more. We can insist that local governments not use the money to replace their current programs and reduce their own taxes.

We can’t guarantee everyone a job, but we can guarantee the opportunity. We can insist that supervisors assure that their employees work hard. They owe their workers and the taxpayer nothing less. If good jobs are available we shouldn’t give tax money to people who are able but unwilling to work.

Not every unemployed individual will take advantage of these opportunities. Some people will first have to deal with substance abuse, helped by knowing a meaningful job awaits them when they get their act together. Other individuals will rely on friends, family, or charity. But almost everyone who wants to work will put in a solid effort if given the chance. And everyone has some useful skill.

When we achieve true full employment, those who are worried about food stamps fostering dependency can rest assured that we are supporting self-determination. Business owners will gain from a more prosperous economy. Everyone will benefit from living in a more harmonious, safer society. People formerly living in poverty will be able to make ends meet, which will greatly improve the quality of their lives. Most workers will: 1) benefit from higher wages (because employers will pay more to keep trained employees); 2) be treated with more respect by employers (because workers will have more choices), and; 3) have more leisure time to relax with their families, enjoy their lives, and contribute to their community.

A common argument against full employment is that it would cause excessive inflation. But most efforts to increase employment have relied on deficit spending, which can be inflationary, and a jobs program can be funded without increasing the deficit. Increased global competition makes inflation less likely; in recent decades, when unemployment decreased, inflation did not increase. A public-service jobs program will have less inflationary impact than boosting private-sector employment. Funds will disproportionately go to areas with higher unemployment, which means less inflationary pressure. And so long as wages and Social Security payments increase to compensate, modest inflation is not a problem for most people.

The federal government has created unemployment and poverty on purpose, in the name of preventing inflation. But those actions are a moral outrage. If and when inflation becomes a problem, we can deal with it some other way.

In the meantime, let’s help our society live up to its highest ideals, “promote the general welfare,” and support “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

+++

Wade Lee Hudson a community organizer and part-time cab driver in San Francisco is author of the Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunity petition.

Philip Harvey on “Full Employment”

Posted on January 8, 2014 by Wade Lee Hudson

In a comment on “If You Care About Inequality, Fight for Full Employment,” an essay by Roger Hickey, Philip Harvey offers another reason to sign the Guarantee Living-Wage Job petition. If you haven’t signed the petition yet, please reflect on his analysis and consider signing it. To sign it, click here.

In his essay, Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a prominent activist organization, urges Democrats to remember that “the number one issue on the minds of voters is jobs.” And he criticized Obama’s strategy: “Have patience. The jobs are coming back.”

As an alternative, Hickey states, “Only the Congressional Progressive Caucus (with help from the Economic Policy Institute ) has put out a comprehensive proposal – the Back to Work Budget – to achieve the kind of job growth this economy really needs.”

Referring to the Republican stranglehold on the House, Hickey argues:

The way to break that conservative majority is by talking about Democratic ideas for job creation – from infrastructure spending to universal preschool education. And then you campaign, like Harry Truman, against the “Do-Nothing Republicans” who refuse to do what America needs to revive growth and create jobs.

Hickey says, “We must also expand our crusade for jobs…. And if we are serious about addressing inequality, we must fight for jobs for all.” Referring to Getting Back to Full Employment, Hickey comments, “economists Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker forcefully remind us that the fastest and most effective way to reduce inequality is to revive economic growth to the point where everyone who wants a job can find one.” He concludes, “If you care about inequality, you have to fight for full employment.”

In his comment following that post, Philip Harvey, Professor at Rutgers School of Law, who authored Securing the Right to Employment: Social Welfare Policy and the Unemployed in the United States in 1989 and served as a consultant to the Campaign to Abolish Poverty (which I founded), offered some cautionary words about Hickey’s essay. He may have overstated his case when he wisely warns about accepting the conventional wisdom about “NAIRU,” or the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,” a questionable term widely used by economists. But his warning is important to keep in mind.

Harvey posted:

Right diagnosis, but faulty prescription. The return to “full employment” Roger is promoting and which the “Back to Work budget” is designed to achieve would not in fact insure that “everyone who wants a job can find one.” What Roger and the others he cites as supporters of a return to full employment mean by the term is actually a return to the NAIRU. Their claim that this would insure the availability of enough jobs to provide work for everyone who wants it is unambiguously contradicted by the empirical evidence. We progressives rail against conservatives who continue to argue points that are clearly contradicted by the facts, but progressive economists are guilty of the same willful blindness when they refuse to recognize and acknowledge that the “full employment” policies they have been promoting since the end of World War II are incapable of achieving the kind of full employment goal they claim to be pursuing–the availability of work for everyone who wants it. The “bait and switch” rhetoric of calling for a return to full employment when what they really have in mind is a return to the NAIRU serves no useful purpose. In fact it’s counterproductive, because it tends to close off discussion of strategies that actually would achieve genuine full employment. And it really is possible to achieve that goal–notwithstanding the inflation problem that limits the effectiveness of the supposed “full employment” strategy most progressive economists are currently promoting. Rep. John Conyers’ “Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act” (HR 1000) illustrates the most effective of these alternative strategies. Check out the bill, and if you’d like background information on the direct job creation strategy on which it relies, and how it differs from conventional Keynesian policy interventions, you can find it in two reports I wrote in 2011–one for Demos and the other for the Big Ideas for Jobs initiative funded by the Anne E. Casey Foundation. See “Back to Work: A Public Jobs Proposal for Economic Recovery: and “Securing the Right to Work at the State and Local Level with a Direct Job Creation Program.”

I don’t know if Harvey is right when he says that Hickey accepts NAIRU as the definition of full employment, but he’s right that many progressives do. And I agree that Hickey is weak when he says, “Only the Congressional Progressive Caucus (with help from the Economic Policy Institute) has put out a comprehensive proposal – the Back to Work Budget – to achieve the kind of job growth this economy really needs.” That budget only talks about reducing unemployment to “near 5%.” And Hickey relies too much on costly, slow-to-implement infrastructure jobs, in contrast to public-service jobs that are less costly, can hire more people, and be implemented more quickly.

So I agree that we need to be clear. We should aim for what Harvey calls “genuine full employment.” That’s why I’ve been inclined to talk about increasing funding until living-wage jobs go begging due to lack of qualified applicants, which prompted Nancy Pelosi to laugh when I offered that definition in response to a question from her. She apparently considered the idea utopian.

Not everyone would take advantage of such opportunities. Some would first need to complete a substance-abuse program, for example. Others would be unreliable and not show up for work on time. But those would be few in number and they would know that when they get their act together, there would be a meaningful job waiting for them.

Personally, when I read the Baker and Bernstein book, I thought they handled the issue rather well. They did not, it seemed to me, blindly accept NAIRU, while acknowledging that moving toward full employment might create inflationary pressure. And they do clearly affirm assuring that everyone who wants to work should be able to find a job. So I believe Harvey was too harsh with his implied criticism of Baker and Bernstein.

But Harvey’s “Back to Work” report which he wrote for the Demos think tank is excellent. He discusses the issues thoroughly and convincingly. I highly recommend it.

Regardless of what Hickey, Baker, and Bernstein think, Harvey is right that we need to be careful to not use “full employment” as a euphemism. Hopefully the phrase “Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunities” covers the point and you will sign our petition, if you have not already done so.

Guarantee Living-Wage Jobs: A Call for Action

Posted on January 7, 2014 by Wade Lee Hudson

By Wade Lee Hudson

Driving taxi in San Francisco helped me see why everyone will benefit when we see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job. While earning an adequate, reliable income with part-time cab driving, I discovered firsthand the value of middle-class comforts and realized more clearly how a foundation of economic security will greatly improve the quality of life in the United States.

My family was working poor. In college, I wrote checks not knowing if my mother had deposited enough money to cover them. As an adult, I dedicated my life to community organizing, worked on poverty-level wages, and lived in low-income communities. I got to know that most poor people are good people who will work hard if given the chance. From direct experience, I came to better understand the frustration, resentment, anger, and social discord that results from lack of economic opportunity.

Eventually it got to me. I felt I was hitting my head against the wall, making little progress, and decided to save some money, get rid of most of my possessions, and take a long break to wander on my motorcycle. I ended up on the north coast of the Dominican Republic, living in a thatch hut with a dirt poor family with nine children.

Several other extremely poor families lived within earshot. One day I realized I rarely heard anger or crying. The contrast with San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood where I had been living was dramatic. It struck me that the problem is not poverty. The problem is the lack of economic opportunity in the midst of tremendous wealth.

So long as federal policies continue to cause massive unemployment, stagnant wages, and widespread poverty while enabling the wealthy to enhance their wealth, people trying to alleviate suffering in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin will be flooded with human misery. These reflections led me to Washington, DC to work on national economic policy in order to address root causes.

My first step was to walk into the social action office of the national Methodist Church, where I offered my services as a volunteer. The director suggested that I research how to end poverty. I presented the results of my research in an article in Christian Social Action and at a seminar at the Institute for Policy Studies. These reports were well received and praised from the pulpit by Bill Holmes, my minister at Metropolitan Memorial, the national Methodist Church, with Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in the congregation.

Heartened by this response, I returned to San Francisco, initiated the year-long Solutions to Poverty Workshop. We then convened the Antipoverty Congress to consider the ten-point program we developed, which detailed how to end poverty and how to pay for it. The Congress adopted our program and formed the Campaign to Abolish Poverty, which persuaded Congressman Ron Dellums to introduce the Living Wage Jobs For All Act. I then withdrew from activism to write Economic Security for All: How to End Poverty in the United States, a 320-page book.

But the time was not ripe. The results were meager. Soon thereafter I decided to take a break from activism and convened a series of “strategy workshops” to evaluate how the progressive movement might be more effective. Nevertheless, I continued to monitor developments concerning the economic-security issue, hoping that opportunities would emerge.

Then a few weeks ago I read “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans,” which reported that 68% of the general public in the United States believe “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job” and 78% believe the minimum wage should be “high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below [the] official poverty line.”

This report was not news to me. I already knew that.

But two things were different. First, the authors used terms that were especially well chosen. They asked respondents if they believe that “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job,” That phrase, “see to it,” affirms alternatives to government-funded jobs. If private businesses created enough jobs, then there would be less need for publicly funded jobs. But when that doesn’t happen, as a last resort the “government in Washington” is obligated to ramp up funding for meaningful, living-wage public-service jobs. That way of framing the issue is both more precise and more likely to meet with public approval.

If our society assured every American the means to live decently, government action would not be needed. If Pope Francis prompts a widespread moral renewal and the rich and powerful become less greedy and power hungry, our situation will be much different. But most Americans either struggle to make ends meet or live in poverty, and no relief is in sight. Given this reality, our government must help us fulfill our moral responsibility to prevent needless suffering. The American people must unite and insist that the federal government take effective action.

Second, our situation has changed. The middle class is shrinking and average wages are stagnant. It’s no longer just a matter of “helping the poor.” Most of us are in the same boat now. The only solution is to pull together. And considerable “populist” pressure seems to be building.

These factors prompted me to explore re-engaging directly with the economic-security issue. Soon, with valuable assistance and encouragement from first the Internet strategist Michael Stein and then the economist Dean Baker, I decided to initiate the Guarantee Living-Wage Jobs Campaign.

Though necessary as stop-gap measures, unemployment insurance and food stamps are no real solution. A better approach is to see to it that anyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job.

When we achieve full employment, those who are worried about food stamps fostering dependency can rest assured that we are supporting self-determination.

Business owners will benefit from a more prosperous economy.

Most workers will benefit from:
• Higher wages (because employers will pay more to keep trained employees).
• Being treated with more respect by employers (because workers will have more choices).
• Having more leisure time to relax with their families and enjoy their lives.
• Being able to engage more in their community.

Everyone will benefit from living in a more harmonious, safer society.

And people living in poverty will lift themselves out of poverty, which will greatly improve the quality of their lives.

In short, everyone will be better able to enjoy life, fulfill their potential, be true to who they really are, and participate fully in society.

Fortunately, assuring everyone a living-wage job opportunity is a simple matter. We can do it easily, and there is no good reason not to do it.

As citizens, we need not prescribe precisely how the federal government should achieve full employment. The experts and the policy makers can do that. They managed to save Wall Street. Surely they can figure out how to assure every American a living-wage job opportunity. Our job is to determine if Congress has accomplished that goal and keep pushing until it does.

We can, however, outline some options. The federal government could:
• Require paid sick time, paid family leave, and four weeks of paid vacation, as do all wealthy countries except the United States, which would lead businesses to hire more workers.
• Enable the working poor to lift themselves out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit as necessary to assure that households earn a living wage.
• Send funds to local governments to hire public-service workers to meet needs that are currently being neglected. Those needs include teachers’ assistants, in-home caregiving, nursing home staff, child care workers, park and recreation staff, substance abuse counselors, neighborhood center staff, cultural enrichment, conservation measures, park improvements, and environmental cleanup. By steadily increasing such funding as needed, we could achieve full employment.

By relying on revenue sharing with local governments, we could minimize problems associated with “big government.” Citizens can impact City Hall more easily than they can the federal government.

Without increasing income and payroll tax rates, we could initially fund a jobs program with deficit-neutral options such as:
• A small tax on financial transactions that would discourage unproductive, destabilizing speculation and generate $100 billion or more.
• Reducing wasteful military spending that could free up $60 billion per year or more. •

If more funds were still needed, we could fund more public jobs with: 1) revenues generated by the boost to the economy that would result from this jobs program, and; 2) money that would be available from reduced spending on unemployment insurance and food stamps. Those measures would likely be sufficient to generate enough funding, but another option would be to increase taxes on the top 1%.

Clearly lack of revenue is no reason to back away from guaranteeing living-wage job opportunities. We have more than enough money.

Steadily increasing federal revenue-sharing for public jobs would enable the whole country to monitor this issue. Policies about inflation need to be made openly following full discussion. What is worse? Stagnant wages for the middle class, severe poverty, and widespread unemployment? Or modest inflation?

In Getting Back to Full Employment, Baker and his co-author Jared Bernstein argue that if and when inflation became a serious problem, we could deal with it then. They write, “‘It seems far better to take the risk of a short period with rising inflation than maintaining a higher-than-necessary level of unemployment…. Few would agree that it is appropriate to keep millions out of work and deny wage growth to tens of millions simply to reduce the risk of modestly higher inflation.”

The issues are clear. We need a grassroots movement to mobilize powerful, popular pressure on Washington to honor the will of the people and establish fundamental economic security. So please consider signing the Guarantee Living-Wage Jobs Petition that is addressed to “activist organizations” and reads “We urge you to work together to persuade the government in Washington to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job.”

Let’s build on the support we already have, develop a grassroots movement to guarantee living-wage job opportunities, and enable the United States to finally live up to its stated ideals, truly “promote the general welfare,” and support “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Please sign our petition and we’ll keep you informed about efforts to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job.

+++

Wade Lee Hudson has been an activist, community organizer, and writer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he has lived since 1962. He can be reached at wade[AT]wadehudson[DOT]net. On Twitter: @LivingWageJobs

Living-wage Jobs Campaign (12/27/13 Draft)

Posted on December 26, 2013 by Wade Lee Hudson

Following is the latest draft of the key content for the campaign that Michael Stein and I are planning to launch early next year on the powerful, new Causes.com website. The economist Dean Baker, co-author of the recently published, excellent book, Getting Back to Full Employment, has offered valuable input. The text in bold indicates the Causes.com framework, which cannot be altered. By default, the title and the URL for the campaign consist of the text in the Goal.

Your feedback would be most welcome.

+++

Goal (limit: 60 characters):
[I want to] get Congress to guarantee living-wage job opportunities.

Short Description (limit: 120 characters):
Everyone needs the opportunity to work at a living-wage job in order to develop their potential and serve their community.

Full Description (no known limit):

Most Americans believe that our society should assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity. In a March 2013 article, “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans,” Benjamin I. Page, Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright reported that 68% of the general public believe “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job” and 78% believe that the minimum wage should be “high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below [the] official poverty line.”

So far there’s little grassroots pressure demanding action to achieve this goal. But some signs suggest that such movement may emerge in the near future. You can encourage activist organizations to take on this issue by signing our petition: “We, the undersigned, call on Congress to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job.” You can also pledge to recruit additional signers and start your own “personal campaign” on our site to gather more signers. If you join us, we’ll keep you informed about other efforts to guarantee living-wage job opportunities as we become aware of them. (We will not share your email address.)

As citizens, we need not prescribe precisely how the federal government should achieve full employment. The experts and the policy makers can make those decisions. Our job is to determine if they have accomplished that goal and keep pushing them until they do. They managed to save Wall Street and our car companies when those industries were on the verge of collapse. Surely they can figure out how to enable every American who is willing and able to find a living-wage job.

Without dictating the exact methods, however, we can indicate that our mission is realistic by outlining the problem and suggesting some concrete options in terms of solutions. (As conditions change and we receive feedback, we’ll modify this statement from time to time.)

First, the federal government could enable the working poor to lift themselves out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit to levels necessary to assure that workers earn a living wage.

Second, the federal government could send funds to local governments to hire public-service workers to meet needs that are currently being neglected. Those needs include teachers’ assistants, in-home caregiving, nursing home staff, child care workers, park and recreation staff, substance abuse counselors, neighborhood center staff, and environmental cleanup.

By relying on revenue sharing with local governments, we could minimize problems associated with “big government” and give people a greater opportunity to have a voice in how funds are spent. Citizens can more easily impact City Hall than they can the federal government.

By requiring local governments to maintain current spending levels, we could assure that they did not simply use the new funds to reduce local taxes.

By steadily increasing such funding each year until those jobs go begging due to lack of applicants, we could reach full employment. When such funding is no longer needed, it could be decreased.

About 10 million individuals are officially unemployed. But if more living-wage job opportunities were available, several million more under- and unemployed workers might take those jobs. Because a major national jobs program would boost economic growth, many workers would take jobs in the private sector. In addition, mandating paid sick time, paid family leave, and four weeks of paid vacation, as do all wealthy countries except the United States, would lead businesses to hire more workers.

To get a rough idea, let’s estimate what it might cost the federal government to fund five million living-wage public jobs at $12 per hour. Since a full-time worker at that rate earns $25,000 annually, total wages would be $125 billion. Add on another $25 billion for supervisory and administrative costs, and the total is $150 billion.

Where might those funds come from? Without increasing income and payroll tax rates, the following deficit-neutral options include:
• A small tax on financial transactions would discourage unproductive, destabilizing speculation and generate $100 billion or more.
• Reducing wasteful military spending could free up $60 billion per year or more.
• Tens of billions in increased revenues would be generated from the boost to the economy that would result from full employment.
• Billions would be saved from decreased social insurance payments to people who would no longer need assistance.
• The Federal Reserve Bank could buy municipal bonds, which would lower borrowing costs for local governments and help them pay salaries and invest in infrastructure improvements.

If those measures were insufficient, the government could borrow money. (Annual interest payments on the debt have declined from 15% of the federal budget in the 1990s to about 5% now, so we could afford this option.)

Measures such as these would enable us to move toward full employment. After gauging our progress, if more funding were needed, a one-half-of-one-percent wealth tax on the top 1% could generate $100 billion. (More than one-third of the nation’s $60 trillion wealth is held by the top 1%.)

So clearly lack of revenue is no reason to back away from guaranteeing living-wage job opportunities. The United States has more than enough money to assure living-wage job opportunities.

The standard argument against full employment has been that it would cause excessive inflation. But partly due to global competition, it’s unclear how much inflationary pressure would result. From 1997 to 2000 the unemployment rate was below 5% and falling (approaching full employment, for some workers will always be between jobs), and from 2003 to 2008 it declined from 6.0% to 4.6%, but the core inflation rate has averaged less than 3% since 1997, which is acceptable.

True enough, higher than expected inflation does hurt Wall Street. The price traders pay for financial instruments is based on expected inflation. When they sell, if inflation proves to be greater than expected, the purchasing power of the money they get is less than what they anticipated. Inflation erodes their assets. And this creditor class has great influence on public policy.

But if wages keep pace, some inflation is beneficial to the economy, partly because it gives companies confidence their profits will increase. And multiple measures are available to handle excessive inflationary pressure, including indexing Social Security to inflation and raising interest rates.

Steadily increasing federal revenue-sharing year-by-year would enable the whole country to monitor whether reducing unemployment was contributing to excessive inflation. This decision needs to be made openly following full discussion. What is worse? Stagnant wages for the middle class, severe poverty, and widespread unemployment, or some inflation that benefits most people? How much inflation is acceptable? Historically, most countries have managed quite well with inflation rates that have been much higher than in the United States. But the official Federal Reserve Bank policy, also adopted by other central banks, is an unjustifiable goal of 2% inflation.

In Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better Bargain for Working People, the economists Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein argue that if and when inflation became a serious problem, we could deal with it then.

The issue is one of relative risks. We understand that as the unemployment rate falls to lower levels, the risk of accelerating inflation increases. But if the rate of inflation is not accelerating, there is the risk that people are being needlessly denied the chance to work and wages for those at the bottom are being held down by bad government policy. Based on the relative costs, it seems far better to take the risk of a short period with rising inflation than maintaining a higher-than-necessary level of unemployment…. Few would agree that it is appropriate to keep millions out of work and deny wage growth to tens of millions simply to reduce the risk of modestly higher inflation. [emphasis added]

In a recent interview with Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, Bernstein stated:

The largest group of beneficiaries of full employment is not the un- and underemployed. It’s people with jobs. It creates enough pressure on the compensation system such that the bottom two-thirds of the workforce, for whom growth has been pretty much a spectator sport, get back in the game.

Klein concluded, “Full employment gives average workers the power to demand a better deal from their employers and thus reduces inequality by giving the working class an overdue raise.”

As former union leader William Winpisinger argued:

Official government policy declares unemployment is necessary to combat inflation. For two decades we’ve used high unemployment to combat inflation. We’ve had mini-recessions, mild recessions and severe recessions. We’ve sacrificed the unemployed and their families on the altar of fighting inflation and managing the economy. All we have to show for it are a decline in real incomes for American workers and their families, a growth in poverty-level jobs, and the wasted lives of nearly 10 million people marking time in the ranks of an army of unemployed.

Trading unemployment for price stability is like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats. We lock up people who practice arson as a rodent control policy. Those who promote the conscious use of unemployment to manage the economy are even more dangerous. As a national policy it is hypocritical, bankrupt and bereft of intelligence. It is long past due for this nation to commit, absolutely and unequivocally, to full employment as its number one priority.

The remaining question is how to build a movement to see to it that everyone who wants to work has a living-wage job opportunity. If you support the ““Get Congress to Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunities” campaign, sign our petition, and get others to sign, you’ll encourage activist organizations to take on this issue and we’ll keep you informed about opportunities to get more involved when we learn about them.

1/2/14
(The substitution of future versions will be noted here.)

Guaranteeing a Living-Wage Job Opportunity: A Question

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Wade Lee Hudson

: deanmeyersnet / Foter.com / CC BY

Early next year, I plan to launch a Causes.com campaign calling on the federal government to assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity. In late August of this year, Causes.com made major improvements to their website. For an overview of the new site, click here.

The main purpose of the campaign that I’m initiating is to demonstrate to grassroots activist organizations that they should take on this issue because there is widespread support for it and a substantial number of people would be available to participate in an effort to push for it.

Most Americans believe that our society should assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity. In a March 2013 report, “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans,” Benjamin I. Page, Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright reported that 78% of the general public believe that the minimum wage should be “high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below [the] official poverty line,” and 68% believe “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job.”

The current description of the campaign reads:

This campaign therefore calls for the federal government to send funds to local governments to hire public-service workers to meet pressing needs that are being neglected. These jobs include teachers’ assistants, in-home caregiving, nursing home staff, child care workers, park and recreation staff, substance abuse counselors, neighborhood center staff, and environmental cleanup.

Those funds could be generated primarily by increasing taxes on the top 1%, roughly 1.2 million households whose average income before taxes in 2012 was $1,873,000. So their total income was $2, 250 billion. Their effective tax rate was 20.6%. In the late 1970s, they paid 35%. If they had paid 40% instead of 20%, that would have generated an additional $450 billion in revenue.

About 10 million individuals are officially unemployed, but if living-wage job opportunities were available, another eight million might take those jobs, or 18 million total. A full-time worker paid $12 per hour earns $25,000. So with $450 billion we could hire 18 million workers at $12 per hour.

To guarantee living-wage job opportunities would require additional costs not detailed here. But additional revenues would also be available. For example, the newly employed would pay taxes and reducing wasteful military spending could free up $60 billion per year or more. These numbers indicate that achieving full employment is feasible.

Sources:
Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans
List of countries by number of households
Effective tax rates
The Obsession with Nominal Tax Rates or the Twinkie Romanticism

My question concerns the language for the goal that will be highlighted on the campaign’s homepage. This mission statement can be no more than 60 characters and must begin with “I want to.”

Current options under consideration are:

Option A: [I want to] tell Congress to guarantee living-wage job opportunities.
Option B: [I want to] tell Congress to see to it that everyone can find a job.
Option C: [I want to] get Congress to see to it that everyone can find a job.
Option D: [I want to] get Washington to see to it that everyone can find a job.
Option E: [I want to] get Congress to guarantee living-wage job opportunities.

The phrase “see to it” comes from the study cited above. It may have fewer problematic connotations, like another “entitlement,” and may be less hackneyed than “guaranteed.”

The term “Washington” also comes from that study and may be more inclusive than “Congress,” for the President also needs to be involved.

“Get” may be more achievement-oriented than “tell,” but it may be more grandiose.

Do you have any suggestions?

Wade's Wire

What's on my mind

Tag Archives: jobs