The policy with the potential to solve a large percentage of our social economic issues has been steadily gaining momentum nationwide. But the Empire is not going to give up its privileged position easily. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal deserves refudiation (see Sarah Palin): https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-fantasy-of-a-jobs-guarantee-1542239737
RE: “… The sky-high costs … Defense is the only discretionary federal expense comparable …world’s largest employer…”
• So? The authors’ concerns about the “cost” of the program are totally misplaced as broken down by a gentleman and a scholar here: https://fflorescpa.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/financing-economic-solutions-to-unemployment-and-accompanying-social-problems/
RE: “… assume virtually no one currently employed would leave their job… 41 million workers earn less than the program’s minimum wage …”
• But this assumes that private sector wouldn’t react by raising wages on the bottom say quarter of the workforce. A very bad and misleading assumption. The notion that private sector would just shut down and let 41 million workers walk away is preposterous. A one-time upward adjustment in the bottom quarter of the wage scale can be expected. (This is not inflation.)
RE: “… Finding work for 10 million people would be a herculean task. … how or even if the work could be assigned …”
• Not really. A large-scale ramp-up of public sector spending would be a simultaneous effort, alongside but not part of the Job Gty program. Public sector puts together a to-do list and starts executing on it.
• Really? We are getting all hung up on how the work would be assigned? There’s a lot of academic work already done on this. Please do your homework. But as a start, may I suggest an Excel spreadsheet. And work can be funneled through local governments and not-for-profits.
• Governments would put together a To-Do list and start executing on it. Some jobs would require skills and not fall under the JG program. Others would. Politicians would run on how aligned their To-Do lists are with the desires of the voters. Not that hard Max!
RE: “… Monitoring such a colossal program would be difficult and expensive. … …”
• Every grant would be accompanied by an auditor with strict rules and policies and the flexibility to publicize and prosecute abuses. (We can rename the policy the CPA Full Employment Act).
RE: “… a big box retail chain would want a community to prioritize a vacant lot next to one of its stores. … …”
• Rules would be in place on whose property would be cleaned up. If its city property, then it would be a worthwhile project. These decisions are done daily today. The author needs to get out more.
RE: “… temporarily unemployed workers would be diverted….no mechanism or incentive to put their workers skills….weaken the productivity of the economy … …”
• They would be diverted to productive jobs paying them a wage when the worker wants/needs a paycheck. What’s the problem with this?
• Really? Having unemployed folk working instead of sitting on the couch would weaken the productivity of the economy?
• Why do you assume no effort to align skills/desires with available work wouldn’t be included in the program. Sounds like a strawman argument.
RE: “… for a fraction of a job guarantee cost … develop new skills …”
• Aaahhh. Here is the crux of the matter. Many conservatives need to look down their noses at the less fortunate. They fundamentally believe that all unemployment is a consequence of the unemployed skill, attitude, and behavioral shortcomings. The truth is, the poor and unemployed are always with us because of the shortcomings of their betters — highly educated, highly coiffed conservative economists and government policy makers living in nice homes, driving late model luxury cars, working in high government/think tank/academic positions — espousing economic policies which include large numbers of unemployed as a constant and a feature, not a bug in the economy.
Traditional conservative/monetarist/austrian economists espouse policies which feature a buffer stock of unemployed folk which expands and contracts with vagaries of the business cycle. The Job Gty envisions the same buffer stock, but instead of having folks unemployed living in misery, they are productively employed in the Job Gty program, which expands in recessions and shrinks to perhaps nothing during the booms.