Federal Jobs Guarantee

[RedDenver]

Bernie Sanders just announced a federal jobs guarantee program:

Sen. Sanders to announce proposal promising jobs to all Americans

Quote

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is set to announce a federal jobs proposal that would guarantee a job with at least a $15-per-hour wage and health benefits to every adult American “who wants or needs one,” The Washington Post reports.

 

The senator is still in the early stages of crafting the plan, according to the Post, which would provide a job or required training for any American.

 

Sanders's office has yet to release the details of the plan's funding, but previous large-scale projects proposed by the Vermont progressive have involved ending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

This is one of those proposals that politicians like Sanders come out with that just baffles me when set up against reality.  

 

Who is going to give everyone a job?  Who is going to pay for it?  What are they going to do if there aren't jobs to be had?  If a person doesn't want a job and has absolutely no desire to try to find a job or go to the free job office to get a job.....do they continue to get government benefits?  As a business owner, am I going to be required to hire anyone that walks through the door because the government said they get a job?

 

Also, I remember a time when Republicans promoted a plan that for a person to get welfare, they should do provide some labor for the public like cleaning up highways, parks...etc.  That was viewed as inhumane and how dare anyone expect these people to actually work for their benefits.

 

Are the Democrats now turning that around and supporting it?

[Making Chimichangas]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Bernie Sanders just announced a federal jobs guarantee program:

Sen. Sanders to announce proposal promising jobs to all Americans

 

 

Noble goal, but will never, ever happen.  The selfish 1% elites will make sure of that.

 

When 95% of all wealth flows to the top 1% that's perfectly fine because it is called "capitalism."  But when 95% of the wealth flows down to those who make it possible....GASP!!!!!...that's socialism!!!! 

 

Parody: And this is 'murica!!!!  We dont need no "evil" socialism here!!!  'murica!  Trump 2020!!!! 

 

Funny how one is acceptable when upper class whites are on the receiving end of all wealth, but when it is poor whites, non-whites, and non-christians somehow all that wealth flowing down is suddenly a "bad" thing.

[RedDenver]

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is one of those proposals that politicians like Sanders come out with that just baffles me when set up against reality.  

 

Who is going to give everyone a job?  Who is going to pay for it?  What are they going to do if there aren't jobs to be had?  If a person doesn't want a job and has absolutely no desire to try to find a job or go to the free job office to get a job.....do they continue to get government benefits?  As a business owner, am I going to be required to hire anyone that walks through the door because the government said they get a job?

 

Also, I remember a time when Republicans promoted a plan that for a person to get welfare, they should do provide some labor for the public like cleaning up highways, parks...etc.  That was viewed as inhumane and how dare anyone expect these people to actually work for their benefits.

 

Are the Democrats now turning that around and supporting it?

This is a proposal for the federal government to offer a job to anyone who wants one. This is similar (at least in broad terms since we don't have any details yet) to the jobs program of the New Deal.

 

A thorough explanation of Booker's proposal to test out a jobs guarantee: Cory Booker’s new big idea: guaranteeing jobs for everyone who wants one

Forbes op-ed critical of the proposal: The Jobs Guarantee Idea Is Absurd

 

(EDIT: This isn't being proposed as a requirement to get welfare, so it's not at all the Republican plan.)

 

[TGHusker]

Chimi - the average small business person will take issue with everything you just said. You aren't in the real world.  Your world is that of victim politics.  It is the small business owner that hires the most people.   And they come from every ethnic background you can find.  From the hamburger shop to the hair dresser to the car repair shop, to a manufacturing company.  These people are NOT the 1%ers.  Victim politics solves nothing.  Try becoming an overcomer instead of identifying as a victim. You might end up becoming one of those dreaded 1%ers.

[RedDenver]

From a link in that Vox article, here's a proposal put together by economists:

The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

From a link in that Vox article, here's a proposal put together by economists:

The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment

I can see some merit in this if it also reduces/offsets paid out welfare.  It seems a bit like 'workfare' repackaged.   But as the Vox article states, there are a lot of issues to clear up first - the least not being the cost of said program.

 

 

 

Quote

 

As with any sufficiently big idea, however, a job guarantee comes with risks. It would be expensive, for one thing. Paul, Darity, and Hamilton’s plan, as outlined for the CBPP, would cost $543 billion per year, they estimate. For context, that rivals the size of Medicare, which will cost $707 billion this year, and the size of the defense budget, which totals $622 billion. The Center for American Progress has proposed a more modest $158 billion per year government jobs plan, but it wouldn’t actually guarantee a job to all who sought one, as Paul, Darity, and Hamilton have proposed. Booker’s bill doesn’t have an estimated cost yet.

Second, it’s not clear what exactly participants in a job guarantee scheme would do. Most proposals are somewhat vague on this point, mentioning everything from child care to infrastructure. The Booker bill leaves most of this up to localities to figure out. Cities, counties, and other areas would get a chance to apply for the program, and the Department of Labor would be required to pick a mix of urban and rural areas to try the idea out in. Once the program was up and running, the vast majority of jobs offered would be in the public sector, and participants who need more skills development would be offered up to eight weeks of training.

Positions meeting “a list of national job priorities … that shall include child care, care for seniors and individuals with disabilities, [and] infrastructure activities” would be encouraged, and private sector employers would benefit from the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, a benefit which currently gives employers a few thousand dollars toward wages when they hire veterans, welfare or food stamp recipients, ex-felons, and other people with barriers to employment. But beyond that, the bill doesn’t give many specifics.A job guarantee would ideally provide for jobs that are nice to have but could be nixed when the economy improves and the program shrinks in size. Those are pretty hard to identify. If a job guarantee were enacted in a recession, and many of the enrollees became child care providers, what happens when the economy improves and workers find jobs in the private sector? It wouldn’t be tenable to eliminate a universal child care program because the economy improved. Nor, if the program employed bus drivers, would it make much sense to cut bus routes.

 

 

[Making Chimichangas]

31 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Chimi - the average small business person will take issue with everything you just said. You aren't in the real world.  Your world is that of victim politics.  It is the small business owner that hires the most people.   And they come from every ethnic background you can find.  From the hamburger shop to the hair dresser to the car repair shop, to a manufacturing company.  These people are NOT the 1%ers.  Victim politics solves nothing.  Try becoming an overcomer instead of identifying as a victim. You might end up becoming one of those dreaded 1%ers.

 

And I noticed you didn't actually address the TRUTH of my OP....you just latched onto the same tired accusations.  Wages and salaries have been artifically suppressed while wealth and profits have soared to an all-time high and into the hands of the privileged few.  Deny that and I am not sure we can continue this discussion.

 

You're the one not living in reality.  Could we please dispense with the ludicrous notion that anyone goes to or patronizes small businesses anymore for most of their monthly spending?

 

When you get groceries...you go to the small little market that charges 4 dollars for a gallon of milk, or do you go to a Wal-Mart gorcery store, a SuperSaver, a WinCo, Safeway, or some other huge corporation where you can get milk for 1.78 a gallon?

 

There is a reason why when a Wal-Mart comes to a town all the businesses die and go out of business.  They cannot compete.

 

Amazon is another company, web-based, that is literally putting brick and mortar stores across all business sectors out of business.  Even with shipping costs, in most cases you can buy something cheaper from Amazon or EBay than you can an actual retail shop.

 

You're talking about the American economy from 20+ years ago.  I am talking about the global economy as it exists today.

 

Anx today, wages and salaries are stagnant.  Held in check artifically because billionaires think 10.00 per hour is a "LOT" to pay someone.  Ironic.

[Making Chimichangas]

And I want to make one thing clear: I do not hate anyone who is rich simply because they're rich.

 

What I hate are these rich people who claim poverty and how they can't afford to pay their employees a wage they can live on while they amass hundreds of millions to billions in personal wealth from that business.  The Waltons (who own Wal-Mart) are a prime example of this utter BS.

[TGHusker]

58 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

And I noticed you didn't actually address the TRUTH of my OP....you just latched onto the same tired accusations.  Wages and salaries have been artifically suppressed while wealth and profits have soared to an all-time high and into the hands of the privileged few.  Deny that and I am not sure we can continue this discussion.

 

You're the one not living in reality.  Could we please dispense with the ludicrous notion that anyone goes to or patronizes small businesses anymore for most of their monthly spending?

 

When you get groceries...you go to the small little market that charges 4 dollars for a gallon of milk, or do you go to a Wal-Mart gorcery store, a SuperSaver, a WinCo, Safeway, or some other huge corporation where you can get milk for 1.78 a gallon?

 

There is a reason why when a Wal-Mart comes to a town all the businesses die and go out of business.  They cannot compete.

 

Amazon is another company, web-based, that is literally putting brick and mortar stores across all business sectors out of business.  Even with shipping costs, in most cases you can buy something cheaper from Amazon or EBay than you can an actual retail shop.

 

You're talking about the American economy from 20+ years ago.  I am talking about the global economy as it exists today.

 

Anx today, wages and salaries are stagnant.  Held in check artifically because billionaires think 10.00 per hour is a "LOT" to pay someone.  Ironic.

I don't disagree with wages and salaries being stagnant.  I also don't disagree wt the affect of global economy on the market.  But you missed my point. I wasn't talking about spending - I'm talking about jobs - where they are located.  I know the Mom and Pop store of Mayberry is no longer around.  I too grieve its loss.  However, if we are talking about a jobs program that guarantees wages and salaries for everyone - it will be that very small business that will suffer the most  - not walmart.  As the article noted, wages will increase across the board with a govt jobs program - this will make it more difficult for that small business to compete.  Maybe we are looking at the issue from different sides of the same coin.  As I said in a different post - the proposal has some merit but a lot of details to work out.

43 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

And I want to make one thing clear: I do not hate anyone who is rich simply because they're rich.

 

What I hate are these rich people who claim poverty and how they can't afford to pay their employees a wage they can live on while they amass hundreds of millions to billions in personal wealth from that business.  The Waltons (who own Wal-Mart) are a prime example of this utter BS.

I can agree with  you on this - the days of corporate welfare needs to end. 

[Making Chimichangas]

I wanted to post this earlier but was having some difficulties cuz I'm posting from my phone...

 

Income Inequality

 

Basically it is a graph that shows, over decades, how the income gap has widened to the obscene levels they are today.

 

So while I appreciate what Bernie Sanders is trying to do...it will NEVER happen.

[RedDenver]

19 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

However, if we are talking about a jobs program that guarantees wages and salaries for everyone - it will be that very small business that will suffer the most  - not walmart.  As the article noted, wages will increase across the board with a govt jobs program - this will make it more difficult for that small business to compete. 

Maybe, but the economy is very complex, so it's also possible that workers having higher wages (and fuller employment) may lead to more spending locally and therefore benefit small businesses which tend to also be local.

 

I'm still reading through the policy written by the economists I linked earlier. I has a lot of details and a TON of references to studies that are very detailed.

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

From a link in that Vox article, here's a proposal put together by economists:

The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment

 

[Making Chimichangas]

31 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I don't disagree with wages and salaries being stagnant.  I also don't disagree wt the affect of global economy on the market.  But you missed my point. I wasn't talking about spending - I'm talking about jobs - where they are located.  I know the Mom and Pop store of Mayberry is no longer around.  I too grieve its loss.  However, if we are talking about a jobs program that guarantees wages and salaries for everyone - it will be that very small business that will suffer the most  - not walmart.  As the article noted, wages will increase across the board with a govt jobs program - this will make it more difficult for that small business to compete.  Maybe we are looking at the issue from different sides of the same coin.  As I said in a different post - the proposal has some merit but a lot of details to work out.

I can agree with  you on this - the days of corporate welfare needs to end. 

 

Ronald Reagan used to say, "A rising tide lifts all boats."  Not sure if that's an original quote from him (doesn't matter) but his point is correct.

 

Unfortunately, people at the top generally don't give a rats a** if everyone's boat rises with the tide...they just want theirs to rise.  The irony is, when us "nobodies" (basically 80% of the entire workforce) make great wages: enough to live on, save for retirement, buy a house, and still have money to go out, go on vacation, etc....that's economic prosperity and when rich people benefit the most.  Because when us at the bottom have money, we spend it.  And it is by spending this extra money that puts more money into the accounts of the rich who want to make more money.  

 

Edit: @RedDenver and I basically made the same point.

 

 

 

[knapplc]

I'm skeptical of this idea in the same way I'm skeptical of Guaranteed Basic Income. If it's a modern version of the New Deal, I'll listen to more before passing judgment.

[TGHusker]

8 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Ronald Reagan used to say, "A rising tide lifts all boats."  Not sure if that's an original quote from him (doesn't matter) but his point is correct.

 

Unfortunately, people at the top generally don't give a rats a** if everyone's boat rises with the tide...they just want theirs to rise.  The irony is, when us "nobodies" (basically 80% of the entire workforce) make great wages: enough to live on, save for retirement, buy a house, and still have money to go out, go on vacation, etc....that's economic prosperity and when rich people benefit the most.  Because when us at the bottom have money, we spend it.  And it is by spending this extra money that puts more money into the accounts of the rich who want to make more money.  

 

Edit: @RedDenver and I basically made the same point.

 

 

 

I agree wt what you said.  No issues.  Rising tide lifts all boats is also used when speaking of globalization. It has lifted millions overseas out of poverty but as you note wages became stagnant here.   We (American leaders) thought the high tech, brainy jobs would remain here and that re-education would train workers displaced by jobs going else where and we'd all be computer programmers or something. However that hasn't happened as forecast-ed. There just happens to be very smart people around the world who can do those brainy jobs just as well as us in the USA - at cheaper rates.  So globalization has worked for some but not for all.