Join the Club

Join the Club_

On reflection, it strikes me that my use of the word “club” in “Building a Full Employment Movement: Options for Action (2/14/14 Draft)” was likely influenced unconsciously by my reading of Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World, by Tina Rosenberg (April 23, 2012). The book addresses personal, social, and political change.

Following is the publisher’s book description:

A winner of the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize, Tina Rosenberg has spent her career tackling some of the world’s hardest problems. Now, through striking stories from around the globe, Rosenberg shows how positive peer pressure can change people’s behavior and solve seemingly intractable social quandaries. In every case, pioneering social entrepreneurs throw out the old models for social change in favor of humanity’s most powerful and abundant resource: our connections with one another. The result is one of those rare books that will not only revolutionize the way you look at the world but also give you the power to change it.

The Newsweek” review by Abraham Verghese included: “Empowering . . . sweepingly ambitious . . . . Rosenberg’s case studies are as different as they are fascinating . . . A brilliant book.”

On Amazon, 16 customer reviews give it an average of 4 out of 5 stars, but even the “most helpful” critical review is rather positive. It reads:

Hidden Wisdom. This should have been one of the most fascinating books I’ve ever read; the premise is groundbreaking, the examples (mostly) of tremendous interest and extremely well-researched, and the author’s personal commitment to the subject from her own life experience adds another dimension of insight. Add to that the promise of a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the helm, and you start to wonder whose fault it is that the end result is such a sorry mess. In fact, it kept sending me to sleep, and the only reason I struggled through to the very end was my utter fascination with the subject.
It reads like an early, unedited draft. Why? Firstly, its unnecessarily long. The obsessive attention to detail added nothing to my interest in the subject or my understanding of the argument. Secondly, it reads like two books mixed randomly together. One book (the one you ordered) is about significant social change for good brought about by peer-group pressure. The other book (slipped inside without prior warning) reads like a long-winded promotion for some kind of commercialized evangelical Christianity. Thirdly, its disorganized. With such a complex and ground-breaking idea, drawing examples from so many diverse and contested areas of social conflict, it was always going to be difficult to create a coherent line of argument. Unfortunately, a supporting cast of thousands surges on and off the page in a way that obscures the main characters, the ideas.
There are many important nuggets of wisdom hidden away inside this book. The ideas are brilliant and the argument is convincing and has already changed my perspective on life. It’s sad and frustrating that the writing and editing didn’t fulfill the potential.

The most helpful favorable review reads:

Breakthrough Thinkng. “join the Club” provides some much needed thinking for Social Workers and others interested in making a difference – especially in such difficult economic and anti-social policy times.

Ms. Rosenburg has explored a number of social problems, both domestic and international and explored how the “social cure,” peer pressure as she defines it, can make positive changes. Domestically, the exploration of both teen smoking prevention and study groups for Calculus provide brilliant reporting. The use of professional thinking in marketing to engage teens is particularly helpful, and similar ideas to engage youth in political opposition to corporate manipulation in consumerism, worker exploitation, etc. spring easily to mind.

The international examples are also strong, with powerful stories in Indian, grass-roots health care, the empowerment of women and political action. She also examines the probable peer pressure factors in the success of micro-loans.

While for this reader the overly-long section on the use of groups in a protestant, suburban, mega-church doesn’t measure up to the other stories – this book is good food for thought for advocates everywhere.

I believe this book is extremely relevant to the work of grassroots activists aiming to build a national movement in the United States. The chapter on the overthrow of Milosevic in Yugoslavia is of particular interest.

Building A Multiracial and Multi-issue Progressive Congress

By Joel Segal

Dear Friends:

Love the mentioned 10 point program listed below [see Comments in “Building a Full Employment Movement: Options for Action (2/14/14 Draft)“] It’s like a modern version of the Black Panther’s 10 point program in the 1960’s.

I believe now we need a 21st century/ 2014 ten point plan!

After working in Congress for 13 years, city government for 10 years, and state government for 3 years, I believe that the only realistic way to move forward in building a new America with shared prosperity, health care, jobs, and housing for all, guaranteed economic security and a sustainable environment, is through a united multiracial movement and coalition like the African National Congress, Solidarity in Poland, SNCC, SDS, and the SCLC in the 1960’s.

I think once we as humanists, people of good will, compassion, progressives, and people of faith “take a time out” to asses the state of the progressive movement; we can begin a much more serious and robust discussion about how we can take our country back from far right extremists and corporate elites.

We have not really had this discussion in many years….but its not too late! Living in N.C. for the past year and seeing the power of the Moral Monday movement has given me hope that we can change America if we move forward together! But, not if we stay stuck inside our cubicles, on the Internet all day, and being more focused on foundation grant proposals rather than actual movement building. Both can be done!

Lets be honest: The progressive movement works in independent silos, which is why it will never be able to be effective politically: because the far right is totally connected and coordinated on every level—we are not. 🙂

What keeps progressives from obtaining real political power in the U.S. is not the lack of funding for a progressive organization. I think it’s ego, the foundation industrial complex, no real sense of urgency to defend the human family from harmful corporate and government policies, or not understanding democratic decision making and coalition building due to lack of training or experience.

Or, simply not knowing how to democratically manage or administer a broader big tent coalition. For years I have heard grassroots activists tell me that they oppose working in larger coalitions because they will loose their freedom.

I worked in Congress for years establishing Congressional task forces and managing hundreds of staffers and Members working on health care, jobs, etc. With agreed upon rules and protocol, it was always smoothe functioning. This was because we had structure, and it was a Congress– nobody ever complained about losing their freedom. Activists in Egypt did not worry to much about loosing their freedom as they built their coalitions, because they were too busy building unity in the streets to win the freedom for millions of their oppressed people.

With the very real threat of climate change on the horizon, big tent coalition building will be the only way for us to survive as a human race. Otherwise, the oil, gas, and coal companies and their stockholders will just take down civilization. They probably already have a secret plan authored by Newt Gingrich to establish moon colonies, once we have reached the tipping point with climate change.

I contend that if we continue to organize in our own individual silos, this will be the reason why we could see the end of civilization as we know it–because we simply did not take the time to listen to each other about how to effectively organize transformational and deep systemic change movements by creating more dynamic and politically powerful coalitions. Good news: It’s never too late to reverse that. 🙂

All too often we have leaders and activists who are way too uptight, and often not so nice to be around. They lack the love, empathy, love speech, heart ears, compassion, and spiritual nature that have defined successful social justice movements throughout. history. We also need more music, artists, comedy, poetry, breaking bread, and spiritual bonding in our future coalitions.

I like The Rev Sadler and Rev Shipman N.C. Way: They could organize any movement anytime if activists studied and learned how they organize and build grassroots communities filled with so much love, kindness, food, music, humility, and soul.

And, currently, the best social justice leaders I have met across the nation usually just don’t have the requisite funding to organize like minded cool and spiritually grounded people who can motivate others and build authentic grassroots movements one community at a time. If the movement is grounded in love, good will, and sincerity, it can be hugely successful! But not if talented activists have to live off of Roman noodles and canned franks and beans every day.

If we established some kind of Progressive National Congress, modeled after the Indian National Congress, or the African National Congress, Solidarity in Poland,or the People Power movements the the Philippines, Egypt, or Burma, then we would could have a realistic chance of changing America. Perhaps it’s time to really study how these successful social movements obtained unity and political power— and learn from them. Americans do not always have the correct answers right?

Imagine if one big tent umbrella organization was formed, like the African National Congress, and 30 million people gave one dollar per month for its operation. We could establish a $30 million dollar a year multi issue and multi racial progressive organization not dependent on the generosity of the one percent foundation world; or the affluent liberal individual donor world. And, we could work cooperatively together on multiple social justice causes as one extended family supporting each other as the beloved community Dr. King envisioned when he was alive.

Think how much cooperation there would be if progressives were funded by smaller contributions from fellow progressives! Then we could run our own progressive democrats on the local, state, and federal level who could work to implement an agreed upon 10 point plan. We could have our own magazine, newspaper, tv station, town halls, symposiums, and scheduled media appearances on national tv. This is all possible if we wanted a unified progressive movement, and were truly serious about it.

The far right wing organized a similar united front in the 1980’s with the election of Ronald Reagan. They established Fox News, and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. They went even further by creating the Tea Party movement; and developed an electoral strategy that took over the House of Representatives and 25 state Governorships. If they can do it, why can’t we progressives do it?

Hey if unity worked for the right wing, then perhaps we can replicate their strategy, but to accomplish good things like single payer health care, jobs and economic security for all, or transitioning to clean sources of energy.

Perhaps it’s time for progressives to create our own version of the Tea Party, funded by the people–one united progressive Congress with chapters and working committees in 435 Congressional Districts, and operating in 50 states.

What other political structure could possibly match the power of a multi billion corporate industrial, medical, and military complex, Members of Congress and Governors who represent their interests, and with the consent of the affluent comfortable class, racists, anti-gay extremists, and social Darwinian radical extremists who have taken over the people’s house— the House of Representatives and 25 state General Assemblies?

And, with very little serious discussion or push back by progressives about how to take our country back from this very well organized and well funded right wing and dangerous energized minority that many respected political experts are saying may take over the Senate if we do not fix Obamacare?

American progressives, sadly, often take on the attitudes and beliefs of the oppressor—-and that’s “radical individualism” and ego. So there would have to be carefully selected experienced and egoless leaders to begin this discussion of assessing the state of the progressive movement; and how to create a Coalitions of Coalitions that can take back our country from the Tea Party extremists.

Rep Conyers, who has worked for 45 years as a progressive Member of Congress, use to always ask me why progressives fail to unify and think strategically. He knew this was the only way to successfully fight back against the far right wing, because he worked in successful social change movements with Nelson Mandela and Dr King. He understood very well what he called the “4th branch of government” —the power of the people!!

The election of President Barak Obama showed us all that anything is possible in American politics with unity, deep grassroots organizing, motivation, mature leadership, and heartfelt cooperation.

All the best,
Joel Segal
Former Senior Legislative Assistant and Speech Writer
Rep John Conyers, 2000-2013

Building a Full Employment Movement: Options for Action

By Wade Lee Hudson

Two-thirds of the American people agree. As a society, we “ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job.” Most Americans also believe the minimum wage should be high enough to enable workers to avoid poverty.

We know how to guarantee every worker a living-wage job opportunity. We can do it easily. There is no good reason not to do it.

When the opportunity to secure a living-wage job is guaranteed, everyone will benefit. The positive effects will ripple throughout society:

  • 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.
  • Many workers will be treated with more respect by employers, because workers will have more choices.
  • Everyone will benefit from living in a more harmonious, safer society.
  • People currently living in poverty will lift themselves out of poverty.
  • We can take better care of the environment without worrying about its impact on the economy.

It’s hard to imagine any quickly achievable reform that would be more beneficial. To gain that goal, we need to build the embryonic full employment movement. The seeds of that movement have already been planted. Now we need to grow it and develop the grassroots pressure that is needed to be successful.

A full employment movement could be based on the following principles.

A Broad Alliance

Assuring a living-wage job opportunity is a policy embraced by individuals with widely different political views because it is a principle that blends valid beliefs from varied perspectives.

We can achieve full employment:

  • Without increasing the size of the federal government. Rather, the federal government can send money to local governments (where citizens have more impact) to hire public-service workers to meet pressing social and environmental needs.
  • Primarily by creating private-sector jobs. Initial funding of public-service jobs will increase consumer demand, which will boost the economy. Then, in the upward spiral that follows, private businesses will steadily hire more workers.
  • Without increasing the deficit. A small tax on unproductive, dangerous Wall Street speculation can generate the money needed to jump start a federally funded jobs program. Thereafter, we can hire more workers with increased revenues resulting from a stronger economy, as well as savings from reduced spending on unemployment insurance and food stamps.
  • Without increasing dependency on the government. We can’t guarantee a job, but we can guarantee a job opportunity. Some people will choose not to work (for various reasons) and others won’t show up on time and work hard (and should be fired). But those individuals are few, and they can make it on their own or with other sources of support, including private charity.
  • Without creating “make work” jobs. Almost everyone wants to work and has some useful skill. We can hire the unemployed and give them on-the-job training if needed to rebuild our infrastructure and meet neglected social and environmental needs. They can provide after-school recreation, make park improvements, help clean up the environment, and serve as nursing home staff, in-home caregivers, teacher aides, and substance abuse counselors.
  • By affirming a “mixed economy.” Some ideologues always attack capitalism and promote government programs. Others always attack the government and promote capitalism. But most Americans recognize that we need a mixed economy, with both a strong government and a vigorous free market. Sending federal money to hire workers to meet needs that the private sector cannot meet (because there’s no profit in it) is an example of the common sense pragmatism we need.

Compassion

Most individuals could do more to improve their situation. Self-improvement is valuable and needs to be supported. But if every unemployed person redoubled their efforts to become more employable, there still wouldn’t be enough jobs to go around. And most people can’t start a new business on their own. The jobs market is like a game of musical chairs. So long as there aren’t enough jobs, workers are going to be unjustifiably unemployed.

Some people believe that unskilled workers 18 or over don’t deserve a living wage (current law establishes a “youth minimum wage” that treats 16- and 17-year-old workers differently). They say these workers need to gain experience and boost their skills before they can expect to earn more. And some people believe that being forced to work at poverty-level wages and face the threat of homelessness serves to motivate people to strengthen their skills.

But opening this door is dangerous. Once opened, it can easily be opened ever wider – as is happening now with our shrinking middle class. And even with a minimal living wage, most workers will still be motivated to improve their situation by enhancing their skills.

Every adult who holds down a job should earn enough to make ends meet at a minimally decent level. No human being should be considered disposable and lose the freedom to fulfill their potential. Moreover, the threat of poverty constrains everyone’s liberty, if only because when we see others being oppressed and we have a heart, we are compelled to try to help eliminate that oppression. So long as one of us is not free, none of us are free.

We don’t like to see homeless people and beggars on the street. It gnaws at our conscience, making us wonder whether we should be doing more to help. But let’s not relieve our conscience by blaming the victims of our economy and yelling, “Go get a job.” With Jesus, let’s love our neighbor as we love ourselves. With Buddha, let’s avoid both self-sacrifice and selfishness.

Focus on Morality

Securing the human right to a living-wage job opportunity is a moral imperative. Achieving that goal should be the fundamental purpose of our economy.

If even one person can’t find a living-wage job quickly, it’s a moral outrage.  Activists in the full employment movement need to hammer home that message consistently. Most Americans are moral people. They want to do what is right. Let’s tap our deep moral sense and encourage one another to fulfill our true nature as compassionate human beings.

It’s easy to get wrapped in up facts, figures, history, policy debates, and speculations about the future. But the eyes of most people glaze over when confronted with all those statistics and theoretical arguments.

Let’s focus instead on the moral issue. We are obligated as a human community to make sure that every adult among us who is able and willing to work has the opportunity to earn enough to make ends meet at a minimally decent level.

Let’s build strong, clear support for that position and persuade those with the ability to do so to achieve that goal. We don’t have to agree on exactly how to do it. The experts can figure that out. What we ordinary people need to do is monitor whether or not our society has secured for everyone the human right to a living-wage job opportunity. Until they do, we need to keep pressuring key decision-makers to do it.

Perhaps our nation will experience a moral renewal that will prompt businesses that are already highly profitable to pay higher wages. Perhaps the wealthy will decide to donate 10% of their wealth to non-profit organizations to hire public-service workers. Perhaps the economy will grow to the point that anyone can find a living-wage job.

But until some miracle like that happens, the federal government has a moral obligation to step up and provide the necessary funds. We need to focus on that moral issue like a laser beam, and not get distracted by side issues. If the government can figure out how to rescue Wall Street, they can figure out how to rescue Main Street.

Build the Base

Those of us who are committed to this goal already have a great deal of support. In March 2013, based on a study funded by the highly reputable Russell Sage Foundation, three respected political scientists, Benjamin I. Page, Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright, reported that two-thirds of the American people believe “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job.”

The wording in that survey is important. It did not ask people if they support a guaranteed job, as have other surveys. Rather, it used the phrase “can find a job.” As discussed above, that formulation implies assuring a job opportunity. It does not assume that people who find a job can keep it regardless of their effort. It does not guarantee a job unconditionally.

Polls indicate the importance of the distinction. The Page/Bartels/Seawright study found lower support for “the federal government should provide jobs for everyone able and willing to work who cannot find a job in private employment.” Barely more than half supported that position.

And a 2014 YouGov/Huffington Post poll asked, “Would you favor or oppose a law guaranteeing a job to every American adult, with the government providing jobs for people who can’t find employment in the private sector?” In that poll, more people supported that proposition, 47%, than opposed it, 41%. But support for each of these positions was weaker than with the “job opportunity” option.

Various methods are available to create jobs, including providing more support for the private economy. But according to most Americans, the ultimate responsibility rests in DC: “the government in Washington.”

Other polls have shown strong support for federal job creation programs. A March 2013 Gallup poll, for example, found that three-fourths supported “a federal jobs creation law that would spend government money for a program designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.”

The Page/Bartels/Seawright study also found that three-fourths of the general public believe the minimum wage should be “high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below [the] official poverty line.” That response indicates that an overwhelming majority of Americans believes that full-time workers should earn a “living wage” that enables them to avoid poverty.

Different elements of a full employment movement could back various proposals for increasing the minimum wage. One option is to raise the minimum wage to a level that will enable single workers to avoid poverty and increase the Earned Income Tax credit for families to achieve the same goal. A recent poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found 80 percent of the respondents agreed that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10 an hour. A national meeting in Washington on April 28 will be pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage.

(If you want to form your own opinion about what a single childless worker in your state needs to make ends meet, experiment with the New York Times interactive calculator, which allows you to construct a line-item living-wage budget.)

Through vigorous public debate, we can trust the “wisdom of crowds” and develop a consensus about how to concretely ensure living-wage incomes, while at the same time building support for the proposition that as a society, one way or the other, we must assuring everyone a living-wage job opportunity.

We would not need total agreement within a full employment movement on all specific methods. Rather, we can respect our differences and focus on building broad support for our basic goal: guaranteeing all Americans a living-wage job opportunity.

Promote True Full Employment

In recent decades, most economists have mistakenly re-defined “full employment” to mean something other than what the term used to mean and what most people understand it to mean – namely, that anyone who wants to work can quickly find a job. Instead, they’ve tied full employment to a specific rate of unemployment that is supposedly necessary to prevent excessive inflation.

This new definition carries weight, because the economists behind it are highly respected by pundits and politicians who help shape public opinion. These economists define full employment as the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,” or NAIRU. Wikipedia says NAIRU “refers to a level of unemployment below which inflation rises.” Investopedia defines it as “the specific level of unemployment that exists in an economy that does not cause inflation to increase.”

Thus, by definition, the NAIRU consists of an automatic cause-and-effect relationship between some particular rate of unemployment and inflation. That’s why economists give it so much weight. On the face of it, however, this concept is nonsense. There is no such simple cause-and-effect relationship. Reality is far more complicated than that.

The economists themselves can’t agree on what that rate of unemployment is. And the most recent official predictions were wrong. Decreasing unemployment rates in the 1990s, for example, did not lead to any insignificant increase in “core inflation,” which excludes oil prices. Yet economists still talk about the NAIRU as if it were Gospel truth.

Once you accept that no NAIRU has magical powers and you recognize that other factors are extremely relevant, the only logical conclusion is to accept that, given the political will, we can use measures other than creating unemployment to deal with any inflationary pressures that result from achieving true full employment. The NAIRU therefore is a myth. It does not hold the power it is supposed to have.

This conclusion is reinforced by an analysis of the historical record. For example:

  • Wage setting practices in Sweden and Japan maintained a sustainable balance between wage growth and productivity growth into the 1980s.
  • Rapid worker productivity growth in various countries have restrained wage and price increases.
  • Price controls have been used to restrain prices.
  • Increased global competition is limiting price increases.

We should also bear in mind that we can fund public-service jobs without increasing the deficit (which can be inflationary). Workers in a federally funded jobs program can remain available to take jobs in the private sector, just as they do when they collect unemployment insurance. Also, the amount of money the federal government sends to each region can be based on that region’s unemployment rate: regions with more unemployment can receive more funding. Finally, we can reduce funding for direct job creation as unemployment declines. All of these methods will minimize inflationary pressures.

If wages and Social Security keep pace, a modest increase in prices is not problematic (except for Wall Street traders who did not anticipate the increase). The gains from increased employment would be far greater than any potential costs from higher inflation. Even if prices did increase, the rise would be gradual, allowing time for corrective measures, if needed.

Once again, we need not get hung up on trying to reach agreement on exact methods. Rather, we can stay focused on our goal and insist that if and when policy makers at some point in the future consider creating unemployment to restrain inflation, they should do so openly with full public debate.

In the meantime, we can keep in mind four facts: 1) The NAIRU with its alleged automatic cause-and-effect relationship is blatantly false. 2) There’s a good possibility we can achieve full employment without adding to inflationary pressures. 3) There are other ways to deal with any inflationary problems that result and we should try those options first. 4) Creating unemployment to control inflation should be the absolute last resort.

We should not blindly trust economists (or any other technocrat). They’ve often been terribly wrong on many important matters in the past. They tend to ignore morality and are too willing to sacrifice the unemployed and working poor on the altar of “economic growth” that fails to lift all boats. Instead, we should rely primarily on our own common sense and clear logic, and stay grounded in the key moral issue: every adult who is able and willing to work deserves a living-wage job opportunity.

Countering Cynicism

Signs of a contemporary full employment movement have been percolating for decades. New Initiatives for Full Employment (NIFE), an ethnically and racially diverse group of social activists and academics began working together on the East Coast in 1986 to develop a feasible plan for full employment. From April 1990 to March 1991, the San Francisco-based Solutions to Poverty Workshop developed a concrete 10-point National Program to Abolish Involuntary Poverty. The San Francisco Antipoverty Congress adopted that program in April 1992, which led to the formation of the Campaign to Abolish Poverty (CAP) and the introduction of the Living Wage Jobs for All Act by Congressman Ron Dellums. In June 1994, NIFE convened the National Jobs for All Coalition, which was committed to building a new movement for full employment at livable wages.

In the summer of 1994, an alliance of labor and religious organizations in Baltimore began organizing for a local living-wage ordinance, which was adopted in December. In March 1995, the Campaign for Sustainable Milwaukee launched its campaign for a living-wage law using Baltimore as a model. In the fall of 1995, Chicago initiated its successful, similar effort.

In 1996, the Full Employment Coalition convened a Jobs for All Week, began organizing for a living-wage law in San Francisco, and supported similar efforts in other cities. Scores of cities and counties throughout the country now have living-wage laws.

More than 130,000 individuals have signed the OUR Walmart petition asking President Obama to support Walmart workers who are risking their livelihood by organizing fellow workers. Fast-food workers organizing with Restaurant Opportunities Centers United to increase the minimum wage are asking consumers to sign a petition declaring, “I am willing to pay an extra dime a day for my food so that close to 8 million food system workers and 21 million additional low-wage workers can receive a much deserved raise to help them meet their basic needs.”

In 2013 Congressman John Conyers, Jr. introduced HR 1000, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act, which is being promoted by the Jobs for All Campaign. The bill already has 57 co-sponsors. In early 2014, Conyers and his co-chair, Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, launched the first-ever Congressional Full Employment Caucus and convened a public forum on “Employment: A Human Right” that attracted a standing-room-only crowd in the House Office Building. On March 22, a public forum on HR 1000 will be held at the University of DC Law School, and plans are afoot for a DC National Day of Action focused on HR 1000 in late May or early June. And on April 28 a national gathering will focus on establishing a $15 per hour minimum wage – as was done in SeaTac, WA.

The greatest obstacle to expanding and deepening these efforts is cynicism and passivity. Most Americans believe they can’t have much impact, so they remain inactive, thereby fulfilling their prophecy. Overcoming this circular dynamic is an urgent task. To achieve that goal, activists need to develop some new organizing methods.

More Effective Methods

Like the rest of our society, most activist organizations get wrapped up in facts and figures and policy prescriptions, and fail to affirm underlying moral values. They rely on tapping anger and fear, and neglect deeper feelings of love and faith. They aim to score victories by defeating opponents, rather than seeking win-win solutions. They focus on the outer world and ignore the inner world. They aim to change others and overlook the need to change themselves. They operate too much in the head, not enough in the heart. They become excessively task-oriented, and forget to evaluate their process and how their members relate to each other. They overlook the need to empower people. They primarily rely on mobilizing people to take some specific action, rather than collective problem solving. They often have hidden agendas. They spend too much time calculating what is “political,” rather than speaking honestly. They may “listen” to people when they first recruit them, but then stop really listening. They lecture, often with a shrill tone, and try to “educate,” rather than engaging in authentic dialog. They aim to persuade, and stop learning. They are too arrogant and judgmental, rather than humble and understanding. They function like an impersonal machine that uses people until they use them up. They manipulate people by stroking their egos. They are side-tracked by self-centered power struggles. They tend to believe that some one person must always be in charge – that individuals must either dominate or submit – rather than collaborate as equals. They have too many boring meetings. They don’t sing and dance enough. They don’t enjoy enough cultural experiences together. They don’t just hang out and socialize informally enough. They are too serious. They don’t have enough fun. They forget to love the universe and the life force that energizes and structures it.

These patterns drive away many potential activists. If we want to build an effective full employment movement, or any other movement that is going to have a real impact, we need to develop new ways of organizing. The old methods work well for some people. That’s fine. It’s not either/or. But new approaches could draw in people who are currently inactive.

Full Employment Clubs

One method that could help is to grow a network of “full employment clubs” that attract new members with contagious happiness. The members of these clubs could share meals, socialize informally, and support one another in their personal growth, community building, and political action.

These self-governing clubs would engage in a wide variety of activities. Different clubs would experiment with different methods. There would be no one cookie-cutter formula for everyone to follow. Each member would define her or his own goals. All members of some clubs might belong to the same organization. Other clubs might consist only of individuals who belong to no organization. Some members might convene support groups for unemployed workers, or lobby their Congressperson. Others might volunteer at a food bank, or help a new business prosper. Study groups, public forums, and Internet outreach are obvious options. The possibilities are unlimited.

This diversification would encourage the growth of new structures that foster social change. Reports on the results of the experiments could be posted on a central website for other members of other clubs in the network to review and perhaps replicate, or modify.

Some minimal common ground throughout the network could provide all members with a shared identity, a sense of belonging to the same community. Toward this end, the network’s mission could be: to help assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity.

The network’s primary method could be: to encourage and cultivate the development of caring communities whose members support one another in their personal growth, community building, and political action.

The network’s only specific requirement, to which all clubs would agree, could be that the members of each club would meet at least once a month to share a meal, socialize informally, report on their activities and plans (with regard to personal growth, community building, and political action), and make decisions concerning future activities.

Given the somewhat intimate nature of these gatherings, some clubs might choose to start small and invite only close, trusted friends to join. One person could recruit one other person and the two of them could recruit a third.

A club could be defined as a team of three or more individuals who affirm the network’s mission, primary method, and specific requirement. This commonality among all the clubs could nurture a sense of community, while allowing for maximum flexibility and self-determination.

A commitment to work consistently in each of the three areas addressed – the personal, the social, and the political – is important, because efforts in each area can reinforce and strengthen efforts in the other two.

For club members, the emphasis would undoubtedly shift from day by day. The members might engage in political action only occasionally. But it seems they could reasonably be asked to dedicate at least an hour or two each month to help improve public policies. After all, we vote because we feel it is our duty, even though one vote is rarely decisive. We need to feel a similar obligation to be politically engaged between elections.

It also seems reasonable to ask others to devote at least an hour or two each month to strengthen a community in their home town, thereby helping to establish examples that can point the way to a better future.

Each day members can also work on becoming better human beings, if only by paying attention to how they operate, acknowledging mistakes, and resolving to avoid them in the future. Such honest self-evaluation enables activists to steadily become more effective.

With consistent efforts in these three areas, we could fulfill our obligation to do our fair share to improve the world.

These full employment clubs could also help combat growing social isolation by nurturing soulful, authentic, face-to-face relationships that help people fulfill their potential. Members could expand and deepen their circle of close, trusted friends. In these safe havens, they could feel free to be themselves, have fun, express honest feelings, listen carefully, give and receive support, get to know one another, discuss the meaning of life, evaluate what’s right and what’s wrong, help one another become better human beings, and consider how to improve social institutions and governmental policies. The network could exchange information about opportunities for social and political action, without endorsing or lobbying for any specific legislation.

Most people learn from and are inspired primarily by peers they know and trust. To build a popular movement in this country at this time, we need to learn how to reach out to our friends, enrich those friendships, provide meaningful opportunities for social engagement, and cultivate compassionate communities. Given the dehumanizing pressures of modern life, merely relying on spontaneity and the development of natural human friendships is not sufficient. We also need conscious, skillful efforts to cultivate compassionate community. We need to offer time-challenged people easy, attractive ways to have more rewarding experiences that are rooted in open, transparent, mutually respectful collaboration.

I am available to help get this kind of network off the ground. If you want to gather in San Francisco August 15-18 to discuss this possibility, please let me know. My associates and I could find free housing for a good number of individuals who need it. At our gathering, we could discuss efforts along this line, brainstorm about future possibilities, have some fun, and explore some hidden gems in San Francisco that most tourists never see (plan your vacation now!). In the meantime, if you’re interested in experimenting with these ideas, feel free to do so. As I travel this spring and when I return home in late May, I will.

If others want to organize a broader range of activities to help build a national full employment movement during those days in August, I’d also be available to help with that as best I can.

Immediate Options

The full employment movement is beginning to blossom. You can help build this movement in your hometown and on the Internet. Your options include:

  • Support the Jobs for All Campaign.
  • Donate to the National Jobs for All Coalition.
  • Encourage your Congressperson and Senators to join the Congressional Full Employment Coalition.
  • Sign the Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunities petition.
  • Participate in a Jobs for All Campaign planning meeting in DC in late March.
  • Participate in or watch a live stream of the public forum on HR 1000 to be held March 22, 3-5 pm, at the University of DC Law School.
  • Participate in the April 28 meeting to promote a $15 per hour minimum wage.
  • Help plan a DC National Day of Action to back HR 1000 in late May or early June.
  • Sign the Making Change at Walmart petition.
  • Sign the restaurant workers petition calling for a higher minimum wage.
  • Experiment with a “full employment club” on your own, or perhaps come to San Francisco August 15-18 to discuss how to foster a “full employment club network” as discussed above.

Let’s help the United States live up to its ideals. Let’s “promote the general welfare” and secure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all, by building a full employment movement!

+++

Wade Lee Hudson. a part-time cab driver and community organizer who lives in San Francisco, is author of the Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunities petition (see a video here). To stay informed concerning efforts to secure living-wage job opportunities for all, you can email wade AT wadehudson DOT net.

Reflections on the Battle of Baghdad

BaghdadFollowing is the slightly edited commentary that I wrote on April 14,  2003 as I waited in Amman, Jordan to return to the States after serving with the Iraq Peace Team during the invasion and occupation of Baghdad.

+++++

My thirty-one days in Baghdad with the Iraq Peace Team (IPT) were both horrific and wonderful. I arrived less than seven days before the bombing began and left the day after BBC TV reported, “Scenes of medics guarding their hospitals with guns may be more etched in memory than scenes of statutes toppling.”

The hospitality of the Iraqi people was overwhelming. Even when people learned that we were from the United States, they treated us with immense affection. When Iraqis learned that we opposed the war, spontaneous expressions of appreciation were common. If the “chicken hawks” had been right about an overwhelming Iraqi desire to be liberated forcibly by America, most of the Iraqis whom we met would have simply kept quiet.

Iraqis were happy when the Saddam regime collapsed. The fear and anger toward Saddam was palpable. Even those with mixed emotions must have felt some satisfaction.

One should not overestimate the joy, however. BBC reported thousands in the streets celebrating, not tens of thousands. And the military brought in a crowd of Shiites, who are vehemently anti-Saddam, to cheer the televised toppling of Saddam’s statute.

A large portion of the positive response to the arrival of American troops was relief that the bombing was over. For three weeks, bombs and missiles that shook the ground for mile around fell on Baghdad relentlessly. It was like living through 20 or 30 San Francisco earthquakes day after day.

As IPT documented in our report, “Civilian Casualties and Infrastructure Damage in the 2003 U.S.-led Attack on Baghdad – March 20-April 1, 2003,” the cost was terrible. When American troops entered Baghdad, the human toll increased. Body parts being blown away by machine-gun fire. Charred bodies lying by the roadside. Tanks trying to kill snipers a mile away, not knowing whom they would hit. Soldiers deciding not to shoot out the tires of approaching cars but killing the occupants inside instead.

Then, as expected, post-invasion, anarchy ensued, adding to the death toll. Not only did the U.S. not bring in a police force to keep order. Not only did the U.S. give the looters a green light by being passive. They actually encouraged the mayhem. On the ground, they blew open banks and buildings and invited in the looters. And at headquarters, they tried to legitimize the banditry by saying that the victims were people who had benefited from the old regime.

No one will ever know how many Iraqis die in this escapade, because the U.S. allowed the burning of key government records, including vital statistics.

One soldier told me that he lost sleep many nights because he knew that he had killed innocent civilians when he made the wrong split-second decision. Another said that he never fired his gun and told others that his gun jammed when asked about it. The damage done to the souls of these kids may persist for the rest of their lives.

The invasion honeymoon was over quickly. Other feelings soon surfaced. One Iraqi, for example, said, “I’m glad that Saddam is gone, but I wish that it had been Iraqis who got rid of him.” Another commented, “I think the U.S. will secure Iraqi resources and leave some other crazy guy in charge.”

As we left Baghdad yesterday, April 13, all the way to the edge of town we saw burned out cars, looted stores, garbage and debris, abandoned tanks, and devastated buildings. Many times, our driver was forced to change his route because the road was blocked by wreckage of one sort or another.

While stuck at the Jordanian border, an AP reporter who left about two hours after we did told us that he was robbed at gunpoint just outside of Baghdad. Once again, I felt lucky. The Iraqi people have not been so fortunate.

+++++

The Problem with Activists

DSC01563By Wade Lee Hudson

Like the rest of our society, most activist organizations get wrapped up in facts and figures and policy prescriptions, and fail to affirm underlying moral values. They rely on tapping anger and fear, and neglect deeper feelings of love and faith. They aim to score victories by defeating opponents, rather than seeking win-win solutions. They focus on the outer world and ignore the inner world. They operate too much in the head, not enough in the heart. They become excessively task-oriented, and forget to evaluate their process and how their members relate to each other. They overlook the need to empower people. They primarily rely on mobilizing people to take some specific action, rather than collective problem solving. They often have hidden agendas. They spend too much time calculating what is “political,” rather than speaking honestly. They may “listen” to people when they first recruit them, but then stop really listening. They lecture, often with a shrill tone, and try to “educate,” rather than engaging in authentic dialog. They aim to persuade, and stop learning. They are too arrogant and judgmental, rather than humble and understanding. They function like an impersonal machine that uses people until they use them up. They manipulate people by stroking their egos. They are afflicted with self-centered power struggles. They tend to believe that some one person must always be in charge, that each person must either dominate or submit, rather than collaborate as equals. They have too many boring meetings. They don’t sing and dance enough. They don’t enjoy enough cultural experiences together. They don’t just hang out and socialize informally enough. They are too serious. They don’t have enough fun. They forget to love the universe and the life force that energizes and structures it.

Survey Report: The Personal, the Social, and the Political

Dear Respondents:

I very much appreciate you responding to the survey. Thanks very much!

Please consider completing the seven-question follow up survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/55QPNJQ

After tabulating and reviewing the responses to “The Personal, the Social, and the Political: A Survey,” it seems we have an experienced, knowledgeable group of individuals who can learn from one another about how to describe and structure group activities that enable participants to deepen and improve their personal growth, community building, and political action.

So I very much hope that a good number of you will share your knowledge and opinions so we can move forward. We urgently need to: 1) strengthen our skills as social-change activists, and; 2) figure out how to encourage others to do the same.

In particular, I hope that those of you who reported that you are already engaged in such group activities will inform the rest of us about how you organize your activities and what you do.

I am particularly interested in communicating more with those who said they are or might be interested in gathering “at least once a month with close, trusted friends to share a meal, socialize informally, and hear what others have to say about the kind of questions posed in this survey.”

Toward this end, I’ve created a new survey with open-ended questions about these issues. If you can, please complete this survey so we can better understand what other people are doing and how they are doing it. To complete the survey, click here

I’m also inviting a few people who did not respond to the survey but who are very interested in the subject. Feel free to invite others yourself.

In reviewing the 58 responses, the following elements stand out in my mind:
1. Overall, having done similar surveys in the past, I’m impressed with the level of interest. I’ve received more responses than with any other survey I’ve distributed, everyone completed the entire survey, and almost everyone answered every question.
2. 97% said they had tried to “become a better human being” in the last month. (So it seems that most people do relate to that particular phrase, to which some people object.)
3. 77% said they had tried to help improve a social institution, organization, or informal community of friends in the last month.
4. 78% said they had engaged in an effort to impact public policy in the last month.
5. The percentages concerning future plans for each of those three areas were similar.
6. 90% believe that efforts in each of those three areas can reinforce and strengthen efforts in the other two areas.
7. Concerning whether the respondents would “like to gather at least once a month with close, trusted friends to share a meal, socialize informally, and hear what others have to say about the kind of questions posed in this survey,” 53% said Yes, 21% said No, and 26% said Not Sure.
8. Concerning interest in participating in an online discussion and/or a video call about these questions, 36% said Yes, 38% said No, and 26% said Not Sure. So we have 36 respondents who might participate, and 21 who are definitely interested
9. 81% said they want to receive a report on the responses.

A Word document reporting on all of the responses, including all comments and the names of those respondents who authorized me to identify them, is attached. I’d be interested to know if different elements stand out to you.

Following are the totals for each question.

1. Do you have close friends with whom you: • Feel free to be yourself • Have fun • Express deep feelings • Listen carefully • Give and receive support • Get to know each other • Share happiness • Discuss the meaning of life • Evaluate what’s right and what’s wrong • Help each other become better human beings • And consider how to improve social institutions and governmental policies?
Yes 96.5% 55
No 3.5% 2
Not sure 0.0% 0
Comment 9
answered question 57
skipped question 1

2. If you do have those kind of close friends, do you occasionally gather as a group to engage in those kind of activities together?
Yes 72.4% 42
No 25.9% 15
Not sure 1.7% 1
Comment 12
answered question 58
skipped question 0

3. In the last month, have you, in one way or another, tried to become a better human being?
Yes 96.6% 56
No 0.0% 0
Not sure 3.4% 2
Comment 5
answered question 58
skipped question 0

4. During the next month, do you plan to try to become a better human being?
Yes 91.4% 53
No 0.0% 0
Not sure 8.6% 5
Comment 4
answered question 58
skipped question 0

5. In the last month, have you tried to help improve a social institution (or organization), such as a spiritual community, your child’s school, a neighborhood center, or an informal community of friends?
Yes 77.2% 44
No 15.8% 9
Not sure 7.0% 4
Comment 7
answered question 57
skipped question 1

6. During the next month, do you plan to help improve a social institution or informal community?
Yes 77.6% 45
No 5.2% 3
Not sure 17.2% 10
Comment 8
answered question 58
skipped question 0

7. In the last month, have you engaged in an effort to impact public policy?
Yes 77.6% 45
No 20.7% 12
Not sure 1.7% 1
Comment 11
answered question 58
skipped question 0

8. During the next month, do you plan to engage in an effort to impact public policy?
Yes 74.1% 43
No 8.6% 5
Not sure 17.2% 10
Comment 7
answered question 58
skipped question 0

9. Do you believe that efforts in each of those three areas – personal growth, community building, and political action – can reinforce and strengthen efforts in the other two areas?
Yes 89.7% 52
No 3.4% 2
Not sure 6.9% 4
answered question 58 58
skipped question skipped question 0 0

10. Would you like to gather at least once a month with close, trusted friends to share a meal, socialize informally, and hear what others have to say about the kind of questions posed in this survey?
Yes 53.4% 31
No 20.7% 12
Not sure 25.9% 15
Comment 13
answered question 58
skipped question 0

11. Would you be interested in participating in an online discussion and/or a video call about these questions with others who answer this survey?
Yes 36.2% 21
No 37.9% 22
Not sure 25.9% 15
Comment 7
answered question 58
skipped question 0
12. Would you like to receive a report on the results of this survey?
Yes 80.7% 46
No 15.8% 9
Not sure 3.5% 2
Comment 3
answered question 57
skipped question 1

13. May we identify you as the author of your comments?
Yes 60.3% 35
No 32.8% 19
Not sure 6.9% 4
answered question 58
question 0

14. What is your name and email address? We won’t share your email address.
answered question 48
skipped question 10

Right to Employment Moves Forward

By Wade Lee Hudson

A standing-room-only crowd of 75 at a Capitol Hill forum on “Employment: A Human Right” provided a step forward in what may become a full employment movement. As reflected in my transcript of the answers to the moderator’s question on human rights, the five economists on the forum’s panel largely supported the proposition that access to decent jobs can and should be a human right.

Thea Lee, one of the panelists, offered a particularly eloquent affirmation. “What could be a more fundamental human right than employment?” she asked rhetorically. “It is essential to almost everything else that most people need in their lives, given that most of us aren’t born with a trust fund or a guarantee from the government. If you want to eat, if you want to feed your children, if you want education for your children, all of those things come from having a good job.”

And Lawrence Mishel astutely commented on how what is accepted as a human right has expanded over time through political struggle. “So what is a right is about what you can take,” he argued. “What lays before us is whether we are going to have a political struggle and economic policies that assure that people have jobs, good jobs, and economic security at work and in retirement.“

Most Americans believe the federal government should assure the right to living-wage employment. The middle class is shrinking. Everyone would benefit from a full-employment economy. The time may well be ripe for a movement to assure everyone the right to a living-wage job opportunity.

Unfortunately, however, the five economists on the panel failed to articulate a consensus agreement on what they mean by “full employment.” Due to their influence, lack of clarity on this point among progressive economists undermines prospects for the further development of a full employment movement.

During the forum, Mishel also touched on the need for an inspiring vision. “The American people would support a massive public investment program,” he argued. “They don’t want something that’s going to be just a little bit.” His well-taken point can be expanded.

In order to motivate widespread popular participation, a jobs campaign not only needs to affirm the universal right to employment. It also needs to define “full employment” clearly and honestly, as commonly understood – that is, we will have full employment when everyone who is able and willing to work can find a job quickly. As I discussed in “Conyers Pushes Full Employment,” it seems to me that HR 1000, which was introduced by Congressman Conyers, describes full employment in that manner, as did President Franklin Roosevelt.

But in recent decades, many economists and legislators have redefined “full employment” as being “a level of unemployment below which inflation rises,” or alternatively, “the specific level of unemployment that exists in an economy that does not cause inflation to increase.” They call this the NAIRU, the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. Proponents of this view don’t agree on what that rate is, but their opinions usually range from 3-5%.

In fact, however, inflation need not necessarily rise when we achieve true full employment, as Phillip Harvey, another forum panelist, discussed in an email to me. He said, “A set of institutional arrangements [can] maintain a sustainable balance between wage growth and productivity growth (as very different wage setting practices in Sweden and Japan allowed into the 1980s).” In addition, wage and price increases can be restrained by “unusually rapid productivity growth (as a number of countries in Western Europe experienced in the 1950s).” And, Harvey pointed out, “Strict price controls (as during World War II in the U.S.)” can be used to restrain inflation.

Another factor is increased global competition. In recent decades, as unemployment has declined, inflation has not been problematic. In addition, measures such as those included in HR 1000 can assure true full employment “without adding significantly to inflationary pressures,” as the bill states. One reason this goal can be achieved is that it is “deficit neutral.” It generates funding from a small tax on Wall Street transactions, rather than using deficit spending to stimulate private-sector employment, which is the conventional way to create jobs.

According to the jobs program outlined in HR 1000, so long as we have unemployment, the federal government (as a last resort) will share revenues locally to fund public-service employment. The workers in the new public jobs will remain available to take jobs in the private sector, as they are when they collect unemployment insurance. The amount of money the federal government sends to each region will be based on that region’s unemployment rate. And this spending will diminish as unemployment is reduced. These factors will minimize inflationary pressures.

So we need to discard the NAIRU and return to the common sense definition of full employment. Let’s stop debating what the unemployment rate should be. Sure, some people will always be “between jobs.” But who knows how many that will be? And who cares? It’s irrelevant. Let’s even stop debating how many people are actually unemployed. Everyone knows it’s a big number. And let’s forget about “structural unemployment.” Except for the totally disabled, every adult has some useful skill. Especially with on-the-job training, we can put them to work. We can provide job opportunities where people live. And we can pay a living wage.

So long as one person who is able and willing to work cannot find a job quickly, it is a moral outrage and should not be tolerated.

Using a NAIRU as the definition of full employment is a misleading euphemism – an inoffensive expression that is substituted for a description that is more accurate but “unpleasant.” The reality that any NAIRU obscures is that it still involves widespread unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and economic insecurity. As such, it’s nice rhetoric, but it fails to constitute an inspiring vision that might motivate a movement because most people catch on to the deception.

While discussing the related issue of inflation during the forum, Dean Baker called for honesty in our discussions. “We really do let much of this get away in the form of euphemisms,” he lamented. Referring to when the Federal Reserve Bank was “raising interest rates deliberately to slow the economy and keep people from getting jobs,” he said the media reported the Fed didn’t want the economy to “overheat,” rather than stating that “what he was doing was keeping people from getting work.” Baker concluded, “At the very least we need to get some honest discussion of this.” The same point applies to the conventional dishonest use of the term “full employment.”

Unfortunately, however, we learn to be calculating in what we say. Worried about the future impact, we become overly careful about what we say, rather than being open and spontaneous. The word “political” has come to carry this often pejorative connotation of calculated maneuvering. Hopefully, young people, with their use of social media like Facebook, are overcoming this tendency toward deception and manipulation. And with the growth of the Surveillance State, we might as well assume that whatever we say may become public.

Toward this end, tiring of going back to seek permission to quote emails, I now include the following in my email signature: “Since I believe in transparency, I may – with discretion – publicly quote any email sent to me unless asked not to. So please let me know if you prefer that I not quote you.” So far, only one correspondent has asked me to never quote him without consent, which I consider a hopeful sign. Let’s learn to be honest and speak our truth, with compassion and sensitivity.

Even with this commitment, however, the other day I introduced a somewhat delicate question with the phrase “between you and me.” Later I regretted it. Old habits die hard.

Seeking clarity and honesty on the issue of human rights and full employment, prior to the Feb 5 forum I emailed to the panelists the letter that I included in “Conyers Pushes Full Employment.” The intent of my letter was to help clarify what we mean by the phrase “full employment.” In that letter, I said:

As economists with considerable standing in progressive communities, at the February 5 forum … you will be in a position to offer valuable support for true full employment, in contrast to one NAIRU or another.

You can provide this support by affirmatively answering two questions:
• 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?

My impression is that they largely responded positively to the first question, but did not fully address the second question. So afterwards, I sent each of them another email, thanking them for their contribution to the forum and stating:

Would you please clarify two points:
• Do you affirm a definition of full employment that is not tied to any unemployment rate?
• Do you believe that with the political will, we can handle any inflationary pressures that result from assuring that anyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job?

So far, I’ve received two responses. John Cavanagh answered:

On the first question, I believe that everyone has a right to a livelihood, period. I don’t think the unemployment rate tells us much.

On the second, I do think we have to raise more revenue to pay for job creation and I think there are plenty of sources. IPS has done a study called “We’re Not Broke” that identifies over $800 billion a year that is available by taxing pollution, the 1%, corporations, and Wall Street, and by cutting military spending. If you do this, you won’t have inflation problems.

But Baker replied:

Full employment is used in many different contexts and some of those are going to be tied to specific levels of unemployment.

The second question is tautologically true. If you’re asking me whether I would sacrifice everything else to meet your definition of full employment my answer is that I don’t know. If full employment depends largely on direct government employment then it is likely to be very unpopular politically and lead to political figures getting into power who don’t give a damn about unemployment. So I wouldn’t support it under those circumstances.

I responded to Baker:

I believe it would be much less confusing, and help build a full employment movement, to consistently use the common sense understanding of the phrase “full employment.” That is a vision that could motivate people.

I don’t see how the second question is a tautology. Many objectives could not be achieved even with the political will to try. An affirmative answer to the question therefore could be falsifiable. But if, in terms of the economics, you consider it indisputable that is reassuring.

In terms of the politics, I know no one who is proposing that we depend “largely” on direct government employment. I certainly do not, for I assume most new jobs will continue to be in the private sector. And public opinion polls have consistently shown strong support for the proposition. For example, in a 2013 study funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, Page, Bartels, and Seawright reported that two-thirds 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.” So I hope you will consider whether a push for true full employment would be popular politically if the plan is not “largely dependent on direct government employment.”

I encourage others to investigate and reflect on these issues. I’d be interested in your thoughts and will occasionally report on my own conclusions here.

The forum, which was hosted by Congresspersons John Conyers Jr. and Frederica Wilson, co-chairs of the newly formed, first ever Congressional Full Employment Caucus and moderated by Christina Bellantoni, Roll Call Editor-in-Chief, is available for viewing at http://www.dems.gov/photos-videos/.

To build a full employment movement, we need an inspiring goal. Forming a clear definition of “full employment” will help articulate that goal. Prominent progressive economists can help establish that definition. Perhaps you can help rally that support.

“Employment: A Human Right” – A Partial Transcript

On February 5, 2014, Congresspersons John Conyers Jr. and Frederica Wilson, co-chairs of the newly formed, first ever Congressional Full Employment Caucus hosted a forum on “Employment: A Human Right.” The forum was moderated by Christina Bellantoni, Roll Call Editor-in-Chief. A video of the forum is available for viewing at http://www.dems.gov/photos-videos/. At 38:09, Bellantoni asks, “Can access to decent jobs really be a human right?” Following are the responses from the panel, which consisted of Phillip Harvey, Lawrence Mishel, Thea Lee, Dean Baker, and John Cavanagh.

Harvey: Yes, yes. The FDR Administration proposed “employment assurance.” How does the federal government guarantee it? By doing whatever it can to stimulate private sector employment, but at the end of the day, standing ready to provide jobs for any workers for whom jobs don’t exist in the regular labor marker. It’s cheap. It’s effective. And it can be done in a way that is non-inflationary.

Mishel: Let me paint it into an even broader picture. What’s a human right and what comes with being a citizen, like the right to vote, is something that has expanded and it expands through political struggle. So what is a right is about what you can take. I think this is a story about the economy. It’s really important for people to understand that over the last 30 years there has been a massive redistribution of income, power, and wealth. That’s why most families did not really benefit much from the economic growth over that period. I can guarantee you that over the next 30 years there will be substantial growth of income and wealth. What lays before us is whether we are going to have a political struggle and economic policies that assure that people have jobs, good jobs, and economic security at work and in retirement. So it’s only a matter of what you can take.

Lee: What could be a more fundamental human right than employment, because it is essential to almost everything else that most people need in their lives, given that most of us aren’t born with a trust fund or a guarantee from the government. If you want to eat, if you want to feed your children, if you want education for your children, you want health care, all of those things come from having a good job. I think the United Nations has recognized with economic and social rights employment is absolutely essential. Even with the United States, it’s not really an outlandish idea. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act discussed before is part of US law where we have established full employment as a goal of public policy. But the problem is we’ve let that lapse. We’ve ignored that this is something that exists in our law. We have over time allowed fighting inflation to be a more important goal than creating employment.

Baker: I would chime in there. We really have gone way backwards. If you go back to the late 60s, we had the unemployment rate under 4% in 1968-69, which was of course the peak year of the minimum wage, which is not entirely accidental in the sense that it was politics that was driving both. But I mean the obsession with inflation. And. I should point out that part of the story is that we really do let much of this get away in the form of euphemisms. I remember back in the 1990s when Greenspan was raising interest rates deliberately to slow the economy and keep people from getting jobs. That was what he was doing. And it was reported in the media that we don’t want the economy to “overheat.” And I’m sure the vast majority of people listening to it were thinking, “Well yes, we don’t want the stew to overheat.” No one understood that what he was doing was keeping people from getting work, and that was what he was doing. At the very least we need to get some honest discussion of this.

Cavanagh: I agree with all that and to just add one more thing. I think there’s a story that we all in this room need to be able to tell and Congressman Conyers needs to be able to tell. To the question, can we make decent employment a right again? It’s to say, “Yes, because we know how to do it because we’ve done it before.” The story is simply the story of our country from 1933 to about 1975, when we went from one of the most unequal countries in the world with among the highest unemployment rates to one of the most equal as Dean has said with one of the lowest unemployment rates. How did we do it? It was as Larry said, through a huge struggle, led at that time by a big strong unified labor movement, which said, one, this is wrong, convinced the majority of the people that the state that we were in was wrong. It was easier in a Great Depression, but we’re still in what many of us feel is a Great Recession now. And it was done, remember under the 50s, under a Republican President, Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. There was a consensus through struggle to tax the 1% and big corporations and use it to pay for massive job creation bills like the GI Bill of Rights. We did it. We can do it again. Clearly we have new challenges. We’re in a more global economy. We have the challenges of climate. But we can do it. I will just mention one date here. On April 28 there will be a big coming together with the trade union movement and its allies to demand a $15 an hour minimum wage. It will be a new set of allies that are fighting for power. But as Larry says, it’s not going to just come. It will be through a struggle of those forces against those who don’t want to give in.

Petition Video: Interview with Wade Lee Hudson

This 2:52 minute video offers reasons why people should sign the Guarantee Living-Wage Job Opportunities petition. Produced by James Pace-Cornsilk, it includes striking images and a soundtrack with music and an interview with Wade Lee Hudson. You can invite friends to watch it by referring them to this link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-0wsHcIv20&feature=youtu.be