Full Employment Jam (or Working Conference)

The need for a federal jobs program to achieve full employment is compelling. But no grassroots movement is focused on that goal. One reason may be that there is no consensus among experts, advocates, activists, and think tanks about how best to move in that direction.

The Full Employment Jam (or Working Conference) is intended to establish an open, collaborative method for surfacing, clarifying, evaluating, and uniting behind models for federal legislation to achieve full employment.

The primary intent is not to identify one proposal and then try to build one organization to back it (though that could be the result). Rather the aim is to enable concerned parties to better understand the major, basic options and to facilitate a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of those options.

The first step will be to briefly delineate and post major options in terms of model federal full-employment legislation.

Then we hope to convene a national “Jam” at which these models (and perhaps others that emerge later) will be evaluated face-to-face. No time or location has been set for this gathering.

Afterwards, participating individuals and others will choose which option, or options, to actively promote.

We are developing this project by working on shared Google docs:

If you want to help develop this project as a co-equal collaborator editing shared Google docs, please email one of the co-editors listed on the About page. Feel free to extend this invitation to others.

The current co-editors are Rania Antonopoulos, Phil Harvey, Wade Hudson, and Vern Simula.

Economic Insecurity: Consequences and Alternatives

look downstairs into stairwell whirl
quapan / Foter / CC BY

Economic insecurity leads people to constantly calculate how to survive at the expense of others. It corrupts our culture, fosters social discord, undermines personal authenticity, and leaves individuals in great need of caring communities that truly nurture self-empowerment.

By gathering regularly in small groups with trusted friends, we could support one another in our efforts to become better human beings and more effective activists. In this way, a network of full employment support groups could fulfill unmet personal needs, grow community, and help build a grassroots full employment movement.

We need to establish a foundation of economic security for the sake of everyone, not just those currently unemployed or threatened with imminent unemployment. The benefits of full employment would ripple throughout society. All of us could more easily be real, speak from the heart, explore within, and become who we really are. No one is free until we are all free.

The threat of poverty hurts everyone. The specter of unemployment prompts us to suppress our feelings out of concern for how others will react. We learn to be dishonest, first with our teachers and then our bosses. Constantly hustling, these habits become deeply engrained, often unconscious. We become self-centered, phony, and shallow, always worrying about what others think of us. We sell our souls and go along to get along. We talk and talk without really listening. We rarely stop thinking and examine ourselves deeply. Most of us have only one or two friends, or no one, with whom we can discuss personal problems. We play games, hold ourselves back from really trying to actualize our potential, and never fully dedicate ourselves to a cause that provides deep meaning to our lives. We become hyper-competitive, obsessed with who is “top dog,” and look down on others we consider inferior, often based on race, gender, sexual preference, class, or level of education.

This hyper-individualism carries over into politics, including grassroots activism. Activists with noble motives become excessively “political.” We become too concerned with our own ambitions and our desire to “make a difference.” We focus on gaining the satisfaction of knowing that we have done the right thing. We want to be recognized for some great achievement. We praise others to get them to do what we want them to do, and allow ourselves to be strongly influenced by others whose respect we seek. We’re constantly trying to prove ourselves – to others and to ourselves. We deceive, manipulate, and sometimes lie in order to get what we want. We fail to be fully authentic, present, spontaneous, and true to our deepest self. We use immoral means to achieve moral goals.

These patterns are reflected in the traditional definition of leadership. We assume that “leaders” are those who are able to mobilize “followers” to do what they want them to do. This approach is fundamentally individualistic, egocentric, arrogant, and elitist. It reinforces ego-driven power struggles, the urge to dominate, and the willingness to submit.

Consequently activist organizations attract primarily people who are willing to defer to “leaders” they place on a pedestal (and often knock them off later out of jealousy and resentment). Most organizations do not, as much as they could, engage people who are strong, creative, self-confident, and able and willing to collaborate while respecting others. Rather, they drive those people away.

Another problem with traditional activism is the constant reliance on tapping fear and anger. That future-oriented approach can sometimes appear to be effective in the short run. But it is unable to sustain itself over time. It burns out or spirals down into more negativity. It also fails to attract people that an effective movement needs – namely, happy, caring, open, and freewheeling people who trust that the Universe will take care of herself.

A full employment movement that aims to be effective needs to counter those tendencies. We need to cultivate joyous communities that foster self-empowerment. A national network of “full employment support groups” rooted in compassionate populism and deep morality could help build a grassroots movement to make this country more democratic and just. The plan outlined here is not the only method. But it could contribute.

The need for new organizing methods that enable us to better attract, inspire, involve, and unite large numbers of Americans is compelling. To become more effective, we need to examine ourselves honestly, acknowledge our mistakes, and resolve not to repeat them. Engaging in such self-examination with trusted friends (perhaps including one’s spouse) at least once a month could be beneficial.

With this approach, it would be important to establish that individuals need to decide for themselves how they need to grow. Self-determination is key. These support groups would need to trust each member to set their own goals, without applying oppressive pressure that tries to transform people overnight into totally new human beings according to some prescribed doctrine. Down deep, most human beings want to do what is right and when they look inside honestly, they usually form wise plans for action. Each member would need to respect the support group and trust that by being open and listening with compassion, everyone will learn and benefit from the process. Being judgmental and pushing others to conform to others’ opinions undercuts self-empowerment.

If a network of full employment support groups were to develop, many members would likely address self-development issues other than those discussed here. But all members would have in common a commitment to intentionally, consciously, clearly support one another in their efforts to become better human beings and more effective activists. That shared experience could provide the basis for the growth of support groups rooted in the proven peer-support model.

Let us inspire each other with positive energy. Let us create safe spaces where we can be real, let it all hang out, share meals, enjoy each other’s fellowship, and nurture one another. Let us attract new members with contagious happiness and cultivate leader-full, compassionate, democratic communities that are not dependent on any one leader or any one “lead organizer.” Let us build a member-controlled, national network of “safe houses” whose members unite to push the federal government to fulfill its responsibility to assure full employment.

The point is not only the individual. The purpose of a community or a society is not merely to enable individuals to fulfill themselves or pursue happiness. The community is also valuable in and of itself. Communities are greater than the sum of their parts. After individuals die, communities can live on, as do biological families, woven into the fabric of life and the force that structures life. If we are only concerned about our own needs or those of our immediate family, we miss out on the meaning of life.

A full employment movement would best be neither “left” nor “right.” By avoiding these abstract labels, the movement could focus on its key principle: As a society, we should see to it that everyone has a living-wage job opportunity and if the private economy and private charity fail to meet that obligation, the federal government must step in. That belief is embraced by individuals who hold a wide variety of political viewpoints.

The elites who dominate our society will likely continue to oppose efforts to achieve full employment. But we need not demonize them. They are not exclusively responsible. They are only pawns in the game. If they step out of line, “the system” will replace them. When we talk about them or engage in dialog with them, we can do so with compassion. We can appeal to their higher nature or, if necessary, to their “enlightened self-interest.” And we can always maintain a willingness to compromise and reconcile differences as we move toward our ultimate goal.

Ordinary Americans are also to blame. If more people were more active between elections and united behind positions already supported by strong majorities, we could turn this country around. So long as this condition prevails, we cannot legitimately scapegoat any “villain.”

Our society can best be described as “crony capitalism” dominated by an unholy alliance of Big Government and Big Business, facilitated by the infamous “revolving door.” This social system is self-perpetuating. To restructure it, we need a massive, united popular movement focused on creating a viable “mixed economy” that serves the common good.

It makes no sense to always attack either the “free market” or “the government.” We need both. Exactly what this mix should be needs to be considered case-by-case, based on our best guess about what is most effective, not on the basis of some preconceived ideology. Those conclusions will vary as conditions change.

As full employment support groups could keep pace with their members and support them on their personal issues as they define them, so too a movement to transform America could keep pace with Americans and support positions they already endorse.

At this time, in this country, we can declare that the federal government should see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job opportunity.

By developing new ways of doing politics and growing small, self-perpetuating, self-governing, face-to-face, intimate communities that help members actualize their potential, we can help build a full employment movement. When we secure the human right to a living-wage job opportunity, the same forces could take further steps to move toward making the United States a compassionate community dedicated to the common good of all humanity.

Proposed: A Full Employment Jam, or Working Conference (3/25/14 Draft)

Introduction:
The following proposal for collaboration is presented for consideration by interested parties. At the moment, no one is working to organize this project. It is my hope that individuals and organizations will eventually emerge to convene a process of the sort envisioned here.

In response to the first draft (see Comments), Seb Paquet suggested that the  co-organizers/facilitators:

create three shared Google Docs: one to clarify intentions and desired outcomes, a second one to write the invitation, and a final one for the event flow proper. You will probably go back and forth between the docs as the vision becomes clear.

In the event flow doc, if you use headers appropriately, you can insert a table of contents at the top to facilitate navigation. You’re certainly able to set this up by yourself, but let me know if you run into issues.

In the flow, don’t forget to enable everyone to introduce themselves meaningfully, to facilitate collaboration.

Some people use ‘Jam’ as a hip substitute for ‘Working Conference’. see e.g. the Global Service Jam and Global Sustainability Jam,

Feel free to utilize any of these ideas that you find useful and/or encourage others to do so. If and when I learn of any such effort, I will spread the word on the “@LivingWageJobs Report” listserv and on Twitter (@LivingWageJobs). Feel free to subscribe and/or follow. Feedback is welcome. If you are interested in joining this collaboration if and when it is initiated, please let me know.

Background:

The need for a federal jobs program to achieve full employment is compelling. But no grassroots movement is focused on that goal. One reason may be that there is no consensus among experts, advocates, activists, and think tanks about how best to move in that direction.

The following proposal presents an open, collaborative method for surfacing, clarifying, evaluating, and uniting behind models for federal legislation to achieve full employment. Seb Paquet, an associate of Here Comes Everybody author Clay Shirky, helped to develop this proposal.

The primary intent is not to identify one proposal and then try to build one organization to back it (though that could be the result). Rather the aim is to enable concerned parties to better understand the major, basic options and to facilitate a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of those options. Then, following a national gathering at which these issues would be discussed face-to-face, each participant would choose which option, or options, to back.

If you or anyone you know are interested in this project, I’d like to know about it. If need be, I will put people who are interested in touch with one another. Other than perhaps modifying this proposal occasionally and posting the latest draft here, I do not plan to take further steps to initiate this project myself. However, if a strong, inclusive organizing committee forms to develop it, I might be able to donate several hours a week to assist.

Purpose: 
To develop alternative models for a federal jobs program to achieve full employment in the United States as quickly as feasible.

Primary Method:
Invite individuals, informal teams, and organizations to submit one-page outlines of federal legislation to achieve full employment in the United States as quickly as feasible.

Post those proposals online. The organizers of the conference encourage authors of similar proposals (if there are any) to synthesize their proposals.

Convene a national conference to discuss and evaluate those proposals.

Conduct the conference with a variation on Open Space Technology. The proposals are posted on the wall. More options could be proposed by participants at the outset of the conference. The authors of the proposals have a set amount of time to present their proposals at the initial plenary session.

Then the conference breaks down into working groups to discuss and perhaps modify those proposals. Each participant goes to the working group of their choice, or moves between them.

Those groups present their work to the closing plenary, where they are discussed and then evaluated by all of the participants (either with a rating or a ranking).

A virtual conference could take place concurrently so that people could follow along and perhaps participate in that manner.

After the conference, different organizations work together to develop and/or promote the models of their choice.

The whole process and the proceedings of the conference could provide content for a book and a documentary.

Note:
This proposal may be amended from time to time. Earlier drafts will be posted as comments below.

Full Employment Resources

Following are links to selected information about the effort to secure the human right to a living-wage job opportunity. I will occasionally update and/or modify this list.

Full Employment, Social Welfare and Equity: Columbia U. Seminar

pharveyOn February 10, Philip Harvey led a Columbia University Seminar on “Full Employment, Social Welfare and Equity” in the Faculty House. On February 21, he sent to the participants the following written responses to questions that were raised during the seminar.

(1) Do I believe that deficit spending caused the stagflation problems of the 1970s?

No, I do not. When I said that the failure of the Keynesian full employment strategy was revealed in the 1970s, I did not mean to suggest that deficit spending caused the stagflation crisis. I agree with Jeff that there were other causes. What the crisis exposed was the inability of the Keynesian strategy to combat high levels of unemployment that were accompanied by high levels of inflation. That, I believe, is what precipitated the sudden collapse of confidence in Keynesian macroeconomics during the 1970s among both professional economists and policy makers. Moreover, this collapse of confidence in the Keynesian strategy extended far enough into the left that full employment virtually disappeared from the progressive reform agenda for the next two decades, a trend highlighted by a comparison of the platforms on which Democratic candidates for the Presidency ran from 1944 through 1976 to those on which they have run since then. See Harvey,  Is There A Progressive Alternative to Conservative Welfare Reform? (2008) p. 173 note 49).

(2)    Do I think the Keynesian macroeconomic strategy is ineffective as a means of combating unemployment today?

No, I do not. I agree with other progressive economists that a full recovery from the so-called Great Recession could have been achieved before now with a larger dose of stimulus spending and that the recovery is still being delayed by the “austerian” response of policy makers to the recession.

(3) What then is my criticism of Keynesianism?

My criticism of Keynesianism differs depending on whether we are talking about the Keynesian response to the problem of unemployment during recessions or its strategy for achieving full employment (which I maintain is almost never achieved in market economies, even at the top of the business cycle—see Harvey,  The Trouble with Full Employment (2013)).

As a response to recessions, my argument is that the conventional Keynesian strategy requires more spending to achieve a given employment effect, is slower to achieve that employment effect, distributes the jobs it creates less fairly, and delivers its multiplier-driven stimulus to the private sector less efficiently than the direct job creation strategy pioneered by the New Dealers. See Harvey,  Back to Work: A Public Jobs Proposal for Economic Recovery (2011).

My criticism of Keynesianism at the top of the business cycle is that it is incapable of achieving genuine full employment because of its inflationary tendencies as the unemployment rate approaches the genuine full employment level of between 1% and 2%. This is something that the Swedish economists Gosta Rehn and Rudolf Meidner recognized from the beginning of the post-World War II era, but which progressive economists in general have been reluctant to acknowledge. See Harvey  (Why is the Right to Work so Hard to Secure (2013).

(4)    Do my cost estimates account for the fact that persons other than the officially unemployed would probably seek employment in the kind of program I describe?

First, I want to emphasize that I agree with Bill that the cost of the undertaking I propose is not precisely calculable. My estimates are only that—estimates. My goal is not to establish what the budget of a program designed to secure the right to work would be, but to demonstrate, based on a reasonable set of assumptions, how affordable the strategy is. In so doing I am merely responding to what I believe is a widespread assumption (among progressives as well as others) that it would be prohibitively expensive to actually guarantee decent jobs for everyone who wants to work. I think that assumption is false and would welcome more back and forth on the issue from anyone who thinks I’m underestimating the actual cost of the kind of program I am proposing.

My use of the “million job” unit of measurement in my cost estimate is nothing more than an accounting convention. I use it to estimate the average cost per job for a program serving a cross section of job wanters in the United States. Since there are no significant economies or diseconomies of scale for a program like the one I propose, I don’t think my use of that methodology poses a problem.

I also want to say that I agree with the observation that a direct job creation program like the one I propose would have to provide jobs for more people than just unofficially unemployed workers. All my estimates of program cost assume that jobs would have to be provided not only for officially unemployed workers, but also for involuntary part-time workers and for persons who say they want a job but are not actively seeking work and hence are not counted as unemployed in BLS statistics. In the end, I think my methodology is more likely to overstate than to understate the number of jobs that would have to be provided to secure the right to work; but no one should take my word for it. If you have questions about my estimation methodology, please ask them. I will be happy to respond.

Finally, I agree that securing the right to work would likely result in increases in the labor force participation rate over time that would exceed the immediate increase I assume in my cost estimates. But I don’t think this would increase the relative tax burden (per employed worker) of securing the right to work via the strategy I propose because increases in the labor force participation rate tend to create more macroeconomic space for private-sector economic growth to occur by natural or macroeconomically induced means before inflation becomes problematic. That’s why comparative labor force participation rates and employment to population ratios correlate so poorly with comparative unemployment rates. Once again, if anyone is interested in this issue I would be happy to explain my thinking in further detail.

(5) Would workers employed in a jobs program committed to paying market wages refuse to take private sector employment?

I would first like to point out that if this turned out to be a problem, there are a number of straightforward remedies for it. Hourly wages could be reduced in the program; hours of work could be limited; time limits could be placed on program participation; and/or administrative sanctions could be imposed on workers who refused bona fide offers of suitable employment (as UI laws already provide).

On the other hand, I think there’s a good chance these measures would be unnecessary except possibly at the top of the business cycle. First, the policy I favor would place workers in program positions only if it were determined (either administratively or via a job search/employee search requirement imposed on both employers and unemployed job seekers) that there were not enough jobs in the regular labor market to provide work for all job seekers with their qualifications. And even after their placement in the jobs program, both program participants and employers with suitable job openings to fill would continue to be referred to one another. In this environment I think it is reasonable to assume that private employers would grow accustomed to seeking candidates for job openings via the public employment service and public job creation program in addition to the places they now look—simply because it would be the cheapest and easiest way for them to access what Marx called the “reserve army of labor” when the burden of being unemployed no longer drove job applicants to seek them out. Employers have no trouble adopting aggressive recruitment measures when seeking to fill positions for which suitable applicants are not already knocking at their door. The only change is that they’d find it necessary to deploy these recruitment measures for all of their job openings. That’s what we should expect in a labor market in full employment equilibrium— notwithstanding employer complaints about labor shortages whenever they have to do more than pull out a stack of resumes from a file drawer to fill their job vacancies.

Would jobs program employees accept regular employment offered to them via this mechanism? I mentioned that program wages would be set at market levels, but the program’s wage scale would still be fixed in the short run—like public sector wage scales in general. That means an employer could always offer a program employee a better job simply by offering them a wage slightly above the program scale or with a slightly better benefit package, slightly better working conditions, slightly better hours of work, and/or slightly better opportunities for advancement. Again, employers already do this when seeking to fill positions for which the applicant pool is limited. We find it hard to contemplate only because we’re accustomed to most workers having to seek work in a job short environment.

Would employers complain? Of course they would until they became accustomed to the “new normal.”

(6) How would the Affordable Care Act (ACA) affect my program cost estimates?

It certainly wouldn’t make it any more expensive—since my existing cost estimates are already based on the assumption that the program would provide all employees the same health insurance benefits the federal government provides its employees. Whether a local program could shift some of its health care costs to the federal government by taking advantage of ACA subsidies and expanded Medicaid eligibility standards would require an analysis of the ACA and each state’s Medicaid and CHIP programs with that question in mind. I have not undertaken such an analysis, but it clearly should be done.

(7) Since regular public sector employment has declined due to the recession, wouldn’t it make more sense to support an expansion of the regular public sector workforce?

Of course it would, but that wouldn’t create enough jobs to secure the right to work, and since public sector hiring at the state and local level is constrained by balanced budget requirements, it’s not possible for state and local governments to maintain existing public sector employment levels during a recession without gutting other public services. What my proposal would do is permit state and local governments to maintain public sector employment levels during a recession by using jobs program trust-fund monies to pay the salaries of workers who otherwise would be laid off due to declining government revenues. Anti-displacement rules would have to be strictly enforced to prevent the inappropriate use of trust fund monies to pay the salaries of regular public sector employees in situations other than this, but that’s no more difficult to do than the enforcement of other regulatory limitations on the spending of public funds. The fact that Congress didn’t include adequate anti-displacement measures in CETA’s enabling legislation evidenced a lack of foresight rather than an inability to write and enforce such limitations.

(8) Since employers would oppose the strategy I propose with particular ferocity, doesn’t it make more sense to rely on more conventional strategies to expand employment and guarantee workers decent wages (e.g., with things like the EITC, raising the minimum wage, job training, the promotion of small business formation, and the deployment of the Keynesian macroeconomic strategy)?

Except for the Keynesian strategy, I agree that it would be theoretically possible to secure the right to work at the local level via these means, but progressives have been promoting that strategy for the past 50 years and the instances in which it has succeeded in achieving local full employment are as rare as hens’ teeth. I would support all such measures as an accompaniment to the direct job creation strategy, but I think the historical record is clear that they can’t do the job on their own.

At the national level, the problem is that none of these alternative strategies is capable of achieving genuine full employment. The effectiveness of the Keynesian strategy is limited by the

NAIRU (which I don’t think any progressive economist thinks is fixed, but which I also don’t think any progressive economist believes can be driven down to the 1%-2% level required to achieve genuine full employment). The other strategies would do little or nothing to close the economy’s job gap.

Moreover, even during a recession—when the conventional Keynesian strategy DOES work as an anti-cyclical intervention—it is a far more expensive, far slower, and much less equitable way to respond to the needs of unemployed workers than the direct job creation strategy; AND it also delivers no more macroeconomic bang for the buck in practice than spending the same stimulus dollars on a direct job creation initiative.

As I argue in my paper, if the money Congress allocated to the ARRA had instead been devoted to the strategy I advocate, the U.S. unemployment rate could have been reduced to the genuine full employment level of 1% to 2% as quickly as the jobs program could have been gotten up and running, and it could have kept it at that level beyond the 2010 midterm elections while simultaneously delivering a LARGER macroeconomic boost to the private sector than the ARRA did. My analysis in support of these claims is briefly explained in the paper I presented tonight (Harvey,  Securing the Right to Work at the State or Local Level) and more fully in the earlier Demos report from which it takes off (Harvey,  Back to Work).

One would think advantages as strong as these would inspire at least some interest on the part of progressive economists—notwithstanding the opposition of employers to the proposal.

Conservative opposition didn’t stop progressives from exploring and arguing the advantages of a single-payer national health insurance reform. Why is the direct job creation strategy verboten?

(9) What administrative structure do you propose for a local direct job creation initiative?

As explained in my paper, there are three “delivery models” that can be incorporated simultaneously in one centrally administered program, with each delivery model having certain advantages and disadvantages.

What I describe as the WPA model is one in which the program work force is employed on free-standing projects undertaken by the program itself. (And lest there be any confusion, when I refer to the WPA model I am NOT advocating the wage and hours policies the WPA adopted. They are in no way essential to the model—any more than CETA’s lack of adequate anti-displacement measures is essential to what I call the CETA model.)

The second model is the one CETA used—assigning program participants to jobs in regular government agencies where they work alongside regular government workers to expand and improve the quality of government services.

The third model is the one used in the College Work Study program. Under this model, not-for-profit employers are awarded grants that they can used to hire eligible workers to perform jobs in support of the not-for-profit’s mission.

For-profit corporations could also be paid to create jobs, but I don’t view this model as distinct from the College Work Study Model—since I assume it would be agreed that the jobs created by the corporation should not include profit making activities. This could be accomplished by including restrictions in the contract between the government entity and the corporation that would require the workers to be employed on public service projects that did not add to the corporations “bottom line” except via the PR value of their participation in the program and whatever contracted-for profit was negotiated up front to elicit the corporations participation.

I have described various aspects of the kind of program I am proposing in a string of writings on the subject going back 25 years. If anyone is interested in particular aspects of the administrative model I propose, I’ll be happy to respond to further questions.

(10) What kind of jobs could program participants reasonably be expected to perform?

I honestly don’t think this would be a problem. It certainly wasn’t for the CCC (which as a general rule only enrolled the children of families on local relief rolls) or the WPA (which in practice provided jobs for the poorest third of the nation’s population of unemployed workers). On those rare occasions when adequate numbers of jobs truly are available in local labor markets, the unemployment rate falls to the 1% to 2% level, so it’s clear that workers who remain unemployed when the unemployment rate reaches the 4% to 5% range are NOT unemployable.

That said, the jobs created by a direct job creation program designed to secure the right to work would have to be selected with the skills profile and trainability of the program’s workforce in mind, a strong preference for labor intensive projects, and a willingness to work with and accommodate private sector providers of similar goods and services. The following list is suggestive of the kinds of work that could be offered, consistent with these constraints.

  • The operation of child care centers (on a sliding fee basis) and recreational programs for school-age children is an obvious choice because such services would be needed by the program’s own employees as well as the general public.
  • Access to summer and school-holiday-break day and sleep away camp experiences could be offered as an entitlement (and on a sliding fee basis) to all children.
  • The renovation of dilapidated housing and the construction of new low-and moderate income housing is another obvious choice because of the shortage of such housing in urban, suburban AND rural communities throughout the United States. The goal of program activities in this area could be to turn access to decent housing into an entitlement—with the subsidy required to make this possible furnished by the construction and renovation work of the job creation program combined with conventional financing secured by the sale or rental of the housing units.
  • Permanent (or temporary) housing with needed support staffing could also be provided to homeless individuals and families.
  • The dreary, over-crowded quality of government office spaces, including those where the public comes to receive public services, could be remedied. Three is no reason these spaces should not be as appealing as their private sector counterparts.
  • Energy conservation improvements could be offered at nominal or no cost to existing home owners and renters.
  • The CCC’s contribution to the conservation, expansion and improvement of public parklands and outdoor recreational areas could be emulated and expanded to include existing and newly created suburban urban parks.
  • Recycling and related conservation measures of all types could be expanded.
  • The work study program could be turned into an entitlement, with the participation of not-for profit organizations in addition to schools guaranteeing after-school and summer employment not only to post-secondary students but to high school students as well.
  • Supplemental staffing could be provided to any unit of government that could use the extra help.
  • Schools and libraries could be provided additional educational and support staff.
  • The Public Works of Art programs of the New Deal era could be emulated to provide work on a competitive basis (as the New Deal program did) for aspiring writers, artists and performers.
  • Community-based support services for the elderly and disabled populations could be expanded—including transportation services, shopping assistance, home maintenance and upkeep, meals on wheels, etc.
  • Support services could be also be furnished for program workers (and others) with special needs.

(10) What if any residency requirements would a local job creation program have to impose?
This is a challenging issue—perhaps the most challenging issue a locally-funded job creation program would have to face—as I conceded in response to the question when it was posed during the seminar. Nevertheless, I think it can be worked out. There are various ways to limit eligibility based on social insurance principles. These include but are not limited to the following.

  • Residents of the locality could be required to live in the locality for a certain period of time before becoming eligible in order to deter people from moving to the locality simply to obtain program employment.
  • Non-residents of the locality who are employed in the locality could either be excluded from eligibility or given the opportunity to obtain eligibility by working in the locality and paying taxes in support of the program for a specified period of time (as is currently the case for non-residents of a state under the state’s UI program).
  • To the extent program slots had to be rationed, preference could be given to applicants based on the length of their residency (or employment) in the locality.

In the long run, of course, there is reason to hope the problem would solve itself by incorporating progressively larger units of government into the program (cooperating localities, counties, states, and ultimately the federal government). It’s also worth noting that even a nationally administered program would face this issue through its impact on unauthorized immigration and the many problems posed by the existence of two work forces in the economy—one legally authorized to work and the other lacking such authorization. From a human rights perspective I think immigration restrictions are as problematic as restrictions on emigration and the free movement of people within a country—and in the long run I think the remedy for the problem is the same at the national level as it is at the local level: expand the program beyond the polity’s borders through cooperative arrangements with other polities.

(12) Shouldn’t we focus on insuring everyone’s right to an adequate income rather than a job?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a right to income that is every bit as robust as the right to work, but it is not a substitute for securing the right to work. In part this is because access to remunerative employment is an important means to “the full development of the human personality” in market societies, in part because access to other opportunities (including a higher income) is based on access to paid employment, and in part because the right to income includes a right to income security in addition to a right to a minimally adequate income. I have addressed the relationship between the right to work and the right to an adequate income at length elsewhere, especially in responding to “basic income guarantee” proposals (see, e.g., Harvey,  The Right to Work and Basic Income Guarantees: Competing or Complimentary Goals (2005), Harvey, More for Less: The Job Guarantee Strategy (2013). I would be happy to answer any questions regarding my views on the subject.

@LivingWageJobs Report — 2/20/14

2014 Netroots Nation Submission: After receiving confirmation that Congressman Conyers would be “definitely available” to participate in a 75-minute panel discussion July 17-20 at the 2014 Netroots Nation conference, I submitted a proposal that the conference host a session on “How to Achieve Full Employment: Human Rights, Morality, and Organizing Strategies.” Kazi Sabeel Rahman, a Fellow at Harvard Law School and the Roosevelt Institute, is also on board as “tentatively available.” Rahman has written eloquently on law, economics, and morality.

+++

Dialog with Phil Harvey — NOTE: I will update this post as more emails are exchanged. Philip Harvey, a Professor of Law and Economics at Rutgers School of Law, has a Ph.D. in economics and a J.D. His research focuses on public policy options for securing economic and social human rights. His books inlcude Securing the Right to Employment: Social Welfare Policy and the Unemployed in the United States.

+++

Dialog with Dean Baker — NOTE: I will update this post as more emails are exchanged. ollowing the Feb. 5 public forum on “Employment: A Human Right,” I sent Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an email that has resulted in the following thread.

+++

My Autobiography: Preface
When I tell stories about my life, a common response is curiosity or amusement. Those responses prompted me to write this book….

+++

Quotes from Cornel West, talk, New York Catholic Worker, 8 November 2013, “The Legacy of Dorothy Day,” Catholic Agitator, February 2014

+++

A Question: Do we need to encourage, support, and/or cultivate caring communities whose members support one another in their self-development, community building, and political action? Why? To answer, click here.

+++

Comments on Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World, a fascinating book by Tina Rosenberg that addresses personal, social, and political change.

NOTE: To subscribe to @LivingWageJobs Report, post a comment here (I’ll probably establish a listserv soon).

Dialog with Phil Harvey

pharvey

NOTE: I will update this post as more emails are exchanged.

Philip Harvey, a Professor of Law and Economics at Rutgers School of Law, has a Ph.D. in economics and a J.D.  His research focuses on public policy options for securing economic and social human rights. His books inlcude Securing the Right to Employment: Social Welfare Policy and the Unemployed in the United States. 

On Feb. 9, 2014, in reference to my Dialog with Dean Baker, I asked Harvey, Professor of Law and Economics at Rutgers, the following question:

Do you agree with my formulation: “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.”

…I agree that direct job creation is “the only reliable way” to push up employment beyond what the private economy can safely achieve. But I don’t see that it is a “better way to respond to cyclical unemployment.” It seems both methods are needed. As you said at the forum, “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.”

Wade

+++++

PH: To paraphrase a former President, it depends on what “depends on” means. If we’re talking about job creation in general, then I certainly don’t propose relying “largely” on direct government job creation. The vast majority of jobs created in the economy—both those created to replace jobs that are eliminated (with no net job creation) and those created in excess of that number (and hence increasing total employment)—would continue to be created by the private and regular public sectors of the economy in the world I contemplate. And this would be true across all phases of the business cycle notwithstanding the operation of a large direct job creation program.

Right now the Social Security Trustees estimate that the U.S. unemployment rate will average about 5.5% over the long run (the average they project including booms and busts). I believe the direct job creation strategy would lower that projected average—perhaps to 4.5%. Why? Because a direct job creation program committed to securing the right to work on an ongoing basis would constitute a more effective “automatic stabilizer” of private sector economic activity than the existing “tool kit” of countercyclical policies on which the federal government relies—and that means recessions would be less severe on average. I say this not because of the program’s direct job creation effect. That would mainly serve a social welfare function—securing the right to work. Rather, it’s because the delivery of a fiscal stimulus via the kind of job creation program I advocate would do more to (1) forestall a downward recessionary spiral (layoffs leading to further layoffs), and (2) promote the continuation of regular investment activity by otherwise healthy private sector businesses (those who suffer business losses during a recession not because they participated in whatever excesses triggered the recession but simply because their customers—or the customers of their customers—are unemployed).

If I am right about the superior anti-cyclical effect of the direct job creation strategy, the average level of unemployment would fall closer to the NAIRU level (I know, you don’t like that term, but I think it’s serviceable), and that would translate into an increased level of private sector job formation. The direct job creation program would contribute an average of only 2.5%-3.5% of all employment (and all net job creation) in this scenario—enough to reduce the economy’s average unemployment rate from 4.5% to the full employment rate of 1%-2%.

If I am wrong, and the long-term average rate of employment in the U.S. turns out to be the 5.5% projected by the S.S. Trustees, then the direct job creation program would contribute an average of 3.5%-4.5% of all employment (and all net job creation).

On the other hand, if by “depends on” we’re talking about (1) how stimulus dollars should be spent during a recession to induce private sector job growth, and (2) how to close the job gap that remains at the top of the business cycle when the FED starts applying the brakes to prevent further private sector job growth, then it’s true that I advocate relying not just largely but almost entirely on direct government job creation.

I hope that explanation is clear.

Phil

+++++

WH: It still seems to me that your position is too close to “either/or,” rather than “both/and.” It implies an opposition to other methods that could help and are politically popular, such as loans for new small businesses and temporary payroll tax reductions. Politically, such opposition risks alienating potential allies and intellectually, it’s not convincing to me.

I’ve posted my Dialog with Dean Baker. My last email asked, “How does the “employer-of-last-resort” federal jobs program you and Bernstein recommend in Getting Back to Full Employment differ from what I’ve been proposing in this thread,…” He replied, “It would not be open-ended. It would be limited and experimental.”

My immediate inclination is to ask what limits he would impose and to ask if he would support an “employer-of-last-resort” federal jobs program as proposed on pp. 88-9 of their book if it ended on a certain date. My own sense is that four years would be an adequate experiment. After three years or so, of course, it could be extended. My intent is to try to find common ground.

What are your thoughts about Baker’s comments and my response to the issue of whether we should rely “not just largely but almost entirely on direct government job creation”?

I also posted this dialog, at [here].

+++

On February 20, 2014, Phil Harvey replied:

Point taken, but after having my proferred contribution to the progressive tool kit utterly and totally ignored for 25 years, I intentionally decided to be more aggressive. I’m willing to back off. Indeed, I’m inclined to accept your advice. You’ve certainly succeeded to a greater extent than I ever have in getting Baker to respond to your questions. But I think you should take seriously the likelihood that unless people like him feel compelled to respond seriously to the views expressed in your questions, they will continue to dismiss the New Deal employment assurance strategy in one or two sentence put downs.

It’s also pretty clear from his responses that he’s not willing to accept the “both/and” approach. He is convinced that the only role direct job creation can usefully play in responding to the problem of unemployment is as a work experience/training opportunity for disadvantaged workers—the success of which will be judged not by the benefits they derive while they are employed in the program, but by whether or not they successfully transition to regular employment outside the program. The problem with this strategy is that it ignores the fact that market economies suffer from a job shortage even at the top of the business cycle. A policy that aims merely to help disadvantaged workers “transition” to regular employment in a job short economy is destined to fail for reasons I have explained in considerable detail in my scholarly work. If you want everyone to have a seat in a game of musical chairs you have to add chairs to the circle. Helping chairless children to get a seat in the next round of the game only guarantees that someone else will end up without one.

+++++

WH: I appreciate your flexibility, am pleased that my argument was cogent, and hear your concern about the emphasis on training.

Can you refer me to experiments of the sort Dean [suggested] that have already been done?
+++

PH: The most extensively-studied experiment was the CETA Public Service Employment program which operated from 1973 until it was terminated during Reagan’s first term in office. However, the the program assumed two very different forms during the course of that period.

It was first instituted as an anti-cyclical program to combat the recession of 1973-75. The conventional Keynesian remedy of increased deficit spending was considered inadvisable at the time because the recession was accompanied by high rates of inflation (“stagflation”). This version of the CETA program was badly designed, though, in that federal funding was provided to state and local governments without strong anti-displacement protections in place, and state and local governments accordingly took advantage of it to pay the salaries of local government employees who would have been employed with local funding in any event. As a result of this “fiscal substitution” problem, the CETA program was changed in 1978 to limit eligibility to disadvantaged workers living in poverty or near poverty. The result was less fiscal substitution, since this population generally lacked the qualification needed to take over jobs previously performed by regular public employees.

It was this second version of CETA that embodied the features that Baker presumably would include in the kind of direct job creation program he is prepared to endorse. So the experiment he proposes has already been conducted. Moreover, it was an experiment that was extensively studied by social scientists. What’s interesting about these studies, though, is that the primary measure of program success they tested was whether participants in the program experienced an increase in earnings after they left the program rather than whether they experienced in increase in earnings while they were employed in the program. In short, the researchers assumed that the reason program participants were poor is because they lacked the skills necessary to obtain presumptively available employment rather than because their weren’t enough jobs to go around. I have called attention to this defect in the research literature on the CETA program from my very first writing on the subject of direct job creation, and I have continued to emphasize that it is futile to try to end poverty without insuring the availability of enough jobs to provide work for everyone who wants it because of the musical chairs effect described in my earlier email.

+++

WH: Thanks much. Can you review the Dialog with Dean Baker and offer your comments?

Dialog with Dean Baker

Dean BakerNOTE: I will update this post as more emails are exchanged. Following the Feb. 5 public forum on “Employment: A Human Right,” I sent Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an email that has resulted in the following thread. On pp 87-8 of Getting Back to Full Employment, he and his co-author, Jared Bernstein, in a section titled, “The need for a national jobs program,” argue, “If our central bank, a government institution, can be a lender of last resort, then the federal government can also be the employer of last resort.”

+++++

On 2/5/2014 9:12 PM, Wade Lee Hudson wrote:
Dear Dean, I very much appreciated your participation in the “Employment: A Human Right” forum and your lucid comments. Please find attached my transcript of the question and answers concerning human rights, which I plan to post along with a commentary on the event. If you want to correct or modify your comments, please let me know. Also, 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? Thanks again for everything, Wade
+++++
DB: Hi Wade, Full employment is used 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 to 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. regards, dean
+++++
WH: Thanks again for your reply. 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.”
+++++
DB: Hi Wade, Someone might be proposing that the a large share of the jobs would depend on government employment with the commitment you described. That may not be the intention, but that may well be the outcome. regards, dean
+++++
WH: Dean, Others might rely more on government employment than you or I would. I’m having a dialog with Phil Harvey on the subject, for example, and it seems we may have a difference of opinion, though with additional clarification, that may not prove to be the case. Regardless, I’d appreciate it if you would clarify your position. Since you and Bernstein affirmed using the government as the “employer of last resort,” I believe, it seems that we should not be that far apart. Do you affirm assuring that anyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job opportunity if that proposal is clearly presented so that it is clear that the proponents do not envision relying primarily on direct government employment to achieve that goal?

In terms of political viability, 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 on this survey is important. As other surveys have done they did not ask people if they support a guaranteed job. Rather, they used the phrase “can find a job.” That formulation implies assuring a job opportunity. It does not assume that they can keep the job 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%. So support for each of these positions was weaker than with the “job opportunity” option. Still, however, a plurality supported both positions.

Moreover, we could propose federal revenue sharing for local jobs, not federal jobs. Still opponents would object to increasing the size of “the government.” I believe the first stage of a direct jobs program might boost government employment by four million workers, which would be less than a 20% increase in total government employment. Given the strong public support for the general principle, it seems that those specifics would largely be acceptable — especially if framed within the “opportunity” concept, which “conservatives” affirm. If we reached a 4% unemployment rate with other measures, at that point we might need to rely primarily on direct job creation to create 2-3 million more jobs. But it seems that would be politically viable and overall we would not be relying primarily on direct government employment to achieve our goal. So, as I phrased it above, do you affirm assuring that anyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job opportunity if that proposal is clearly presented so that it is clear that the proponents do not envision relying primarily on direct government employment to achieve that goal?

Thanks again for everything, Wade
+++++
DB: I am not sure that the government could guarantee a job for everyone at a living wage, as I said before. Any government job would be an effective wage floor. You could end up with very large numbers of people at government jobs (I don’t care about intentions) and this would be an economic and political disaster. The polling today on this point is meaningless because people are not looking at the situation.
+++++
WH: How does the “employer-of-last-resort” federal jobs program you and Bernstein recommend in Getting Back to Full Employment differ from what I’ve been proposing in this thread, which assumes an HR1000-type program that would require workers hired with HR1000 money to take jobs in the private sector when they become available
+++++
DB: It would not be open-ended. It would be limited and experimental.
+++++
WH: What limits would you impose and what would be the goal(s) of the experiment?
+++++
DB: I haven’t really thought it through that carefully. The idea is that it would be an experiment, presumably in a limited number of states, to see if people can be usefully employed (i.e. actually doing work, the programs are well run, limited cases of fraud and abuse) and then transition at high rates into other employment.
+++++
WH: Would you be willing to support an experiment that focused only on the first question: can people be usefully employed in well-run programs? The second question seems of limited value given the musical chairs dilemma. Also, you may be interested in A Dialog with Phil Harvey, which discusses some of these issues.
+++++
DB: I don’t see how the second question would not be of value. If found that people who entered a jobs program never got a job elsewhere, the implication would be that the program would be that we would either have to continually extend the time allowed in the program or end up with lots of people unemployed.
+++++
WH: If the experiment as you described it were successful, what would the next step be?
+++++
DB: expanding it
+++++
WH: Assuming it continued to be successful and expanded nationwide, in what sense would it serve as the employer of last resort?
+++++
DB: It would be there for people who could not get other employment.
+++++
WH: How many workers at any one time would likely be employed?+++++
DB: hopefully not many
+++++
WH: Considering that In January 2014, 20 million people were officially unemployed, employed part time for economic reasons or “marginally attached to the labor force,” and earlier, you told me , “There will be a limit as to how far you can go with just macroeconomic policy. At that point there will still be people without jobs. It will require other policies to get those people employed. I guess my view is that we’re about 9 million jobs from being in that situation,” can you estimate plus or minus one million the number who would be employed at any one time in the federal jobs program you envision (following a period of smaller experimentation that proved successful)?
+++++
DB: no, I can’t — i have no idea what that world looks like and  I can’t imagine a less productive thing to do with my time than to try to speculate
+++++
WH: Dean, You questioned guaranteeing living-wage job opportunities partly because it might involve “very large numbers of people at government jobs.”As an alternative you proposed a federal jobs program that “would be there for people who could not get other employment,” yet would employ “hopefully not many” workers.I fail to see how an employer-of-last-resort program would not employ at least three million of the eleven million workers who would remain unemployed or underemployed after we create the nine million new jobs you envision that we could create with macroeconomic policies.Do you consider three million “not many”? Unless you do, your position seems logically inconsistent, for it seems that if the federal government served as the “employer of last resort,” it would need to fund at least three million jobs.Clarifying this issue could help explain how your proposal differs from other proposals for an employer-of-last-resort federal jobs program that you have been unwilling to support. Greater clarity on this issue could help advocates decide what position to support. Thanks, Wade
+++++
DB: Just to be clear I am not advocating that  the government make a commitment that it will employ people who can’t find other jobs. I would support experiments with temporary government jobs.
+++++
WH: So you do not support the federal govt serving as the employer of last resort, correct?
+++++
DB: I do not support a guarantee of government employment, I am fine with the government acting as a limited employer of workers who cannot find other jobs.
+++++
WH: What time limit would you impose on those temporary federally funded jobs and if a worker were unable to find a job six months after the temporary job ended, could that worker get another temporary federally funded job?
+++++
DB: probably not
+++++
WH: Do you still believe it is accurate to use the phrase “employer of last resort” to describe the program you outline?
+++++
DB: yes
+++++
WH: Do you believe that those who are unable to find work for extended periods deserve to be unemployed? That they are to blame for their situation?
+++++
DB: No, but we need to have workable policies. It doesn’t do anyone Any good to lie to them, is that your policy?
+++++
WH: No, I do not want to lie, and yes, I do believe we can avoid creating a false or misleading impression by being transparent. Influenced by your experimentation frame, I propose that we take it step-by-step and be very clear from the outset that neither we nor anyone else can reliably predict the future on this point. So, though we would like to reach the point where everyone who wants to work can find at least a minimum wage job quickly and we believe that by increasing federal funding for temporary, minimum-wage, public-service jobs (including jobs with private non-profit agencies) we can help achieve that goal (along with other measures to boost private-sector employment), we aren’t certain that we can over time maintain enough public support politically to do so. And we aren’t certain about the impact on inflation. Therefore, we propose to experiment with a program that would increase federal funding for such jobs incrementally every two years. If the program worked well and continued to be popular, we would continue to expand it.

We might begin with funding for one million workers and increase it with funding for an additional one million workers each two years as needed and if still feasible. Since we currently have about 20 million government employees (7% of the total population), an increase of one million every two years would not be a shock. How many such minimum wage jobs would be needed is hard to predict. It would depend on what happens in the private sector and how many people seek those jobs.

If we were clear and open about all this, I do not see that we would be misleading anyone. If the jobs were temporary jobs that would involve providing assistance to current workers and were obtained through the local unemployment office with the requirement that those workers would have to take jobs in the private sector when available (as is the case now with UI benefits), and they were funded with federal revenue sharing funds that would not substantially increase the size of the federal government, and the material benefits of enhancing those services became clear, I believe we would maintain political support for it.

Any risks that might be involved seem well worth taking. The risks involved in maintaining the status quo seem far greater.
+++++
DB: I’m afraid that I am not confident that we do an increment of 1 million to start, especially since the unemployment is not evenly spread. I’d be more comfortable around 200k-400k and my goal would not be to continually increase the number.
+++++
WH: Do you rule out any scenario that would result in any worker who is able and willing to work but unable to find a regular job being able to work at a federally funded minimum-wage provisional job that would require workers to accept regular jobs for which they are qualified when available? The scenario I just described tried to avoid proposing a definite “goal.” Rather, it merely affirmed that “we would like to” reach that point if the experiment worked. Stipulate whatever parameters you like. Begin with 400k. Then if the program is successful without damaging the economy and the public supports it (as they do Social Security), expand it incrementally periodically at whatever level and pace you prefer. Are you unable to envision supporting any such plan?
+++++
DB: I certainly hope we would get there.
+++++
WH: That’s good to hear. So I wonder if we can outline an experiment that you would support. Let me modify my last email with that aim in mind.

We begin with distributing revenue-sharing federal funds to hire 400k minimum-wage workers who serve as assistants to current public-service workers. They are referred to those jobs through their local unemployment office, which helps them find permanent employment for which they are qualified. When such jobs are offered, those workers are required to accept them. Since most of those jobs pay more than minimum wage, these workers are motivated to seek and take those jobs. When they find such work, the workers they were assisting revert to their prior situation, providing services as best as they can.

If and when it becomes clear that this jobs program is: 1) helping to improve the quality of our public services; 2) is not damaging to the economy; and3) is popular politically, and 4) we still have unemployed workers who are unable to find work, we expand it by some yet-to-be-determined increment.

If after some yet-to-be-determined period of time, those same four conditions are met, we expand the program by some additional yet-to-be-determined increment.

We then continue expanding the program until everyone who is able and willing to work but unable to find a regular job can find work at a federally funded minimum-wage provisional job that would require workers to accept regular jobs for which they are qualified when available.

Would you support that plan?
+++++
DB: that sounds reasonable

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.

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.