Monday, April 23, 2018

Business Insider — Bernie Sanders is about to roll out a plan to guarantee every single American a job

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders will introduce a plan to guarantee every American a job paying $15 an hour, according to a new report.
  • The plan comes after two other Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, also backed job guarantee proposals.
  • Advocates for the plan say it will fight inequality and dampen recession, while opponents say it is an inefficient use of government resources.

Woo hoo.

Thank Stephanie Kelton, especially, and the MMT economists!

Business Insider
Bernie Sanders is about to roll out a plan to guarantee every single American a job
Bob Bryan

33 comments:

Andrew Anderson said...

MMT: Welfare for the banks and the rich; jobs for the poor.

Konrad said...

BUSINESS INSIDER: “Advocates for the plan say it will fight inequality and dampen recession, while opponents say it is an inefficient use of government resources.”

Whatever narrows the gap between the rich and the rest is “an inefficient use of government resources.”

Whatever eases the suffering of the masses is “an inefficient use of government resources.”

Whatever stands in the way of the horrendously inefficient spending on wars is “an inefficient use of government resources.”

Whatever reduces inequality is “big government.”

Whatever worsens inequality is “small and efficient government.” (The actual size of government is irrelevant.)

Actually the U.S. government has no “resources” at all. If you ask a million people how much money the U.S. government has, not one of them will be able to give you any answer. The correct answer is that the U.S. government simultaneously has no resources, and infinite resources.

The U.S. government creates its spending money out of thin air by crediting bank accounts. Likewise, we create points on a sports scoreboard out of thin air, simply by changing the numbers. Does a scoreboard have “resources”? No. How many points does a scoreboard have? The correct answer is zero points and infinite points.

In terms of money, the concept of “efficiency” is meaningless when applied to the U.S. government.

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE: How sad it is that right-wingers equate socialism with liberal pathologies, such as political correctness and the hatred and intolerance of Social Justice Warriors.

Black Lives Matter? Socialism! Militant feminism and “trans rights” demands? Socialism! MMT jobs guarantee? Socialism! Universal Social Security, and Single Payer Health Care? Socialism! EVIL!

As the peasants cut their own throats, rich oligarchs gaze down on them and laugh with delight. It’s like watching a big cage full of monkeys and giggling as the monkeys tear each other apart.

Some of the monkeys yell, “racist!” “rapist!” “Nazi!”

Other monkeys yell, “Liberal!” “Socialist!” “Commie!”

And the show goes on. Pass me some popcorn.

Matt Franko said...

Trump loses the mid terms and if Dems can then get it out of committee Trump would probably sign off in it...

Matt Franko said...

Konrad the mass of people do not abstract well if at all.... no adequate training in how to do that...

Tom Hickey said...

Wouldn't get out of committee. Establishment Dems against it.

Noah Way said...

Establishment Dems against it.

Just like Medicare for all.

Konrad said...

@Tom Hickey and Noah Way...

President Richard Nixon pushed hard for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in 1968. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld ran UBI tests for Nixon, and found that the UBI did not make people “lazy.” On the contrary, a UBI made people more enterprising and resourceful.

However Senate Democrats killed it, fearing that a UBI would make Democrats irrelevant. The Democrat establishment feared that if the masses had a UBI, then the masses would no longer need “protection” from pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-inequality Democrats.

Democrats told Nixon that if he continued to push for a UBI, then Democrats would no longer support the War on Vietnam. And so the idea faded away.

There are many articles that explain this.

Google the words: Richard Nixon Universal Basic Income

Tom Hickey said...

Bill Mitchell, kA basic income guarantee is a neo-liberal strategy for serfdom without the wor5, Basic income guarantee progressives cosy up with the worst CEOs in the world

Ellis Willingham, A Few Words on UBI and the Job Guarantee

Yves Smith, Job Guarantee Versus Basic Income Guarantee

John Kelly, aWhy a Universal Basic Income is a very bad ide


Noah Way said...

Nixon gave us for-profit HMOs intentionally designed to maximize profit by minimizing care.

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”


[Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_taped_conversation_between_President_Richard_Nixon_and_John_D._Ehrlichman_(1971)_that_led_to_the_HMO_act_of_1973:

Noah Way said...

A UBI would be used as justification to eliminate ALL social programs because everybody could afford to buy what they need. Like high-deductible private insurance.

Eliminate Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. in one fell swoop. Ta Da!

Dan Lynch said...

@Tom repeats the MMT attacks on basic income and other welfare programs, even though welfare works just fine in the Nordic countries. It's almost like MMT is afraid of ideological competition??? I never cease to be puzzled at why an otherwise intelligent person like Tom falls for the MMT bullshit about the JG and BI. Group think?

Claiming a BI would eliminate Medicare is bullshit because MMT's JG does not eliminate the need for health care. Standard MMT proposal: JG would provide the same health care benefits as any other federal job. Except federal jobs do not provide health care!!! They provide a menu of health care choices, all of which require a waiting period and employee contributions. Hence under the common JG proposal, a short term low wage JG worker would be left without health care. Or perhaps after the waiting period the JG worker could purchase a low-end health insurance plan with deductibles and co-pays that the JG worker could not afford? But remember, the JG is supposed to be a "transition" job, so the JG worker might not stay long enough to qualify for health care. Then if he gets recruited by the private sector, the former JG worker might then have to endure the private employer's waiting period before he qualifies for health insurance. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?

I have stated repeatedly that health care should be addressed separate from any job program and/or separate from any BI program. Health care should be universally provided or guaranteed by the national government as it is in most countries. It is only the U.S. that links health care to the job (or to the JG). So cut the crap about a BI eliminating health care.

There are many problems with the JG, which I have blogged about previously and do not need to beat to death here. However, the latest JG proposals as reshaped by Pavlina have made it even worse, not better. Pavlina has always been one to favor outsourcing the JG to local government or to private non-profits. Well, inquiring minds who live in red states want to know if it would be MANDATORY for local governments and private non-profits to participate in the JG? Pavlina and her pals do not say, but of course it would not be mandatory. Any local government could "opt out" of the Pavlina/Stephanie/Bernie JG, just as red states opted out of Medicaid expansion.

Why would they opt out? Partly ideological -- conservatives do not like the poor and do not wish to help the poor, who they view as deserving to be punished. Partly money -- Pavlina proposes 25% cost sharing for her latest JG. Now compare that to the 5% cost sharing for Medicaid and the 7.34% cost sharing that is common for most Federal grants to local governments. 5% or 7.34% may not sound like a lot but when you are talking millions of dollars, it's a lot. It's a huge hit for local government budgets, and definitely deters them from applying for Federal grants. But wait, there's more -- the cost sharing requirement is pro-cyclical -- during recessions, local government revenues shrink making it even harder to come up with the cost sharing funds.

So here's my latest criticism, in addition to the numerous criticisms that I have previously blogged about: say a Pavlina-style JG becomes law, and local governments opt out. What then, huh?

Folks, to truly provide a Federal GUARANTEE of employment, there has to be a Federal "public option," otherwise the "guarantee" is a big fat lie. If local government or local non-profits won't hire you, then the Federal government has to step up to the plate.

And just as with health care, as long as the Federal government is going to be a provider, then why not just make it a full fledged Federal program? Why include local government or private non-profits, other than to scratch a conservative ideological itch which I personally am not afflicted with?

Tom Hickey said...

MMT is not against welfare.

I personally prefer that welfare policy not be implemented chiefly through cash but rather through directly providing for needs. Am for directly providing free universal health care, adequate pension, and free education K through PhD, as well as food, housing and other necessities for the needy .

The MMT argument is that a UBI is unworkable and bad policy, as shown by its originators and backers.

The central issue is whether a buffer stock of employed is superior to a buffers stock of unemployed. Since the latter is wasteful of resources it makes no economic sense.

The issues need to be addressed politically in a comprehensive way wrt social and economic policy. The challenge is to formulate policy that works and can be passed into law and implemented successfully.

We know that affordability is a non-issue.

But there's a host of other issues that need to be put on the table and debated as a whole — a new New Deal.

But the first step is getting to the table.

Tom Hickey said...

BTW, "welfare" has acquired the connotation of being oriented to caring for the needy.

But "welfare" in the economic sense is about the common good and general welfare. Economics is about material provision for the common good and general welfare of a society.

Dan Lynch said...

MMT is not against welfare.

That would be like me saying "I am not against the government creating jobs." OK, but if I have no plan for the government to create jobs, doesn't that say that I'm not really serious about government creating jobs? And if MMT has no plan to implement welfare, doesn't that say that MMT isn't really serious about welfare?

Not being against something is not the same as being for something. The JG is a cornerstone of MMT, welfare is not.

a UBI is unworkable and bad policy, I am not a big fan of a UBI myself, preferring a means-tested BIG, nonetheless Alaska has a UBI, and some of the Nordic countries have things that could be called a UBI though they don't call them that. A means tested BIG (or JIG) is certainly workable. MMT's insistence on talking about a UBI strikes me as a straw man to avoid seriously considering a BIG.

The central issue is whether a buffer stock of employed is superior to a buffer stock of unemployed. I say the central issue is WHO BENEFITS from a buffer stock of labor? If labor does not benefit from a buffer stock of labor then why should labor agree to maintain a buffer stock of labor, whether it be unemployed labor or JG temps?

Wouldn't labor benefit more from permanent jobs? If there are all these things that supposedly need doing for the "public purpose," then why not create permanent socialist jobs to do them, rather than relying on temps during recessions? WHO BENEFITS from a policy that favors temp jobs over permanent jobs?

The unspoken elephant in the room is that MMT's JG serves capital, not labor. It tosses a few crumbs to labor.

Agree that "the challenge is to formulate policy that works and can be passed into law and implemented successfully." There is no right or wrong answer to that challenge, other than to point out fatal flaws like local governments opting out of a Pavlina JG. The right answer is "whatever works" in a particular time and place, and it may be that even the best systems eventually "fail" due to normal ebbs and flows in politics, or due to new problems that pop up that the old system is unable to deal with.

the first step is getting to the table. The first step is to gain power. If it were easy to gain power in a capitalist system, it would have been done a long time ago. In the meantime, it is not my job as a private citizen to support compromises. Sure, we all accept that politicians have to make compromises to pass legislation, but as Howard Zinn observed "The citizen's job is to declare firmly what he thinks is right. To compromise with politicians from the very start is to end up with a compromise of a compromise."

Myself, I think workers would be better off with permanent socialist jobs, and with universal health care (and other universal social benefits) guaranteed by the national government. I don't understand why anyone would advocate for dead end temp jobs with vague undefined health care benefits -- unless they were an academic who had invested their academic reputation in that policy, or if they were an urban yuppie who viewed offering crap jobs to the poors as doing a good deed without upsetting a system that serves the urban yuppie well.

If one does commit to trying to maintain full employment in a capitalist system, there are other ways to go about it besides the various JG's. For example, the full employment proposal outlined in Henry Wallace's "60 Million Jobs" strikes me as more workable than the JG, though Wallace still ran into the never ending political problem of any "social democracy" -- capitalist societies are ruled by capitalists who by and large oppose social programs.

Tom Hickey said...

"The JG is a cornerstone of MMT, welfare is not."

True, but only in the restricted sense of "welfare.

MMT is chiefly about "welfare" in the broad sense of the common good and general welfare. MMT economists generally favor social democracy politically.

"Welfare" is a general concept, while the MMT JG is very specific. Apples and oranges.

The issue is buffer stock of employed v. buffer stock of unemployed. Welfare has nothing to do with that.

"MMT's insistence on talking about a UBI strikes me as a straw man to avoid seriously considering a BIG."

The UBI is bad policy, for reasons explained. One may contest those reason.

There is no conflict between some sort of BIG and the JG. They can co-exist. I personally prefer that benefits be conferred directly rather than indirectly. This is about basic provisioning of vital personal and social needs rather than about markets, preferences, and choice.

I am chiefly interested in practical ways to get from here to there. Idealistic solitons and visionary solutions are needed as part of the process, but in the end, what matters is what gets implemented. What is a debate about policy; how is debate over strategy.





Calgacus said...

Dan Lynch: I am not a big fan of a UBI myself, preferring a means-tested BIG, nonetheless Alaska has a UBI, and some of the Nordic countries have things that could be called a UBI though they don't call them that.

No, no place ever, not Alaska, not Nordic countries has had a real UBI, because it cannot work in this universe. Implementing a UBI is like implementing 2 + 2 = 5. It is unintelligible, so the UBIers are always surreptitiously subtracting or adding 1 to one side or the other. The closest approaches to UBI are oil states where the few pampered citizens receive a UBI courtesy of the majority immigrant population. Not a pretty picture, but there is no other way even a quasi-UBI could work. Because UBI is in essence a proposal for theft (Neil's word) or slavery (mine). UBI supporters are maniacs who think that because one person can rob or enslave another (or buy his service with money), that means we can all become rich and powerful by each individual person robbing and enslaving more people than rob or enslave that individual.

Myself, I think workers would be better off with permanent socialist jobs, and with universal health care

That is the Job Guarantee. Job Guarantee jobs are permanent jobs.

I say the central issue is WHO BENEFITS from a buffer stock of labor?
Obviously, labor. The buffer stock of labor meaning the employed "buffer stock", the JG pool. Labor has broken free of the labor monopsonists = money monopolists strangling them in "capitalism" and is now free to exchange its labor with itself. But no system can systematically pay one hour of labor more than one hour of labor as the deranged UBI promises.

Not being against something is not the same as being for something. The JG is a cornerstone of MMT, welfare is not. That is because they understand economics. Welfare alone, doesn't work. A JG alone, does. Welfare alone, a BIG alone say, doesn't really help anything much. Been there, done that. It's running on a treadmill. A JG alone does most of the work of "welfare" all by itself, so welfare is icing on the cake.

If one does commit to trying to maintain full employment in a capitalist system, there are other ways to go about it besides the various JG's.

No, there isn't. It is not very sensible to stretch the meaning of UBI absurdly widely and also absurdly narrow JG. The sensible way is to read the acronyms literally UBI is Universal. Basic. Income. JG is Job. Guarantee. Henry Wallace, FDR, Harry Hopkins etc supported and partially implemented a JG.

The unspoken elephant in the room is that MMT's JG serves capital, not labor. It tosses a few crumbs to labor.

No, that is a pink elephant, that only people who are not thinking clearly can see. The reverse of the truth. The traditional Marxist position is that a Job Guarantee "abolishes" capitalism. The traditional capitalist position agrees. It is not "a few crumbs" but the end of "capitalism". To disagree is to say that Marx, Trotsky, Lenin had no idea what a revolutionary change was.

I do agree that the MMTers are not educating people the best way. Presenting various implementations of the idea is not what is needed. Getting people bogged down in details so critics can wrongly identify some inessential detail or other as the proposal - is a mistake. What is needed is for people to understand the basic structure and function of the JG proposal, so they can avoid being fooled by confused, mistaken, off-target criticism.

Matt Franko said...

Dan this is big because it gets the morons to start thinking outside their current moron box they are in....

Tom Hickey said...

@ Calgacus

Exactly.

I do agree that the MMTers are not educating people the best way. Presenting various implementations of the idea is not what is needed. Getting people bogged down in details so critics can wrongly identify some inessential detail or other as the proposal - is a mistake. What is needed is for people to understand the basic structure and function of the JG proposal, so they can avoid being fooled by confused, mistaken, off-target criticism.

It's falling into a pit of distraction, which is the intention of those setting the traps.

This is another form of trolling. Observe the rule, don't feed the trolls.

Dan Lynch said...

Tom, I will leave you alone, since you think anyone who questions the JG is a "troll." That seems to be a common view in the MMT religious cult.

I leave you with one question -- where is your critical thinking on the JG? Do you see potential problems with the JG, especially as proposed by Pavlina? Are that alternative ways to create full employment? Are there alternative ways to provide economic security? Is there any reason we should not consider those alternative ways? That's what critical thinking is about, as you of all people should know. Yet in the years I have known you, I have not observed you do critical thinking when it comes to the JG.

Calc, I understand the "basic structure" of the JG -- take them as they are, create jobs that match their skills. But I also do the critical thinking to see that all specific JG proposals fail to deliver on that promise.

Again, I will not "troll" any further. You are free to return to your cult thinking devoid of criticism or alternative ideas.

Tom Hickey said...

I am emphasizing my view, shared by some MMT economists, that the point of the MMT JG is replacing the highly inefficient buffer stock of unemployed with a buffer stock of employed in a way that overcomes the inflationary tendencies that such a program might entail.

Once that is agreed, then let the policy debate begin over what the policy should be and how to implement it.

Engaging in the policy debate first invites distraction.

We can establish the priority for such a JG on economic grounds.

This frames the policy debate correctly.

Andrew Anderson said...

... that the point of the MMT JG is replacing the highly inefficient buffer stock of unemployed with a buffer stock of employed in a way that overcomes the inflationary tendencies that such a program might entail. Tom Hickey [bold added]

With a UBI, minimum wage laws could be scrapped as unneeded which would tend to lower prices (because of lower labor costs) yet without lowering demand for goods and services.

With a JG:
1) JG workers would be competing with the private sector with the resultant screams of "Unfair!" from the private sector.

OR

2) JG workers would NOT be competing with the private sector. But then, except for jobs the private sector should be excluded from anyway (e.g the justice system) what useful output can be expected from JG workers that would tend to dampen price inflation? Indeed, paying people to waste their time can be expected to increase price inflation, e.g. paying mothers with small children to work outside the home would increase the spending on daycare but with no additional daycare services provided by the JG (to avoid competing with the private sector (See 1) above)).

Tom Hickey said...

@AA

Doesn't deal with the economic inefficiency of a bugger stock of unemployed.

Tom Hickey said...

Oops. Should be "buffer."

But it's actually a felicitous error. :)

Andrew Anderson said...

Doesn't deal with the economic inefficiency of a bugger stock of unemployed. Tom

With no minimum wage laws, companies could afford to train and discipline their own potential workers from a stock of people who desired to work for them rather than from a stock of people driven by need.

Andrew Anderson said...

Also, not having a job is NOT equivalent to being unemployed, untrained, inexperienced or undisciplined, e.g. many a farm boy has gone to the big city and made good despite not ever having had a job (work for wages).

Tom Hickey said...

The issue is full employment and relative price stability.

Most agree that the trifecta of macroeconomic policy is growth, employment and price stability.

The MMT JG addresses this directly and shows a path to actual full employment without incurring unacceptable levels of inflation normally associated with full employment under current theory, or stunting growth.

All other approach either dismiss full employment as a priority, propose indirect ways of addressing employment as a consequence of other policies, or redefine "full employment" to accommodate a buffer stock of unemployed. The later is current policy.

Andrew Anderson said...

All other approach either dismiss full employment as a priority, Tom Hickey

I see no MMT proposals that the idle rich should be made to get jobs. Why is that?

Tom Hickey said...

I see no MMT proposals that the idle rich should be made to get jobs. Why is that?

MMT accepts that the starting point is here. The practical way forward from here to there is through iterative and incremental development

One step at a time, bearing in mind Thomas Aquinas's paraphrase of Aristotle: A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end. (De ente et essentia).

The point is to construct the frame in way that gets one where one wants to go, mindful that those who oppose will choose the framing that suits their POV, interests and preferences.

Secondly, a proposal that requires radically altering the existing system is much more difficult to implement than taking a relatively small step in the existing system, but one that deconstructs it from within. The MMT JG does that, as Calgacus has pointed out.

Andrew Anderson said...

I'm not saying that the idle rich should be made to get jobs but that no one else should be made to get one either.

And I don't see MMT as deconstructing the current unjust system but as enabling it to limp along causing even more injustice and misery, e.g. government-provided deposit insurance, another Progressive innovation, instead of inherently risk-free government provided checking/debit accounts for all citizens at the central bank or equivalent.

Andrew Anderson said...

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/04/tsb-train-wreck-massive-bank-it-failure-going-into-fifth-day-customers-locked-out-of-accounts-getting-into-other-peoples-accounts-getting-bogus-data.html

Question? Why should citizens have to work through a private bank anyway for simple checking and debit operations? Why should't a monetarily sovereign government provide such accounts for its citizens as a risk-free, 100% liquid-at-all-times payment system in addition to the one that must work through banks?

Noah Way said...

Exactly. NATIONALIZE THE BANKS. While were at it let's nationalize health care and especially the military -> no more private contractors.

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

Exactly. NATIONALIZE THE BANKS. Noah Way

Lending should be an entirely* private activity to avoid violating equal protection under the law in favor of the more so-called "creditworthy", the richer.

However, outright GRANTS from the monetary sovereign such as a UBI or even targeted** grants are not ruled out since no pretense of the monetary sovereign earning a monetary profit is involved and thus the general welfare is the only consideration.

*Why, for example, aren't large users of fiat such as banks, credit unions, etc. charged for the risk-free storage of "their" fiat at the central bank?

**e.g. scholarships and grants for a first home purchases.