by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, www.nofica.com
Ben Bernanke:
“The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
Please share this article – Go to very top of page, right hand side, for social media buttons.
The Week Magazine published an article titled, “The hidden dangers of the Democrats’ job guarantee message“, by Jeff Spross, May 18, 2018. Here are a few excerpts, plus my comments:
Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others want to guarantee every American a job: If you want work, and can’t find it in the private sector, the government will hook you up with a job that pays a living wage and benefits.
We previously have discussed, or rather questioned, the realities of, ” . . . hook you up with a job that pays a living wage and benefits.”
What exactly does “hook you up” mean? For instance, does “hook you up,” mean finding you a job in the private sector, thereby taking a job away from some other person?
And if in the private sector, will the federal government force the private sector company to pay $15 hour (the number that has been suggested)? And must that job provide benefits? And if so, what exactly will those benefits be? And how will this affect all other private sector and public sector jobs?
And if you are fired, what happens? Will the government find you another job, even if you were fired for being lazy, incompetent, rude, smelly, or stupid?
Or will “hook you up” mean being hired by a state or local government, and if so, what are the answers to the above questions?
Or will “hook you up” mean being hired by the federal government, and again, requiring the answers to the same questions.
The Job Guarantee proponents seem confused about all of the above realities. But no matter, they simply will forge ahead, without a plan, hoping that somehow, there will emerge a bureaucracy that can make all those decisions, then supervise employment throughout the 50 states, approximately 3 thousand counties, and the nearly 20 thousand cities, towns, and villages in the U.S.
That should be easy.
We have mentioned those concerns before. No need to discuss them further, until we receive answers from the believers. This post is meant to address an even more fundamental question, as referenced in this excerpt:
“There is great dignity in work,” Booker declared when announcing his legislation.
Historically, that rhetoric has been used by Republicans right before they try to cut programs like Medicaid or SNAP or impose work requirements.
ObamaCare means fewer people “getting the dignity of work,” Paul Ryan said in 2014. The unspoken premise is that less fortunate Americans on these programs are just too foolish or short-sighted to recognize the benefits and honor that comes with a job.
So they must be stripped of government aid and driven back into the labor market – for their own good, of course.
Why then do progressives echo these conservative talking points?
Well, first off, because it’s a great way to turn one of the right’s favorite rhetorical weapons against its wielder.
There’s also a lot of sociological evidence that unemployment really does wreak havoc on people’s psychological well-being and even their physical health. “Dignity” might not be the ideal way to express this, but it’s a term within reach.
And there it is, the claim that work not only is a moral imperative, but is necessary to provide psychological well-being and physical health.
This arrogant, condescending crap is what the rich want you common plebians to believe, so that you will accept a job, any job, and reject the notion of government “handouts,” especially if given to common plebes poorer than you.
The fact is that it is lack of money, not unemployment, that wreaks havoc on psychological and physical health.
I haven’t had a job in more than ten years, but I am quite content to enjoy my life playing tennis, writing the occasional blog post, reading, attending various forms of entertainment or even lazing about like a slug when the mood strikes.
“This makes me feel dignified. You, too?”
Why? Because I have enough money to do it. I have owned several companies and have had a variety of jobs, and never did I feel that it was my labor that gave me “dignity.”
Anyone who believes working, much less working for a boss, is necessary to provide dignity, never will have it.
Think of your employment. Does your job give you “dignity”? Would you do your job without pay, just to acquire “dignity”? Can you even imagine what “dignity” means in the context of working for a salary?
I looked up “dignity” in the thesaurus: decency, decorum, grace, grandeur, greatness, honor, morality, poise, prestige, quality, respectability, self-respect, stature, status, virtue.
Now try to visualize the minimum wage jobs with which the bureaucracy will “hook you up.” Will that low-wage labor provide you with decency? Decorum? Grace? How about morality? Prestige? Quality?
If anything, won’t it be the money that provides you with a modicum of self-respect and virtue?
The idle rich want you not only to hate the notion of receiving money and benefits without labor, but to despise seeing others receiving such “welfare” – except for the idle rich themselves, whose entire lives are devoted to receiving benefits from minimal to no personal effort.
The article continues:
Finally, there’s the fact that work improves communities, especially when it’s not geared towards maximizing returns for the 1 percent.
That is the first job criterion I ever have seen from JG adherents – a job that “does not maximize returns for the 1 percent.” That would seem to eliminate all private sector employment.
I suspect Mr. Spross didn’t consider that.
“I would say the dignity potential of work stems in the first instance from its communal implications,” wrote leftist commentator Max Sawicky. “We look with favor upon those who contribute to the general welfare.“
More pompous nonsense. Decency, decorum, grace, greatness – who feels those attributes in your community? The guys who pick up your garbage? They contribute a tremendous amount to the general welfare. Does their job give them poise and prestige? Is that what you would feel?
How about the people fixing potholes in your street? Decency, decorum, and grace?
Your plumber, electrician, painter, and roofer all contribute far more to the general welfare than does Mr. Uppercrust who inherited millions and now lives in that mansion up on the hill. His labor consists of cutting coupons from his huge bond investments.
But who has the grandeur and gets the honors? The guy with the money.
The article continues:
All that said, you really don’t want to denigrate those who can’t work because they’re young, old, disabled, sick, or caring for children or other family members.
Spross just has admitted that if you are young, old, disabled, sick, etc., your psychological well-being won’t be impacted by lack of labor? Why them and not the rest of us?
Continuing the article:
There are a few things I think job guarantee champions should do to avoid falling into this trap.
The first is to pair any job guarantee legislation with bills to strengthen the country’s various cash aid programs.
We already send cash to retirees, via Social Security, but the program’s generosity needs to be increased. We also have a cash aid program for the disabled, but it’s extraordinarily meager and patchy.
For children, and for people caring for children or parents, we have basically nothing at all. This all needs to be fixed.
Finally, toward the end of the article, we approach reality. Rather than the government providing jobs, the government should provide money.
Mr. Spross actually is suggesting his version of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).
Job guarantee advocates also need to forcefully communicate, over and over, that the purpose of the program is to ensure a universal right. Booker, to his credit, is already thinking along these lines: “Both Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Franklin Roosevelt believed that every American had the right to a job, and that right has only become more important in this age of increasing income inequality, labor market concentration, and continued employment discrimination.”
A right to a job doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone will exercise it, but it should be guaranteed nonetheless.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The purpose of a government, any government, is to improve the well-being of its people.
This does not mean putting everyone to work. It means providing benefits that improve the health and happiness of the populace.
This would be the polar opposite of the conservative view: That work is something bestowed on the poor by the good graces of the rich.
Instead, a job guarantee should declare that it is society’s moral obligation to provide work. And it is everyone’s right to join in it – but only if they so choose.
Finally, the author admits that if you don’t “join in,” i.e accept a minimum wage job, you won’t receive, and don’t deserve those government benefits the JG workers will receive. This is exactly the religious right-wing position, moralistic position.
Forget providing dignity; give the people real benefits. The Ten Steps to Prosperity.
