Answer: Really, after all we have seen in the last ten years? Government stumbles at times but many programs work well. As in all large organizations, there are problems due to the complexity and scale of tasks, weak administrators, lazy employees, and reliance on private contractors who are incompetent. But many programs work. Sometimes the simpler and more socialized, the better. Social Security keeps track of millions of workers and retirees. Every month 58 million retirees, their dependents, survivors, and disabled people get checks. [ii]
2. Assertion: Job programs cost too much. We don't have the money. We can't keep spending money we don't have. [iii]
Answer: We can find the money if politicians in Washington want to find it. We've spent trillions for wars of dubious justifications (Iraq is an example) and for tax cuts that favor the rich and don't trickle down. We can easily afford $200 to $300 billion a year for a jobs program by taxing the rich more, adding a small tax on Wall Street financial transactions, cutting loopholes like deductions for corporate meals and entertainment, and creating a national carbon tax to limit greenhouse emissions. And we can borrow some of what is needed. There are good deficits (for job creation, to avoid a Great Depression) and bad deficits (tax cuts to the rich, dubious wars). In the long run, more good jobs adds tax revenues and contributions to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And it lowers expenditures on unemployment insurance and food stamps. As jobs and the economy grow, deficits fall. [iv]
3. Assertion: If the federal government borrows too much to create jobs, we'll bankrupt the country. We already owe $17 trillion. Our kids will have a huge bill to pay; everything they earn will go to pay off the debt. We're doomed.
Answer: Some people who claim to be alarmed about the national debt are sincere, but many have a hidden agenda. They aren't really worried about deficits. They hate Obama. They hate liberal social programs. They want to get their hands on public monies. For years, Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson has tried to scare people about deficits in order to privatize Social Security and put trillions of dollars of retirement money into the hands of bankers and speculators.
You hear less about deficits today, partly because big deficits promoted economic growth and more federal revenues and so the federal deficit fell from $1.5 trillion to $.5 trillion. There's no urgency to paying off the accumulated debt, but people who are worried about the problem could support higher taxes on the rich and a good-jobs program to increase government revenue. But they won = t. [v]
4. Assertion: If we ever get close to full employment B let = s say 3% unemployment--inflation rates will soar. When workers are in high demand, they get pay increases and employers have to raise wage offers and prices. Bert and Ernie learned in their econ class that economists have proved that a Philips Curve and other iron laws of economics mean we cannot have low-inflation and low unemployment at the same time.
Answer: This assertion highlights a potential problem. Truly full employment should bring substantial wage increases. That's one reason we want full employment. But do companies have to raise prices much? Most large companies, like Wal-Mart, have huge profits. Shareholders can take a little less and CEOs too. It's time to stop the upper-class pay grab while tens of millions work for poverty wages. We should talk about the morality of people A owning @ $100 billion, like the Walton family, while millions of households try to get by on less than $30,000 a year. Workers = productivity increased 80% over 1979-2009, but average pay barely moved. Almost all the benefits of more efficient production went to the top 10%. High-end incomes are wildly inflated but that kind of inflation got little attention for many years and even now not much is being done about it. [vi]
Another point: inflation of 4% rather than 2% would not be a heavy price to pay if more people had a decent job or reasonable prospects for getting one. Also, if the cousins are sincerely concerned about inflation, they can work to make sure our new job program includes money to pay scholars and activists to develop anti-inflation programs that do not rely on laying off workers and quashing wages. In the 1970s few economists worked on softer solutions. The brutal recession of 1981-1983 was easier B and it fit the business and conservative agenda for decimating unions and worker power. Other countries with strong unions or a stronger sense of WITT (We're in This Together) have had success with softer solutions. [vii]
5. Assertion: Where's personal responsibility? Bert and Ernie have finally had it with economic ideas and political discussions. Their solution is simple: If people who want a job got off their butts and looked for work, the unemployment problem would disappear.
Answer: Of course people need to take responsibility for themselves; a relative handful don't. Most do, and many who try hard don't get much in return. National policy should help the large group that is trying hard and not getting ahead. We know average wages have been lousy for forty years. We know that there are always fewer job vacancies there are job seekers. It's obvious that the general ups and downs of unemployment are systemic and have nothing to do with people getting more or less lazy. Finally, tens of millions of people go to work every day for low pay, no benefits and unsteady hours. Are they lazy?
6. Assertion: Do we have to be idealists? We work hard--well, at least in the summer--the cousins say. We're getting by. Why should we worry about other people? YOYO (You're on Your Own) is a more realistic way to organize society than WITT (We're In This Together).
Answer: Kids, you are living off others, your parents and tax payers in particular. Furthermore, as we discussed, many people who work hard are barely getting by. Some day you guys may be out of work and unable to pay your bills. Our collective goal should be to recast the economy to create better jobs and make success possible for more people. Economic success requires three things: individual effort, supportive structures, and a little luck. YOYO is not a full description of the way the world works. Our modern robber barons don't do it all on their own. They have laws and police and politicians and media hacks who defend them when they fleece the public and exploit their workers. They depend on public schools to educate the work force and they use publically supported transportation, communication networks, government subsidies, and more. We are all part of a densely interdependent economy. [viii]
7. Assertion: Do we want everybody working all the time? Grandpa makes a good point: "You people are always complaining about being too busy. Full employment means more people with less time."
Answer: Right. We don't want everyone working all the time. We want better jobs and better pay so that people who need to take time off have enough income to carry them through. We need paid parental leave so that employees have more time for their children and struggling old folk. In the sandwich generation, it's usually women who do the care work for kids and elders, sometimes while holding down a job. They need breaks and men need time to do more care work. And many people need vacations and sabbaticals to refresh themselves and do fun things B cook, write poetry, build a motorcycle, shoot the rapids, hike to the top of something. Along with full employment, we need a Basic Guaranteed Income B a package of income supports to guarantee that people who need time off have a minimum income. [ix]
8. Assertion: By dessert time, some of the people at the table are starting to buy into the idea of a government good-jobs program. But they think that the politics of getting job laws enacted in Washington are impossible. Why exert yourself for something that cannot happen?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
