Review of Bernie Sanders Universal Jobs Program

[cawacko]

At the end of the day Bernie and his people know this would never pass and become a reality but they put it out anyway to try and fire up his supporters. The fact that other Democrats who have Presidential aspirations have shown support however is frightening. As stated below we would essentially eliminate the unemployment rate because jobs wouldn't be created by economic conditions but by politicians. There is just so much wrong here that's it is worthy of discussing why instead of just rolling our eyes at it because too many fall for this and lack the understanding of the problems it would cause.




Democrats' Universal Job Plan Would Be a Socialist Disaster

The economic illiteracy of Bernie Sanders


Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to announce a plan that guarantees every American "who wants or needs one" a lifetime government job paying at least $15 an hour, with health insurance and other perks. This new progressive workforce will then, according to The Washington Post, build glorious "projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals."

It would be one thing if the nation's leading socialist—and perhaps the most popular Democrat in the country—were the only one interested in creating a state-run workforce to "compete" with the private sector. A number of other allegedly moderate Democrats and prospective presidential candidates, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, favor a universal job guarantee as well. It's rapidly becoming a mainstream idea.

One imagines that a quixotic proposal like this polls quite well. I mean, who doesn't want everyone to have a job? You don't possess a skill set that enables you to find productive work? You don't want to learn a new trade? You don't want to obtain a better education? You have no interest in moving to an area where your work might be in demand? You don't want to start your career with a lower wage even if the long-term prospects of doing so might be worthwhile? Don't worry. The government's got an incentive-destroying job opportunity just for you.

And if you've been fired for a poor work ethic, or for stealing, or for making women uncomfortable with your creepy behavior, fear not; Bernie's got your back. In the rare event that state workers do misbehave, they would be summoned to a Division of Progress Investigation (a relic of our 1930s stab at socialism) to "take disciplinary action if needed." If the DPI were to run anything like major public schools systems do, you can imagine it would be a study in meritocracy.

"Job guarantee advocates," The Washington Post says, make the absurd claim that Sanders' plan "would drive up wages by significantly increasing competition for workers, ensuring that corporations have to offer more generous salaries and benefits if they want to keep their employees from working for the government."

Corporations are concerned with profit. If the minimum wage kills jobs, why should we believe businesses (especially smaller ones) would compete with government-funded projects that can print money and create salaries (and benefits) that are wholly untethered from the real cost of labor? Businesses would simply hire fewer Americans—especially those Americans first getting into the labor force.

Of course, it's more likely that our state-run workforce would be deployed for ideological and political priorities rather than economic ones. If history is any indicator, it would be used to prop up politically useful projects and keep failing industries afloat, undermining creative destruction, innovation, and long-term growth.
You do have to wonder, what would happen if local communities that share President Trump's "priorities" were to demand utilizing this state labor? What if they were to want to build sections of a wall on the southern border rather than make solar panels, or whatever progressive priority Sanders has in mind? We'd be hearing about a rise of fascism in no time.

Then there is the mission creep. No doubt the Washington, D.C., bureaucracy that would emerge to run this project would be both nimble and competent. But why only $15? Who can live on $15 an hour? Well, not a lot of people. Surely, these hard-working public servants who keep the infrastructure from crumbling around us deserve a genuine living wage. How about better pensions? As this workforce grows, it wouldn't possess any special ability other than being able to corral huge numbers of people to demand more.

Most of all, making government responsible for every American's job prospects would change the dynamics of governance—forever. Not only would politicians be expected to help create the economic conditions that make growth possible; they would then face another unrealistic expectation. Unemployment would no longer be a function of economic conditions but rather heartless politicians who fail to create jobs for voters.

This is exactly what left-leaning economists who obsess about inequality and push zero-sum fantasies about wealth and growth want. It's why they wanted the federal government to control the structure of the health care system, and it's why they want to create a "public" job option. Most of them openly argue the universal job program would let them control wages and benefits in the private sector.

Democrats have yet to tell us how they plan to fund this massive workforce idea that doesn't generate any profit. I have a strong suspicion it will have something to do with the nefariously wealthy not paying their fair share. I'm not sure, however, that even the Koch brothers could afford to bankroll this idea. But it's not really meant to pass. Not yet. Republicans would never go for it, after all. Democrats see this as a promising campaign issue. In the meantime, they continue to normalize destructive socialistic ideas in political discourse.


https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...mpression=true

[Cypress]

Conservatives said we needed to spend trillions of dollars invading Iraq, which turned out to have no net benefit for America.

This country literally has a crumbling infrastructure, and we need trillions of dollars to rebuild our infrastructure and build a green energy grid. All of which are a net benefit to America, unlike the multi trillion dollar Iraq War Disaster.

I do not accept the premise of your opinion article from an obscure website.

The devil in is the details, but this country has plenty of capacity to invest in a massive expansion of jobs in support of a 21st century infrastructure and public commons.

[cawacko]

Cypress, this has nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq isn't an economic system.

Reason is a well known Libertarian website. It clearly states it supports free minds and free markets.

You don't have to accept my premise but you can accept the premise of macro-economists and even other Democrats such as Paul Krugman that this is not a workable system. On paper it may sound great "HEY, everyone gets a job!!" But markets and the economy just don't work that way. The details have been laid out pretty clearly of how this system would be envisioned to work.

[dukkha]

build glorious "projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals."

It would be one thing if the nation's leading socialist—and perhaps the most popular Democrat in the country—were the only one interested in creating a state-run workforce to "compete" with the private sector. A number of other allegedly moderate Democrats and prospective presidential candidates, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, favor a universal job guarantee as well. It's rapidly becoming a mainstream idea.

sounds like a Mao "5 year plan" ( Great Leap Forward)..

I can't believe a sitting Senator would support this

[blackascoal]

Cypress, this has nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq isn't an economic system.

Reason is a well known Libertarian website. It clearly states it supports free minds and free markets.

You don't have to accept my premise but you can accept the premise of macro-economists and even other Democrats such as Paul Krugman that this is not a workable system. On paper it may sound great "HEY, everyone gets a job!!" But markets and the economy just don't work that way. The details have been laid out pretty clearly of how this system would be envisioned to work.

First, factoring in the costs of needless wars should be part of any serious conversation about what we can and cannot afford. Surely any outlet that calls itself "Reason' would know that.

Additionally, Bernie's plan was never meant for prime time .. but this is an example of how deep he had to go to appear more progressive than Clinton. He knew it wouldn't work.

[cawacko]

First, factoring in the costs of needless wars should be part of any serious conversation about what we can and cannot afford. Surely any outlet that calls itself "Reason' would know that.

Additionally, Bernie's plan was never meant for prime time .. but this is an example of how deep he had to go to appear more progressive than Clinton. He knew it wouldn't work.

Unless you read a different article than I did I'm not sure where you are getting the Iraq War from regarding Reason's article on Bernie's proposal. Cypress brought up the Iraq War basically in an attempt to claim if you support it and can't argue against Bernie's economic proposal. To each his own if you want to buy his argument but I don't. Just an attempted diversion.

His proposal came out in last week's Washington Post so I'm not sure why he would be releasing it in 2018 if it was an attempt to influence the 2016 election.

Do the socialists you follow have an opinion on the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that Bernie and some of his economists support and is the backbone of his plan?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There's 0 reason there should be a single person in the US in want of a job. Again, the US does not lack in ability to solve these problems, there is merely a deficit of will.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

sounds like a Mao "5 year plan" ( Great Leap Forward)..

You do realize there's a big difference between a 5 year plan and the Great Leap Forward, and that neither at all resembles this proposal? Are you literally retarded?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This article is retarded and delusional. You guys totally oppose TANF, then you also oppose creating jobs for the poor and paying them for their labor. Just let the poor starve and die.

[Sailor]

There's 0 reason there should be a single person in the US in want of a job. Again, the US does not lack in ability to solve these problems, there is merely a deficit of will.

There is consistently around 6 million unfulfilled jobs in this country. It is not lack of jobs, it is lack of wanting to work for some.

[dukkha]

You do realize there's a big difference between a 5 year plan and the Great Leap Forward, and that neither at all resembles this proposal? Are you literally retarded?

you need to crack open your Little Red Book more often.

The 5 year plans and great leap forward is synonymous.
Bernie's plan is a joke, but will not cause famine like Mao's at least

[cawacko]

This article is retarded and delusional. You guys totally oppose TANF, then you also oppose creating jobs for the poor and paying them for their labor. Just let the poor starve and die.

Lol, nice trolling attempt WM.

[Cypress]

Bernie's plan is a joke, but will not cause famine like Mao's at least

This is basically almost the exact same policy Bernie ran on in 2016 when - I believe - you claim you voted for and supported him.

[blackascoal]

Unless you read a different article than I did I'm not sure where you are getting the Iraq War from regarding Reason's article on Bernie's proposal. Cypress brought up the Iraq War basically in an attempt to claim if you support it and can't argue against Bernie's economic proposal. To each his own if you want to buy his argument but I don't. Just an attempted diversion.

His proposal came out in last week's Washington Post so I'm not sure why he would be releasing it in 2018 if it was an attempt to influence the 2016 election.

Do the socialists you follow have an opinion on the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that Bernie and some of his economists support and is the backbone of his plan?

Not sure what economists you listen to, but factoring in ALL expenditures leads one to recognize what you can and cannot afford .. that includes how much you spend on needless wars.

Real socialists don't believe that Bernie is a socialist.

[dukkha]

This is basically almost the exact same policy Bernie ran on in 2016 when - I believe - you claim you voted for and supported him.

I don't remember any universal jobs program -just a lot of free stuff.
I do recall his emphasis on income inequality -but not this

I voted for Bernis because he was an outsider -at least I thought so at the time-
an an antidote to the corruption/warmongering of Hillary.