I'm joined today by economist Pavley nature never she is assistant professor
of economics at Bard College
and a research scholar at the levy Economics Institute
it's really great to have you today you know we've spoken about
the Swiss idea have an income guarantee and you have a video in which you
actually discuss the idea of a job guarantee
so let's kind of start most broadly to begin with what is the general idea of
the job guarantee
yes sir I thank you for having me it's pleasure to be here
I'm the job guarantee is up
policy that basically is an employment safety net
we have a variety and safety nets
but the one that's missing as an employment safety net to those who want
to work
and do not wish to take unemployment insurance
or um various other income support options so basically
it's an ongoing program it's not just the program that we put in place today
we phase out tomorrow
you know as so that you know the economy recovers and then
I'm it shut down it actually and employment safety net
is an ongoing feel the unemployment problem is an ongoing problem
so late let's talk about the logistics of that where do the jobs come from
who creates the jobs who determines what person is assigned particular jobs et
cetera
okay so there a number of proposals
unharmed you could run this the one that I prefer and as
um that it's a federally funded program the way
safety nets are funded in general but a locally administered locally run
and in particular I've argued for a stronger role for the
nonprofit traditional nonprofit sector and a nonprofit social interpret your
old ventures
so basically you have a policy that says the following:
if you would like to work you've been looking for work you can find employment
we make a promise that we will find you
a decent job at a decent wage benefit package
in the social services sector so which could do
is simply scale-up work that's already existing on the ground work that's
already being done by nonprofits &
these various nonprofit social interpersonal interest because they
actually deal with very specific needs
and a deal with them I'm in a sense in the counter cyclical manner
day need to do more work when times are bad
and they do less work when times are good so this is interesting and you know
the one that comes to mind is
here in new york city for example the foster care system
is drastically understaffed there is just an incredible need for people to
work
cases within the foster care system is advocate cetera
and it stands to reason that if times are bad that need might
increase however there's just no funding the city in state
have no funding to hire people so those are jobs that are needed
but there is no funding for so they're the question becomes
who finds it is the federal government simply paying this wage
out of their pockets so to speak yes
it's a its a program that will be federally funded but then
run by states and localities as you suggest so
I'm it's important that the federal government funds this just like with
any social safety net in it doesn't jeopardize the existence of the social
safety net when the federal government
fund it where states can run into real trouble
I with their budgets and they have a balanced budget amendment various other
reasons why the actually
yeah are not able to sustain these programs so
we federally fund Social Security I'm medicare various other
other programs I'm so the job going to provide both
it provides the I'm doing but also to provide
the staff the manpower that is necessary to staff all these
various projects that that need and you know when the New Deal
I'm did direct employment in somewhat similar fashion
about eighty percent or more of the
expenditures was on wages and
benefit and there are other programs we could look to where we could see that a
large portion of the funding
as dedicated to wages you could do out some funding
of materials you could do a public-private partnership
where at the nonprofit I'm contributes
to the resources for example they can contribute with the place to work with
the infrastructure they already have
I'll or the execution of these projects
so let's talk a little bit about some of the gripes the American right would have
with such a proposal you know I get emails all the time when we discuss
unemployment insurance
which is that it is essentially insurance for the lazy in this was one
of the criticisms have the Swiss
guaranteed a income proposal if you had a guaranteed
job program like the one we're talking about here
with this completely eliminate unemployment insurance because
if you are unemployed in can't find a job the government gives you a job
and therefore eliminate that entire structure or would it be
in addition to that okay design addition to that so
it's very good question it's important to understand what the JG
the job guarantee is not first it's not a welfare
good just the handout arm and it's not a workfare
you know we're gonna take away on employment insurers and we gonna give it
to you
only if you work in this project absolutely not
this is an assurance this is an option unemployment option that is
in addition to the various programs that we already have in existence
and there is an argument to be made about
beefing up somebody's income support so I will make a very strong argument for
I boosting social security veteran benefits
but this is an additional program that provides an employment option to those
who wish
to work for the public purpose it's not a workfare where
at people are mandated to work in exchange for their benefits
so then the question becomes what are the broad macroeconomic
implications up such a program if you are adding an expenditure for the
government
are you making it up somewhere else how are you taking it in how is this find it
in a way that is not going to
and again we can have the debate over whether the absolute amount have deficit
is or is not a problem but back Julie speaking will this be a
deficit-neutral negative or positive program
all rights in the way that I would I at me
look at this issue is not to look at the
sunrise of the deficit is an indicator
the success of the program funding
is a separate matter and when we are talking about
a government like the United States are like governments in Europe that have
control over this central bank in this treasury they find
the programs they commit to sewed just like social security if we commit to a
program like this
it will be funded I'm and the measure of success will not be the size of the
deficit
but I will make a strong argument to say that this program is actually
counter-cyclical
and so the way that it will I'm
evolved three-time is that did program will expand when times are really bad
and that in it cell provide the stimulus that is needed to kick-start economic
growth
but when that that growth comes people are then able to transition to
better-paying jobs better employment opportunities in the private sector
then expenditure on the very programs shrinks
and sell the deficit as it may be. will
out like we shrink and not only that presumably then
tax revenues increase because those individuals are moving to jobs that pay
more and therefore
that may actually at increase the amount above tax revenue for the government
well that matter very much for state absolutely no stayed very much depend on
tax revenue for the federal government
I'm the federal government actually doesn't find itself per se
out of tax revenue it is a east shore up its currency it
basically find itself by appropriating budgets for its various programs but
it's very important for the state absolutely that economic growth
and increases that I tax revenue increases at the state level
and that a of course includes their overall budget position but
what is very important here is that I'm
we're s spending money and at the same time we are also introducing something
and social value
it's not just spending money that supports the unemployed
which is the right thing to do if course in bad times
you have to provide some income safety net but the program itself
actually produces socially useful output and that's in it
additional benefit and I would focus
on the real benefits of this program I'm
far more than on the on the Certified Financial Accounting results sure and
that I think we're a lot of the analyses even when we talk about small increases
to the minimum wage get lost which is let's forget for
just the second not that it is an important the effect on the business
owner paying a higher wage
but let's talk about the broader economic impact everyone having a little
bit or at least those who are the minimum wage having a little more money
in their pocket
that seems to be the the most important consideration
absolutely just think think this economy which currently has about 25 million
people who are either without a job with very precarious
appointments you know I'm be employed now think about economy that has
25 million people working added
decent job a decent pay they're not all going to be in the job guarantee by no
means because
the very expenditure on the program is going to
create so much economic growth that you know cash registers gonna be raining
in the private sector and the private sector will demand
I'll workers so many people who are looking for work will actually find
employment in the private sector
I think that's a key point and then of course which we don't have time for but
we could also calculated
the decreased expenditure on programs for people who qualify based on
low-income those would decrease and and certainly we could round that
conversation out
we've been speaking with Professor Pavley nature neighbor she is assistant
professor of economics at Bard College
and a research scholar at the levy Economics Institute
thanks so much for doing this a pleasure to have you on my pleasure thanks
inside