Triumph debate Lincoln douglas brief – November/December …

  • Docx File 662.87KByte



Table of ContentsTopic analysis – by matt slencsak6Framing14philosophical and economic justifications required to support jobs guarantee14the jobs guarantee is based on a flawed conception of rights15the right to a job is a basic human right16hegel market explanation17hegel on welfare and corporatism17hegel - jobs guarantee18 marxism, class consciousness and a job guarantee 19rawls and full employment as a primary good 20Affirmativegeneral22federal government key to a jobs guarantee22federal jobs guarantee is popular and bipartisan - most american’s support23argentina proves a jobs guarantee works through plan jefes24Skilled labor25a climate job guarantee is key to avert existential climate change and disasters via adaptation and mitigation25job guarantee bolsters adaptation and decarbonization while mobilizing liberal movements27the aff achieves decarbonization and saves the economy while avoiding rate hikes29current environmental deregulations make nuclear plants increasingly vulnerable to coastal floods – causing nonstop meltdowns that destroy the biosphere 30biodiversity loss causes extinction – turns and outweighs32climate change causes extinction – turns and outweighs33inequality and poverty34a jobs guarantee would effectively address structural inequalities in the labor market34working decreases poverty empirically – three reasons 35a jobs guarantee can transform income distribution 36job guarantee helps those at the bottom by establishing a floor37Homelessness38due to covid-19, homelessness is dramatically increasing38minimum wage is not enough to allow homeless people to afford shelter39homeless people are more likely to face housing discrimination when applying for jobs, especially by the private sector40a well-paying job is necessary to escape homelessness, which is almost impossible to obtain41the wages provided by a federal jobs guarantee are needed to reduce poverty and homelessness42mental health43people with mental health issues are less likely to be employed43federal intervention is needed to standardize the support for people with mental illness44a federal jobs guarantee, by definition, has to provide these supports to guarantee a job for all45mental illness is costly46people with severe mental illness who work see more improvement in symptoms and quality of life than those who don’t47mental illness is more debilitating than physical illness in the workplace48unemployment due to covid-19 is expected to increase suicide rates49crime and incarceration50jobs and higher wages, both in and out of prison, are more likely to keep people from reincarceration50ex-prisoners are disproportionately more likely to be unemployed 51a jobs guarantee can help in removing hiring barriers to ex-prisoners52federal jobs guarantee can help formerly incarcerated people reintegrate into communities53federal jobs guarantee can help formerly incarcerated people establish a work history54a federal jobs guarantee would reduce spending on incarceration55decreased unemployment leads to decreased crime56economy – general57the current system isn’t equipped to handle the upcoming economic crisis57automation is destroying jobs – we need employment reform 58the economy won’t recover without job growth59federal jobs guarantee acts as a buffer for when inevitable economic downturn 60after covid-19, the cyclical impact of unemployment makes economic recovery more difficult than it needs to be – federal jobs guarantee solves61a federal jobs guarantee would use workers to solve problems in a crisis, like covid-19, that would allow the economy to bounce back faster62the economy won’t recover even if covid-19 is kept in check63a coronavirus vaccine won’t save the economy – it’s irrelevant64a federal jobs guarantee is market favoring65a federal jobs guarantee improves the skills of workers which makes companies spend less money in hiring and more in improving production 66a federal jobs guarantee boosts the economy because people feel more confident and spend more67a federal jobs guarantee would increase gdp by billions 68a federal jobs guarantee increases wages - both private and public sector69federal job guarantee stops the spread of covid-19 – 3 ways70covid-19 has led to job loss, resulting in less access to healthcare in the united states702 out of 5 people said they or their spouse had health coverage affected due to lost/furloughed job because of covid-1971healthcare for covid-19 is expensive and actively discourages people from seeking out medical treatment (1/7 people) 72 lack of insurance discourages medical treatment73federal jobs guarantee includes health insurance like other federal jobs74federal jobs guarantee incentivizes private-sector health care benefits too75 there is still a shortage of covid-19 medical materials76federal jobs guarantee can be used to produce covid-19 resources77federal jobs guarantee can be used to manufacture necessary medical supplies78negativeUniversal Basic Income CP80ubi reduces work - aff boosts hours80ubi prevents social inequality 81ubi is the best way to ensure an economic recovery82ubi solves health care83internal net benefit - overwork84federal jobs guarantee increases working hours84reducing working hours solves climate change85reducing work hours puts the us in line with international agreements86the us is key to global climate targets87 biden doesn’t solve climate change88prices and productivity89federal jobs guarantee will leads to higher prices89fjg causes massive inflation---standard of living issues cause wage spikes and price increases90fjg increases wages across the board – leading to business closure and layoffs91federal jobs guarantee hurts pricing, margins and productivity 92a federal jobs guarantee would decrease productivity93workfare94a federal job guarantee inevitably devolves into workfare94a jobs guarantee program is akin to other workfare programs95workfare results in class stratification96warfare forces the underprivileged to work in poor jobs against their will 97workfare is a threat to human rights and is similar to state sanctioned forced labor98 stigmatization99a federal jobs guarantee leads to increased stigma around unemployment99federal jobs guarantee will lead to stigmatization99people will be discouraged from participating and reintegration due to stigma100the stigma surrounding government assistance prevents people from taking part in essential programs101social stigma excludes people from essential participation in society102trade offs103federal job guarantee doesn’t address structural barriers - becomes meaningless103even a job in the status quo is not an end to poverty104the benefits of jobs guarantees are not inherent - other programs solve105in order for a jobs guarantee to be successful, it needs external support programs106federal jobs guarantee trades off with other programs that address the root cause better107federal employment programs overlap with other targeted programs108money can be better spent to help distressed communities109welfare spending is more effective at reducing poverty than unemployment110crowdout111public sector employment causes crowd out111explanation: how a federal jobs program crowds out the private sector112the conflict between public and private sector work makes an job guarantee unsustainable113160,000 workers would move from the private sector114for every 100 public jobs created, 150 private jobs are lost115for every 100 new public jobs, 98 are crowded out in the private sector116private sector job programs have better impacts long term117Topic AnalysisBy: Matt SlencsakMatthew Slencsak has been involved in Speech and Debate for over 10 years. He graduated from Howland HS in 2013, after competing in Lincoln Douglas debate for 4 years. After High School, Matt obtained a degree in IT. Matt has coached at multiple schools, building several LD debate programs from scratch including South Range High School and Liberty High School. Matt has coached students to making stage at both the state level and national level. He has had multiple state and national quarterfinalists, even coaching students to finals at the OSDA State Tournament and NSDA National Tournament. Matt co-founded Triumph Debate with the goal of creating a more equitable space.Resolved: The United States ought to provide a federal jobs guarantee.Introduction & BackgroundThis topic in many respects is very similar to many previous NSDA resolutions. Though this topic has never actually been a selected topic in the last few decades (which occurs quite often, as the NSDA does tend to recycle topics), it has a very similar implicit question of many previous topics. That question typically is something along the lines of should a/all government(s) implement a fiscal policy that, in particular, helps economically disadvantaged groups. Some examples of similar resolutions include:March/April 2017-2018 – Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.March/April 2016-2017 – Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.?March/April 2014-2015 – Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.Recognizing this trend is important because a.) it can help you analyze the resolution in a consistent way and b.) it grants you the opportunity to utilize framing techniques, cards and argumentation from previous (but relevant) topics. Most of these kinds of economic topics have an extensive literature base, and this 2020 November/December LD topic is no exception.?Definitions & TopicalityThis resolution is fairly short, meaning there are really only a few terms that one would need to explore and define. Let’s break down each word specifically.First up is the “United States”, which indicates that the topic is US specific. This can be useful when analyzing evidence - for example, many pieces of evidence on this topic look specifically at federal job programs in other countries, and quite a few even focus on developing countries. A few studies I’ve read through have even discussed how there are different effects of a job guarantee depending on the economy of the country. Be aware of the sample base in the literature you are reading and cutting to ensure that your evidence is the most relevant to the debate and your side.Next, the resolution out right uses the term “Federal” to denote the specific form of government that would implement a job guarantee program. This is important for debaters to keep in mind not only for researching, but also for developing your advocacy, especially if you are writing a plan text. Keep in mind, the term “Federal” used in the resolution does not necessarily imply that the federal government will create the jobs - plenty of authors on this topic (that we will discuss later!) provide their own vision of what a Federal Jobs Guarantee program looks like such as the federal government funding local or state programs.Finally, the vaguest term of the topic: “Jobs Guarantee”. The first thing to understand about a jobs guarantee is that there are multiple terms that all refer to the same or similar set of policies in the topic literature. Some of these terms include government as the employer of last resort, employment buffer, public job employment programs, and transitional job work. All of these terms refer to policies where the government provides a job to those who need it, either temporarily until they find work in the private sector, or as an alternative to private sector work. We will discuss specific search terms for this topic later on, so don’t worry about this too much here!The problem - that makes the term “job guarantee” sort of vague - is that a jobs guarantee doesn’t refer to any one specific policy or set of policy proposals, rather it refers to a concept. This makes it extremely difficult to nail down exactly what a jobs guarantee would look like. On some of those previous but similar economic topics we discussed earlier - like a Universal Basic Income or a Living Wage - the debate wasn’t really over what those concepts looked like (except, maybe, in rarer circumstances). From a practical sense, these topics really came down to questions of dollars and cents, rather than a debate about what the concept means.In the case of a jobs guarantee, there are a number of unanswered questions, such as:What sort of jobs would be offered?Would there be training for those jobs?Are the jobs meant to be permanent or temporary?Would the federal, state or local government do the hiring?How much do employees get paid? Does the job also include benefits?Is the jobs guarantee universal or targeted?What about groups that are typically not eligible for federal employment?Can someone be fired? What happens if they are fired? Are they no longer guaranteed a job?This is not me being nit picky over implementation - these are actual concerns that, when reading the literature, can have a major impact on whether or not the federal jobs program is actually beneficial. The answers to many of these questions also have implications for what is or isn’t topical.?With all of this in mind, there are quite a few definitions but the most common, baseline definition is:Tcherneva 18 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Department of Economics at Bard College, April 2018, “The Job Guarantee: Design, Jobs, and Implementation,” Levy Economics Institute, ]The job guarantee (JG) is a public option for jobs. It is a permanent, federally funded, and locally administered program that supplies voluntary employment opportunities on demand for all who are ready and willing to work at a living wage. While it is first and foremost a jobs program, it has the potential to be transformative by advancing the public purpose and improving working conditions, people’s everyday lives, and the economy as a whole.There are plenty of other definitions - but this one is short, straightforward, includes a lot of the necessary information of how a JG would function, and does a good job describing the proposal in a way that even parents will understand.?Researching The ResolutionNow that we have discussed what terms included in the resolution are and mean, it is important you know key terms while researching. Doing a quick Google search of a federal jobs guarantee will yield you some results. But, you can maximize your research output by including key terms that the literature base uses, including:Federal jobs guaranteeJobs guarantee (JG)Federal employment programEmployer of last resort (ELR)Transitional jobs programEmployment bufferPublic job employment programPublic sector jobsPublic service employmentFull employmentPublic option for jobsThis list is a really roundabout way of searching different ways that the literature base on this topic defines, characterizes or calls what we would generally consider a federal jobs guarantee. Of course, what you search with these terms is entirely up to you! Phrases like wages, inflation, unemployment, prices, productivity, GDP, poverty, underemployment, and more combined with some iteration of a federal jobs guarantee search term will certainly yield you topic-relevant results.ImplementationPerhaps the biggest problem with this resolution is that there are so many different conceptions of how the United States would/should implement a federal jobs guarantee. I mentioned this briefly earlier, but a few of those considerations include:How much do people get paid? The answer, based on topic literature, is typically either $11.83/hour or $15/hour.?Paul et al. 18 [Mark Paul , William Darity, Jr. , and Darrick Hamilton, Mark Paul is a Postdoctoral Associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. William Darity Jr. is the Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and Economics and the Director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Darrick Hamilton is Professor of Economics and Urban Policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy and Department of Economics at the New School for Social Research, and Director of the Doctoral Program in Public and Urban Policy at The New School. 03/09/2018, “The Federal Job Guarantee—A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ] /Triumph DebateThe elimination of poverty wages through the pay structure of the NIEC. The federal job guarantee would provide a job at a minimum annual wage of $24,600 for full-time workers (poverty line for a family of four) and a minimum hourly wage of $11.83. Workers would have the opportunity to advance within the program, rising from the minimum wage in the program to an estimated mean salary of $32,500. The wage would be indexed to the inflation rate to ensure that the purchasing power of enrollees is maintained and the wage will vary to allow for some degree of regional variation. The minimum wage rate in the program will also rise to meet the national minimum wage if it were to exceed the wage rate recommended here.Is the program temporary or permanent? Some authors do advocate for a temporary jobs program - in that employees have a certain period of time to transition from their current government job into the private sector. The definition provided above makes the case for a permanent jobs program.Will there be training or any sort of education? Most authors agree that there will be training, but more of an on-the-job type of training that will take a few weeks - like many private sector jobs already have. The issue arises in that many jobs require little to no training, while others require at least a 4-year bachelor's degree. This dichotomy poses a lot of questions about the types of jobs that a FJG will feature.?The biggest question under implementation, however, is who creates the job? The literature agrees (and the resolutions use of “federal” requires) that the federal United States government will be paying for this jobs program. But there are a lot of authors who present different views of how it should materialize.Many argue that the program would essentially be a portion of the Department of Labor and the jobs themselves would be funded, created, regulated, and hired through the federal government. A great articulation of this comes from Carpenter and Hamilton 20:?Carpenter and Hamilton 20 [Daniel Carpenter and Darrick Hamilton, Carpenter is Allie S. Freed Professor of Government, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Director of Social Sciences, Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study, Harvard University. Hamilton is Professor of Public Policy, Economics, Sociology and African and African American Studies in the John Glenn College of Public Affairs, and Executive Director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University, 05/2020, “A Federal Jobs Guarantee: Anti-Poverty and Infrastructure Policy for a Better Future,” Scholars Strategy Network, ] /Triumph Debate?What would a federal job guarantee program look like? The program would be administered by the Department of Labor and overseen by the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary and Department of Labor will be charged with working in conjunction with other agencies, and states and localities to identify an inventory of public infrastructure tasks and associated jobs.On the other hand, many other folks argue that a jobs guarantee looks entirely different. Some advocate for essentially subsidizing existing private employers - the government wouldn’t have to do any additional work themselves, but instead, would just give funding to existing private firms to hire on more staff. For example:?Rachidi 19 [Angela Rachidi. Angela Rachidi is the Rowe Scholar in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she studies poverty and the effects of federal safety-net programs on low-income people in America, 10/30/2019, “Guaranteed jobs programs don’t really “guarantee” a job,” American Enterprise Institute, ] /Triumph Debate?Transitional jobs programs are a version of a job guarantee. Government agencies identify people who need a job but cannot find one on their own and give money to public or private employers to hire them and pay their wages. This seems like a winning approach because employers get labor at little cost to them and workers get a job. But this approach has been tried and studied extensively in the US. The evidence is clear: transitional jobs programs do not meaningfully “transition” people to employer-paid jobs. In fact, they don’t even offer a job guarantee. Many of the people who are hardest to employ never actually get hired into a transitional job. MDRC, a leading social science research firm, has studied numerous transitional jobs programs over the years (also called subsidized jobs). Here is how they described these programs in 2013: “Subsidized employment programs provide jobs to people who cannot find employment in the regular labor market and use public funds to pay all or some of their wages. Some programs are designed primarily to provide short-term income support in poor economic times, while others also seek to improve long-term employment outcomes among “hard-to-employ” groups. Evaluations of subsidized employment programs suggest that they are effective at providing jobs in the short term but are less successful at helping participants transition to unsubsidized employment.” In other words, transitional jobs programs increase employment while the government is paying the bill, but they fail to help people find employer-funded jobs. One of the leading authors in MDRC’s work, Dan Bloom, summed up the status of the evidence in a 2018 interview for the Atlantic:There are dozens of other different mechanisms that authors write about and how they, in particular, envision a federal jobs program being implemented. But the two main viewpoints you should know and be prepared for are whether the federal government creates the jobs, or whether they subsidize existing private sector firms. There is a good argument to be made that because the resolution uses the term “provide” it either explicitly or implicitly denotes the federal government as the jobs creator. And while there is a strong argument that the latter isn’t actually a jobs guarantee (or isn’t in the spirit of it), there are many, many authors who write about that conception and argue it is a jobs guarantee. Because of that, you should be prepared for multiple perspectives.Personally, I feel as though any interpretation that isn’t the federal government creating the jobs program is at best not in the spirit of the concept of a job guarantee but at worst abusive - especially for traditional debate. After researching for multiple weeks and analyzing hundreds of papers and articles on this topic, if a debater were to have to argue against an interpretation where the affirmative says they are subsidizing private firms, it is going to be very, very difficult to do so. The literature base already leans fairly heavily to the affirmative, and this interpretation would only exacerbate the already existing ground skew.In traditional debate, because most circuits do not debate implementation and because plans are very frowned upon (or outright banned), the affirmative would be able to shift their advocacy, or refuse to be tied down to any specific jobs guarantee. This would allow the affirmative to use the various interpretations of jobs guarantee to link out of negative ground by stating that those negative arguments are not inherent to a jobs guarantee. Doing so would functionally eliminate the already small ground the negative has. If you believe in at least a somewhat fair debate, I recommend taking an approach that does not squash core negative ground. On the flip side, negative traditional debaters should be prepared to argue why that affirmative interpretation is unfair, abusive, or not accurate.History of Federal Jobs GuaranteeA federal jobs guarantee actually goes back decades - all the way to FDR and his Economic Bill of Rights, introduced in 1944. One of those rights included the right to employment. Two years later, Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946. Recently, the concept of a federal jobs guarantee has been popularized by Senator Bernie Sanders, in his bid for President. The concepts and arguments for and against full employment or federal jobs programs are not new - though in your initial research, you may find a lot of recent evidence from the re-popularization.It is important to note as well that other countries have also implemented a form of a federal jobs guarantee including India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and Argentina’s Jefes y Jefas.Who Is The Actor & Who Is Affected?The actor in the resolution is clearly the United States’ federal government - though one could argue that the private sector also plays a significant role depending on the implementation of the jobs guarantee.On the flip side, a jobs guarantee would affect almost every single person in some way. Of course, the largest group affected by this proposal would be the unemployed. But a lot of research also shows that there will be material impact on the private sector, making pretty much all workers an affected group. There is also a lot of literature to show that the group affected most deeply would be disadvantaged folks who have significant existing barriers to employment and the labor market.Ground (And any potential skew…)As I mentioned earlier, our team went through hours of brainstorming sessions and weeks of research, combing through hundreds of articles and papers collectively. Holistically, all of our contributors feel this topic has a very strong bias. The distribution of topic literature and ground leans very heavily towards the affirmative. While negative arguments are difficult to find, it is not impossible.With that said, my recommendation is that negatives should rely heavily on framing to place burdens on the affirmative and make it more difficult for them. Essentially, the literature is not really in the negatives favor, so they should opt for a stronger framework approach. On the flip side, I do want to warn debaters writing their affirmative positions and arguments that just because there is an abundance of topic literature and ground, does not mean they should spend less time writing and researching than normal. It is important to give your affirmative position the attention it deserves.FramingAs far as framing goes, this topic is fairly typical in terms of economic policy topics. Both sides do have access to the utilitarianism/consequential debate - though there is more research in favor of the affirmative. The affirmative also does have access to Rawlsian literature and argumentation (we include a card and article in our framing section!). On the other hand, the negative has a solid claim to libertarian ground.There are also additional interesting ways to take the topic. For example, the affirmative can try to access right ground by arguing that a jobs guarantee is a way to ensure a “right to a job”. The affirmative also has a strong claim to structural violence framing - however, with some of the negative positions we have included in the brief, I believe that negative can also make that argument, particularly with positions related to stigmatization or workfare. An interesting approach for the negative may be to utilize some of the framing cards we provided in regards to Hegel.Both sides have access to a lot of different framing techniques. Because this resolution is a question about economic policy, debaters can really focus on philosophy that discusses economic theory including Rawls, Marx, Nozick, and more. We recommend exploring some of the research we provided in our framing section.ConclusionThis analysis was a bit long, I understand, but we try to be thorough and provide one solid approach so debaters do not have to read a dozen essays to get a holistic view of the topic. In summary, I recommend doing a lot of deep research, strategically utilizing key search terms, coming prepared with your own definitions and interpretations, and recognizing (as well as appropriately accounting for) the potential literature skew that exists, and giving both sides the time necessary to produce good quality arguments.Lastly, if you have any questions about the evidence presented in this brief, or about our topic analysis, feel free to reach out to us at publishingdirector@ and we would be happy to discuss further. Good luck and happy debating!FramingPhilosophical and Economic justifications required to support jobs guaranteeMerrill 2014 [David Merrill, University of Oxford, “Hyman Minsky, Hegel and the Ethics of the Job Guarantee”, Homo Oeconmicus, ] /Triumph DebateTo make an ethical judgment regarding the economic policy prescription that is the public Job Guarantee (JG) requires the bringing together of two independent intellectual domains. The problem is analogous to the scientific method, which also aspires to make judgments about reality. The scientific method calls for a hypothesis to be tested against data. Each, the hypothesis and the data, have to be established independently of the other, otherwise the conclusion will lack objectivity. Each must have a validity that is established on grounds that are specific to it. On the one hand, there are certain rules regarding the collection and identification of data that must be strictly upheld. On the other, the hypothesis should have a logic that is distinct to itself, for example, a rationale based on rational choice theory. When it comes to the normative evaluation of the public JG, there is a similar requirement for a separate objectivity established on two sides prior to their being brought together for the sake of the ethical evaluation. There has to be, on the one hand, the philosophical truth about ethics, and, on the other, valid economics, the truth and validity of each established separately from each other. It is true that the two domains do overlap. On the one hand, economic terms, as with all the social sciences, have a normative content. Even a notion as basic as the market has an ethical core. Furthermore, the study of economics is motivated by the normative concerns of the economist. On the other hand, philosophy takes from the social sciences both terms with which to label its own concepts and problems for which it seeks to find philosophical answers. Still, there remains a basic independence between the two. Philosophy is largely a matter of concepts and prescriptions while economics is more a matter of the understanding and description Where would one be without true ethics and a valid economics at hand? How could one make a determination as to whether something real was just if one lacked a knowledge of the truth of justice? Equally, how could one evaluate the justice of a policy prescription if one did not have a valid account of what the policy entailed, its economic requirements and likely impact? To know with some certainty the answers to this second question one would have to have at hand an economics with a commendable record of grasping what is essential about the real economy in question. The exercise of making an ethical judgment of an aspect of the real economy thus requires the prior selection of a specific philosophy and specific economics that are, respectively, true and valid.The jobs guarantee is based on a flawed conception of rightsLodge 82 [George Cabot Lodge, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, 1982, “The Connection between Ethics and Ideology”, ] /Triumph DebateToday there is a new right which clearly supersedes property rights in political and social importance. It is the right to survive to enjoy income, health, and other rights associated with membership in the American community or in some component of that community, including a corporation. These rights derive not from any individual good community. This is a revolutionary departure from the old Lockean conception under which only the fit survive. President Nixon, apparently unaware of what was happening, said once: "If you underwrite everybody's income, you undermine everybody's character". Well, of course, that depends on the definition of self respect. Escalating rights of membership have strained the ability of governments to pay the bill. Transfer payments to pay for these rights have risen from 33 percent of the Federal budget in 1972 to 42 percent in 1975. New York City hovers on bankruptcy. Inevitably, threfore, comes the necessity of duties of membership. The question comes: Who decides the duties? The individual or the state? If government is to be employer of last resort, does that impose an ultimate obligation to work at a job prescribed by government? And what do we do with the increasing numbers of persons in the work force who are simply unneeded? Margaret Mead put it succinctly: "The unadorned truth is that we do not need now, and will not need later, much of the marginal labor the very young, the very old, the very uneducated, the very stupid". The new ideology presents us with clearly ominous choices. The utility of property as a legitimizing idea has eroded as well. It is now quite obvious that our large public corporations are not private property at all. The 1,500,000 shareholders of General Motors do not and cannot control, direct, or in any real sense be responsible for "their" company. Furthermore, the vast majority of them have not the slightest desire for such responsibility. They are investors pure and simple, and if they do not get a good return on their investment, they will put their money else where. The right to a job is a basic human rightTcherneva 2013 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Department of Economics @ Bard College, “The Job Guarantee: Delivering the Benefits That Basic Income Only Promises – A Response to Guy Standing”, ] /Triumph DebateIn conditions where modern market economies do not provide adequate supply of jobs, the existence of unemployment fundamentally erodes worker rights, working conditions and living standards. The right to a job is a basic human right, but it is also good economics. Some BIG advocates object to policies for full employment on the grounds that they may foster demeaning jobs, environmental destruction, runaway growth, and government waste. Such policies can exist, but they are not what the JG proposes. Never has a JG proponent suggested that guaranteeing a bad job should be the objective of policy makers. Standing fundamentally misleads the reader by suggesting that the JG is akin to slavery, modern communism, or any other system predicated on forced labor. JG proponents have explicitly stated that the public sector job is not only voluntary (no one is ever forced to take it) but it is also designed to establish the minimum necessary conditions that would constitute a good job. These conditions would establish the minimum standard for pay, benefits, and working conditions that the private sector must match. Many JG advocates have argued that the program should aim for a living wage that would then become the floor to wages in the private sector as well.Hegel market explanationMerrill 2014 [David Merrill, University of Oxford, “Hyman Minsky, Hegel and the Ethics of the Job Guarantee”, Homo Oeconmicus, ] /Triumph Debate***edited for gendered languageHegelian philosophy characterizes the ethics of the market as a duality. On the one hand, there is the right associated with the individual’s pursuit of his or her [their] interest and its satisfaction as welfare. The Hegelian claim is that interest and welfare are a matter of right, because the individual ought to be able to freely determine the content of both. On the other hand, there is market right. Markets are a domain of right because relations of freedom constitute markets. The ethical market is the unity of these two poles. The pursuit of interest and welfare must not be at odds with the rights of markets but rather ought to take markets as the means by which interest is able to find its satisfaction as welfare. Consequently, interest and welfare pursued either unilaterally or in situations where market right does not exist, have no legitimacy. At the same time, market right that does not support the flourishing of interest and welfare fails to meet the requirement of the ethics of the market. For markets to be just they must serve welfare otherwise they lack a mandate.Hegel on welfare and corporatismMerrill 2014 [David Merrill, University of Oxford, “Hyman Minsky, Hegel and the Ethics of the Job Guarantee”, Homo Oeconmicus, ] /Triumph DebateThe first institution to be introduced alongside the purely individualist market practices is the social interest group or the corporatist entity. Examples of this include trade union and business federations. Corporatist organizations give individuals who discover a shared interest the opportunity voluntarily to establish market based social groups as a means to enhance their pursuit of market based welfare. In manner completely consistent with market individualism, a social market entity has arisen. However, because corporatist entities serve mainly the interests of the membership and remain subject to the contingencies of markets, the addition of corporatism to market individualism is not a combination capable of ensuring economic justice. The remedy that does provide the guarantee is the public welfare administration or welfare state. This economic entity has economic justice as its purpose and because it stands outside the economy has a unique efficacy with respect to bringing about social justice. However attractive, these two attributes do not justify the public domain's absorption of the whole economy. The public administration of welfare exists to serve a concept of justice that arises within the prior domains of the individualistic market and the market based social interest group. Accordingly, its operational rule should be to give first priority to remedies that entail the least disturbance to markets. When it does intervene, it should give preference to measures that approximate the workings of markets both individualist and social. Along as the public authority follows these guidelines, the ways open to it for economic intervention are as many as there are types of commodity relations. However, while this market accommodating approach has priority it may not be enough. The public authority has the right to consider other policies. It could curtail or even end particular discrete economic activities, such as certain financial practices and institutions that undermine economic justice. In other words, there might be economic institutions and activities that uphold, for example, all the norms of property right, but in their activities systemically prove an obstacle to economic justice. The public authority might intervene to bring to an end the life of a particular firm or occupation and so in this sense there would be individual sacrifices for a greater good. Yet, such a measure would not undermine the ethics of the market, if it could be shown by means of some kind of consequentialist calculus that there were a net gain regarding the enjoyment of market right and welfare. Furthermore, such measures are consistent with right because they would not entail the end of all private enterprise or even the whole of the financial sector. As well, public action of this kind need not entail any private financial loss. The parties involved could be compensated. Finally, in the modern economy, virtually all sectors depend upon governmental benefits and so if a sector undermines the general condition of market right and welfare then the government can simply end its support and thereby close down the offending sector. Seen from this vantage point the right for public intervention is easily justified. The point to keep in mind is that it is not a matter of morals whether the state intervenes, for example, in the financial sector, but rather the financial sector’s instrumental relation to the good economy. Individuals should not be treated instrumentally, but occupations and institutions may beHegel - jobs guaranteeMerrill 2014 [David Merrill, University of Oxford, “Hyman Minsky, Hegel and the Ethics of the Job Guarantee”, Homo Oeconmicus, ] /Triumph DebateThe JG directly provides a livelihood to those who in the main would otherwise be without. In this way, it attends immediately to the welfare aspect of economic ethics. The program also sustains the rights and duties of the market. The income gained from JG participation is provided in exchange for the commodity labor power. A relation both parties freely engage in. Such a welfare program does not grant the individual what would be in effect unilateral powers to achieve their welfare, which would be the case with an unconditional benefit. In this very simple and direct way, the two poles of economic justice are honored. The universality of the JG is further revealed in the following features. The JG offers employment immediately to all regardless of personal attributes and provides it where the individual is located. The historical disadvantaging of certain minority populations through unemployment would end.Marxism, class consciousness and a JGRamsay 03 [Tony Ramsay, Graduate student at the University of New England, Armidale, Winter 2003, “The Jobs Guarantee: A Post Keynesian Analysis,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economic, ] /Triumph Debate?The first section of the paper analyzes the full employment JG economy. A case will be made that the consciousness of the working class would be raised in a JG economy due to unemployment and price stability becoming an explicit political consideration. Unlike unemployment and inflation, which have, under liberalism, become depoliticized, a JG economy would strengthen organized labor due to an explicit recognition that unemployment is neither natural nor owing to individual indolence. Whereas labor would be better served under a JG economy compared to a liberal economy, it will be argued that when employment and inflation considerations return to the political arena, as they would under a JG full employment economy, impediments would render the JG scheme inoperative, owing mainly to organized labor's resistance to the JG price stabilizing mechanism. Labor would reason that the inflation control instrument in a JG economy is akin to the liberal notion of the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).2 Whereas proponents of the JG argue that the microeconomic foundations of its price stabilizing mechanism bear no resemblance to those that underpin the neoclassical NAIRU (Mitchell and Watts, 2001, p. 6), it will be shown that the JG economy uses a portion of labor to its detriment, which would be contested, once employment and inflation considerations become re- politicized. Finally, given that proponents of a JG economy accept the liberal notion of a flexible exchange rate mechanism (Mitchell, 2000, p. 19), it could be expected that a full employment JG economy would at times be forced to manipulate the PLM/JG quotient to ensure balance of payments equilibrium. A case will be made that organized labor would not accede to this policy for the same political reasons attributed to its rejection of the JG price control mechanism. In other words, whereas the depoliticization of employment and inflation have allowed liberal regimes to banish a percentage of employees to the "reserve benches" in the quest to control inflation and balance of payments disequilibrium, organized labor, in a JG economy, would not allow a percentage of its ranks to be detrimentally used as a macroeconomic stabilizing instrument. The latter part of the paper provides a summation demonstrating that an acceptance of liberal orthodoxy relating to employment and in- flation control is not inevitable: the destructive problems associated with unemployment and inflation can be overcome, though the development of post-liberal institutions is required.?Rawls and full employment as a primary goodUdell 18 [Larry Udell, West Chester University, January 2018, “Rawls, Libertarianism, and the Employment Problem in advance: On the Unwritten Chapter in A Theory of Justice,” Justice: Social, Criminal, Juvenile, DOI: 10.5840/socphiltoday201862655] /Triumph DebateI cannot adequately discuss Gaus’s deep and powerful critique of justice as fairness in this space, and I mention him here simply to underscore the relevance today of the libertarian critique. I instead take up Scheffler’s challenge “to think harder about what [justice as fairness] includes and what exactly we are demanding when we demand a fair social framework.”15 Fried, for all her pessimism, offers a clue. After conceding her inability to articulate the unwritten theory of justice, she suggests that one direction Rawls might have taken in responding to the lib- ertarians is “to revise the list of primary goods . . . to include those things that are essential to attain the [incommensurable and irreconcilable ends that determinate individuals actually possess].”16 And since Rawls himself characterized his list of five primary goods as ‘basic’ and allows that we may add a primary good “should it prove necessary,”17 this approach seems promising. To succeed, however, we must go beyond these indeterminate suggestions and identify the primary good, as well as explaining how its addition makes justice as fairness more robust and better able to respond to the libertarian challenge. The missing primary good is employment, and the remainder of this paper presents a proposal for amending justice as fairness by adding it to the list of primary goods, as well as offering reasons for thinking that Rawls might accept the addition as a friendly amendment. The broader objective, however, is to identify employment as the elephant in the room of political philosophy, and to show how the failure to notice the elephant affected not only Rawls’s theory of justice, but the discussion of justice in mainstream political philosophy. Rawls is particularly instructive in this regard. A Theory of Justice mentions full employment only once, in a passing remark in the section on “Background Institutions for Distributive Justice” where he says that the stabilization branch of government “strives to bring about reasonably full employment in the sense that those who want to work can find it.”18 He says nothing here about the importance of employment for citizens’ self-respect, nor does he suggest that government serve as employer of last resort; indeed, he remained silent on full employment in a series of articles and books until he was near the end of his career. Samuel Freeman has emphasized Rawls’s commitment to full employment and sees no need to revise the theory. “By ‘least advantaged,’” Freeman notes, “Rawls means the least advantaged working person, as measured by the income he/she obtains for gainful employment,” since “[h]e assumes the ideal case where people live a normal course of life, engage in gainful employment, and are capable of making contributions to the social product.” This is a plausible explanation of Rawls’s view, but it fails to explain why he waited so long to call attention to something he regarded as important. I conjecture that these late remarks on the employment problem indicate that he was starting to see the elephant, was expe- riencing some reflective disequilibrium concerning his modeling of employment and unemployment in his theory, and hence that he would accept the proposal to include employment as a primary good. But while I believe these conjectures are correct, my main objective here is to identify the elephant, and Rawls is particularly helpful just because he is even today the only mainstream philosopher to take notice of the injustice of unemployment.GeneralFederal government key to a jobs guaranteeCarpenter and Hamilton 20 [Daniel Carpenter and Darrick Hamilton, Carpenter is Allie S. Freed Professor of Government, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Director of Social Sciences, Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study, Harvard University. Hamilton is Professor of Public Policy, Economics, Sociology and African and African American Studies in the John Glenn College of Public Affairs, and Executive Director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University, 05/2020, “A Federal Jobs Guarantee: Anti-Poverty and Infrastructure Policy for a Better Future,” Scholars Strategy Network, ] /Triumph Debate?State and local governments account for most of the government employment in the United States, and they comprise an important part of our federalist system. In a range of policy domains – public health, education and job training, infrastructure, health provision and conservation – it is state and local governments that have the legal authorities and historical capacities to act. Yet state governments also have the weakest capacity to respond to an economic crisis. First, state governments have nothing like the Federal Reserve to back their debt (this is one among several reasons that the Federal Reserve has recently been looking into mass purchases of municipal bonds). They cannot print money. Second, state governments lack the expansive revenue-generating capacity of the federal government. Beyond this, state governments have in recent decades constrained their powers with balanced budget amendments, while a number of states (Illinois and Connecticut are two examples) have badly underfunded pension systems, and still others have tethered their income to commodity (especially petroleum) sales, which are at historically low prices and whose price declines have damaged state revenues. Workers and some capital costs for projects at the local, county, or state levels can be funded in a way to provide regional full employment and infrastructure needs. The projects and areas with the greatest needs could be cued to receive the federal intervention sooner. The Department of Labor would work closely with local governments. Local and state governments would, in conjunction with community organizations, develop project proposals to address local infrastructure needs, similar to the local, state, and federal collaborations in the design of direct government employment programs of the New Deal. Localities are likely most aware of the infrastructure needs to offer the greatest benefit to their communities. In order to minimize inequality across states and reduce the burden of discrimination, the workers under this program would be federally employed but would be tasked or apportioned (perhaps by formula, to reduce near-term political discretion) to states according to their economic, public health, and infrastructure needs. Even if the work occurs at the state and local level, the federal government needs to step in to provide the jobs, and there are a range of tools it has to do so. The traditional tool consists of program-specific block grants that have been an important feature of American government since the New Deal and especially the Nixon era. The problem with these grants is that they often permit state and local officials to withhold important resources from populations in need, as occurred with so many states’ refusal to take Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act. Our proposal would build upon the strengths of grants by making the jobs available to states and local governments, but would address the inequality-related weakness of these programs by making the employees federal workers who, as such, are made available to state and local governments. 2. Jobs to support federal agencies. Direct government hiring by federal agencies would be essential for many reasons. First, in a polarized political environment, it is quite possible that some states may obstruct cooperation with federal government employment. Having a robust program of federal hiring, including directly in uncooperative states, would broaden the distribution of benefits and mechanize the mandate for guaranteed employment.7 The federal government has a well- established personnel system that has expanded before: witness the mobilization of government employment after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, including the creation of a new Cabinet-level department and the launching of new agencies such as the Transportation Security Agency (TSA).Federal jobs guarantee is popular & bipartisan - most Americans support?Darity and Milam 20 [William Darity, Jr., and Dawn Milam, William Darity, Jr. is a Samuel DuBois Cook Distinguished Professor of Public Policy, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy. Dawn Milam is a Senior Advisor at The Justice Collaborative Institute. 09/2020, “The Case For A Federal Job Guarantee Program,” The Justice Collaborative Institute, ] /Triumph Debate?The coronavirus pandemic has brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. While the CARES Act provided some temporary relief, sustained economic recovery requires a plan to give unemployed workers an opportunity to support themselves and their families with dignity. New Deal-style federal jobs programs can help eliminate working poverty and create a more stable, inclusive economy. Congress should establish a program that provides a true public option for employment and gives existing workers, particularly those confined to the low end of the labor market, jobs in projects that will serve the public welfare. A federal job guarantee program would: Provide a permanent public option for workers to receive training, living wages, benefits, better working conditions, and full worker rights, as a true alternative to the private job market Invest in projects that benefit the public, such as caregiving (especially child and elder care); the conservation of natural resources; the creation of emergency relief programs; investments in education, health, and culture; and the building of critical infrastructure. It would also make these services affordable for all. Offer a better response to economic crises like the pandemic by eliminating the need for poorly paid and unsafe employment. Polling by Data for Progress and The Justice Collaborative Institute shows strong bipartisan support for a federal job guarantee program. Sixty-four percent of likely voters, including 78% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans, said they would support a federal job guarantee program as part of the government’s response to the economic crisis. Argentina proves a job guarantee works through Plan Jefes. Tcherneva 2013 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Department of Economics @ Bard College, “The Job Guarantee: Delivering the Benefits That Basic Income Only Promises – A Response to Guy Standing”, ] /Triumph DebatePlan Jefes was the primary tool to deal with the economic crisis in Argentina after the 2001 financial meltdown. People demanded jobs, and the government provided them through plan Jefes which offered 4 hours of work per day at the (then) minimum wage to any head of a household with unemployed individuals or pregnant women. Plan Jefes exhibited some of the key macroeconomic benefits of JG discussed in the literature. Although the program was not universal, it nevertheless employed 5% of the population and 13% of the labor force. The program was up and running in 5 months and, only a few months after its implementation, it had already reduced extreme poverty (i.e., indigency) by 25%. Argentina’s exchange rate and consumer and producer price indices stabilized within a year. Conservative estimates of the impact of Plan Jefes on growth put the multiplier effect at 2.56. Indeed, Argentina recovered with a robust double-digit growth rate, which stabilized and remained around 8% until the present day (save for a brief period during the 2009 global recession). However, the economy did not wait for the return of robust growth to observe improvements in the unemployment situation. The unemployment rate fell precipitously upon implementation of the program and it was this improvement in the labor market that drove growth. This was employment and wage-driven growth, not a jobless recovery which we are witnessing in the U.S., for example. In the first 4 years after the Argentine financial crisis (during 2002–2006), the unemployment rate fell from 23% to 10% (with the most rapid decline in the first 2 years, and the slowest improvement in the latter years when the program was being phased out). By contrast, in the U.S., it took over 4 years after the start of the Great Recession to notice a small drop in unemployment. Note that the primary policy response to joblessness in the U.S., as in many nations around the world, is income support (i.e., unemployment insurance). By contrast, in Argentina the primary response was direct job creation. Importantly, public employment in Argentina did not continue to expand and neither did it crowd out private sector work (something which Standing claims the JG would do). While there was a considerable initial enrolment of the unemployed and out-of-the-labor-force individuals, the program showed a clear countercyclical feature. The expenditure on the program at its peak was 1% of GDP, but once the economy began recovering, the public sector job program began shrinking steadily as workers found employment in the private sector. The government budget stance moved to and remained in surplus until 2010, when countercyclical government spending kicked in as a result of the global crisis. Importantly, 97% of Jefes workers who moved from their Jefes jobs to private sector employment did so at a premium over their Jefes wage. The program had established a wage floor for those workers. Additionally, by requiring that everyone who enrolled in the program obtain a social security card, the program formalized a significant portion of the informal sector and Jefes workers were hired into private sector jobs with the stable legal contracts and the social security benefits that come with formal sector employment.Skilled LaborA climate FJG is key to environmental adaptation and mitigation effortsAronoff 20 [Kate Aronoff, staff writer at The New Republic, 3-18-2020, "Green Jobs Are the Answer to the Coronavirus Recession," New Republic, ] /Triumph DebateThe American economy is headed for a recession. As many as three million people could be out of work by summertime, even with a modest stimulus, the Economic Policy Institute predicted on Thursday. A new poll finds that, already, nearly one in five workers in the United States has faced layoff or a loss of hours because of the coronavirus. Among workers making less than $50,000 a year, that figure jumps to one in four. Jobless claims in Colorado have increased seventeen fold since last Monday. Thanks to the coronavirus and the shutdowns needed to fight it, people across professions now face months of lost wages: bartenders, musicians, bouncers, baristas, blackjack dealers, home health aides, waitstaff, retail workers, and flight attendants, to name just a few. Teachers working in public schools, whose funding depends on local tax bases, will also face harsh cutbacks as unemployment skyrockets. A recovery package could simply—and probably unsuccessfully—try to get the economy back up to where it was before the Covid-19 shutdowns took hold, complete with its decades of wage stagnation, exploding carbon emissions, and staggering inequality. Or, with politicians newly willing to spend, it could build a carbon-neutral, significantly stronger and fairer society—and put millions to work doing it. In recent days, politicians have floated several commonsense short-term solutions—many of them originating with various social movements: paid leave; direct cash payments of $1,000 or more to American adults, possibly every month while the outbreak lasts; a moratorium on rent and utility payments—or at the very least on evictions and shutoffs. But as what may prove to be a deep and painful recession lasting far beyond the coronavirus sets in, more than quick cash and temporary relief will be needed. A breaking wave of corporate bankruptcies—an event the Fed is now scrambling to contain—could leave hundreds of thousands more unemployed in its wake. Helpfully, the magnitude of the Covid-19 threat has broken open the idea that deficits are more important than meeting pressing public health and economic challenges. Even Mnuchin told reporters on Tuesday, “This is not the time to worry about” the deficit, floating a stimulus that could add up to more than $1 trillion—a size Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers, balked at a decade ago. As the hardly radical New York Times editorial board wrote yesterday, even right now, while many of us are effectively housebound, the government could put to work those rendered wageless or unemployed by the coronavirus shutdowns, in a wartime-style mobilization to blunt its impact: The government could train America’s newly unemployed to sanitize hospital equipment or to deliver food to the elderly and the immune-compromised. Child care for hospital workers on the front lines is desperately needed. Through a new public works program, corps of people could implement infection control in nursing homes and other high-risk facilities—or teach workers of all kinds how best to protect themselves. There could even be a network of individuals tasked with making phone calls to combat loneliness for people in nursing homes and prisons while they’re unable to receive visitors. Before the immediate mobilization around World War II, the years leading up to it saw federal jobs programs employ millions in work the private sector simply didn’t see as important enough to create. The Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration paid some 12.5 million people to do everything from planting trees to building bridges to writing plays. Full employment was an animating demand of social movements through much of the postwar era, which led to it being featured in the Democratic Party platform until 1980. In more recent years, progressive economists and a number of current and former Democratic presidential candidates have backed the idea of a federal job guarantee consistent with a Green New Deal: The U.S. government would permanently become the country’s employer of last resort through a program that’s always in place but kicks into high gear during an economic downturn and then shrinks when people find work elsewhere in the public or private sector. One possible benefit to such a program is that it could provide an alternative to low-paid work bound up in carbon-intensive supply chains like those at McDonald’s and Walmart—currently the only employment on offer in many communities around the country. It could put people to work doing tasks the country urgently needs—including those that actively fight climate change and its impacts, instead of simply spewing carbon into the atmosphere. It’d be popular, too: 70 percent of voters support the idea of a federal job guarantee. “They must be meaningful jobs,” said Coretta Scott King, a dogged job-guarantee advocate, when asked what government-provisioned work might entail in an interview tweeted out this week by historian David Stein, “in areas where there are human needs and in areas of education, medical care, housing. Those areas where there is a great shortage in terms of meeting people’s needs.” As in the last recession, there’s a particular benefit to so-called “shovel-ready” projects—ones that can put people to work immediately. While it’s sorely needed, big infrastructure build-outs can now take months or even years to get off the ground, requiring regulatory approvals and bidding processes. Any major new direct-hire program would still take some time and careful planning to set up, but there’s plenty of work that could be done virtually right away. Much of it wouldn’t involve any shovels at all. Researchers at Bard College’s Levy Institute have proposed that the Department of Labor could, in administering a federal job guarantee, make use of its already-existing American Jobs Centers around the country, which can compile repositories of available work that fulfill the desired set of criteria. “Municipalities, in cooperation with community groups, conduct assessment surveys, cataloging community needs and available resources,” Pavlina Tcherneva, author of the report, wrote in 2018, while the Labor Department itself would make “‘requests for proposals’ indicating that it will fund employment initiatives by community groups, nonprofits, social entrepreneurial ventures, and the unemployed themselves for projects that serve the public purpose,” with an eye toward not displacing existing employment. Much of this work would be green, and—in addition to any sort of bigger public works—could bolster the social infrastructure key to a more resilient and lower-carbon society. And that could start right away. As The New York Times suggests, direct federal hiring could employ people to make phone calls to the elderly, checking in on people who might go days or even weeks at a time without talking to anyone at all. While for the duration of the pandemic this would have to be over the phone, once it’s safe these conversations could become regular visits, helping to meet the crisis of care head-on alongside federally supported universal childcare. In cities, the formerly jobless could get to work making coastlines more resilient against future storms and floods. Tending community gardens in dense city areas could help alleviate the urban heat-island effect. And federally hired workers in the South could plant mangrove trees along the water, protecting against erosion as they suck up carbon dioxide, as part of a broader push to plant those Trillion Trees the Trump administration seems so keen on. Workers in the Permian Basin could clean up and reclaim decommissioned rig sites as nature preserves. There’s a multitude of ways we could employ workers to make agriculture more resilient to increasing temperature fluctuations—while simultaneously making it emit less, or even turning it into a carbon sink. After months of Covid-19-induced isolation, bingeing Netflix and endlessly scrolling through social media, people are likely going to want to go out to be outside and among other people. Leisure was one of the biggest line items of New Deal spending programs, which sponsored everything from trails to hunting lodges and public beaches. Revivals of the WPA’s Federal Theater Project, Federal Writers’ Project, and Federal Art Project could give well-paid and steady jobs to performers who’ve spent months out of work due to coronavirus shutdowns, producing a new generation of plays, books, and even travel guides for all 50 states. Writers could be paid, as Zora Neale Hurston was, to collect oral histories to be archived in the Library of Congress. Direct-hire workers could plan music festivals in public parks around the country, with booths for local small businesses to sell craft beer and finger food sourced from farms in the area. This isn’t an exhaustive list. It’s also not mutually exclusive with federal support for trade schools and graduate degrees to work in the clean energy sector, or union apprenticeship programs that can train a new generation of workers—including those transitioning out of jobs in the extractive sector—to electrify buildings and make them more energy-efficient. A wide-ranging federal green job guarantee has a number of potential benefits beyond the obvious: For example, by paying workers fairly, such jobs could establish a wage floor at $15 or $20 an hour—against which the private sector would have to compete. It could also institute a four-day workweek, which a growing body of evidence suggests would drastically slash emissions by cutting commutes and reducing the energy load from lighting and heating offices, with myriad benefits for both the climate and the way people live and consume. Thinking creatively in such a dire crisis—about silver linings and opportunities—can feel inappropriate, even irresponsible. But the American right has already come up with a variety of stimulus ideas to funnel money to its allies. As evidenced by proposals underway to prop up the fossil fuel industry, the choice right now is between crisis responses that double down on the dangerous policies of the past few decades or those that help shift society and the economy in a better direction. How lawmakers respond to Covid-19 and its economic fallout could either protect the next century from the persistent crises threatened by rising temperatures, or make them far worse.FJG bolsters adaptation & decarbonization while mobilizing liberal movements Prakash and Meyerhoff 18 [Varshini Prakash, co-founder and executive director of the Sunrise Movement, a climate action committee, and Sarah Meyerhoff, supporter of the Sunrise Movement, 5-24-2018, "It’s Time for the Climate Movement to Embrace a Federal Jobs Guarantee," In These Times, ] /Triumph DebateWith global temperatures rising and midterm elections approaching, 2018 is the year the climate movement must take bold action towards a fossil-free future. Across the country, young people face daily reminders that our society doesn’t serve our futures. We suffer from unemployment and underemployment that is well beyond the national average, with young people of color struggling disproportionately to find work and economic opportunity. We are straddled with historic student loan debts. And in a moment when we should be working quickly to avert climate catastrophe and transition to an inclusive, fossil-free economy, many of our elected officials remain passive as the Trump administration attacks our air, water and land. As youth leaders in the climate justice movement, we believe now is the time to embrace a bold political vision that addresses climate change while working to end racialized economic inequality. A centerpiece of that vision is a federal jobs guarantee, a policy through which the government directly employs anyone who wants a job but doesn’t have one. The jobs guarantee has deep roots in the U.S. progressive tradition and is seeing growing support from scholars and movement leaders who tout its potential to put Americans to work while helping to rebuild our infrastructure, schools and healthcare system. With Sen. Bernie Sanders developing a jobs guarantee proposal, as well as a score of down-ballot candidates and Democratic presidential hopefuls also voicing support, the policy is sure to feature prominently in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles. Climate scientists say that the next few years may be the only ones we have left to avert catastrophic global warming. A jobs guarantee program with a strong focus on stopping and preparing for climate change — a climate jobs guarantee — might be the last, best hope to quickly marshal public support and resources behind climate action. Simply put, this is a can’t?miss opportunity for the climate movement — and for our generation. Toward a climate jobs guarantee Solving the climate crisis will be no easy feat. It will require massive investments, to the tune of trillions of dollars over the next few decades — to transition toward a 100 percent renewable energy economy; to overhaul how we farm, transport and consume food; to restore depleted ecosystems; and to empower the communities already affected by the climate crisis to adapt to changes that cannot be reversed. Each of these undertakings will also require massive job creation. A climate jobs guarantee has the potential to create a labor force that could be the engine of rapid decarbonization, and the services it generates can enhance communities’ resilience to climate impacts. Importantly, such a program can elevate those communities who have been systematically excluded from economic prosperity as well as those workers who risk being left behind by the transition to a renewable energy economy. A climate jobs guarantee could be the climate movement’s ?“Medicare-for-All” policy — a universal program big enough to address the massive and complicated crisis of climate change, but still tangible and popular among the vast majority of Americans. Like Medicare for All, a jobs guarantee is wildly popular. Polling firm Civis Analytics identified it as ?“one of the most popular issues [they’ve] ever polled,” with a majority of Americans’ support, and with disproportionate interest among low-income groups and communities of color, who tend to bear the brunt of unemployment, underemployment and climate chaos. While we’ve seen growing momentum around calls for 100 percent renewable energy and keeping fossil fuels in the ground, a jobs guarantee is the most promising means of popularizing the deficit spending and enlarged role of government that rapid decarbonization of the economy will require. Framing the climate movement’s efforts around empowering Americans from all walks of life to build an inclusive economy will not only garner more popular support for climate justice goals, it could also help build stronger relationships with labor, economic, social and racial justice movements which will likely also throw their weight behind such jobs program proposals. The climate jobs guarantee offers an opportunity to strike down one of the deepest fissures on the left, that between some labor and environmental activists. By hammering home the message that we can put Americans to work solving the climate crisis, we can help end the fallacy that has long undercut our ties with labor and other allies — that access to good-paying jobs is incompatible with the well-being of our planet. From vision to reality While climate advocates have much to gain from embracing a jobs guarantee, this is no one-sided alliance. Existing jobs guarantee proposals can be significantly strengthened by embracing a climate justice lens. A growing body of evidence suggests that many of the jobs needed to avert and prepare for climate change can be created relatively cheaply, and are jobs that last long term. More fundamentally, failing to curb and prepare for climate change will seriously compromise a federal jobs program, not to mention the stability of life on this planet as we know it. Superstorms, wildfires and droughts, which will worsen and multiply as temperatures rise, are already putting people out of work and destabilizing our economy. They also stand to cripple the infrastructure and healthcare system that many hope a jobs guarantee will support. And the low-income groups and communities of color that jobs guarantee proponents hope to reach will be hit hardest by extreme weather. Many jobs guarantee proponents mention tackling climate change as one of many social goods that such a program could produce, but they have yet to fully map out what they understand ?“tackling climate change” to mean. To ensure that climate change is meaningfully embedded in whatever proposal progressives coalesce around, the climate movement needs to play an active role in helping to guide the development of such a proposal, and mobilizing Americans to make it a reality.The aff achieves decarbonization & saves the economy while avoiding rate hikesRobinson 20 [Kim Stanley Robinson, Muir Environmental Fellow at UC San Diego with a PhD in English from UC San Diego, 6-5-2020, "The Climate Case for a Jobs Guarantee," Bloomberg, ] /Triumph DebateThe scenario outlined above is compiled from signs coming from all over, not least of which are the weekly U.S. unemployment numbers that have been reaching seven digits. There’s a major-party presidential candidate out there right now calling for a public jobs corps consisting of 100,000 health workers. And there’s also an economic case for a full-employment vision expressed by modern monetary theory. This economics discipline is usually understood to be a new kind of Keynesianism that might replace austerity policies of the neoliberal era. It advocates creating new money to pay for necessary work and argues that government debt can always be dealt with by later government actions, so creating this new money for good purposes need not be regarded as wrong or dangerous. Some conventional economists have attacked what they see as MMT’s cavalier treatment of money, and critics sometimes call the discipline “magic money tree.” Inflation might result from such money creation—or deflation. Opinions differ, but all agree destabilization would be disastrous. It’s been pointed out that Americans haven’t much stopped deficit spending since World War II, and yet we haven’t experienced the predicted catastrophes. The quantitative easing of 2008-2015 didn’t cause any catastrophes either. “Not yet!” the austerity advocates warn. And because austerity tries to “starve the beast,” it always has virtue for those who dislike government on principle. A pretense of fiscal caution always looks virtuous. But now, given the 2020 coronavirus pandemic’s instantaneous and worldwide quantitative easing, we’re truly in economic theory free fall. Screenwriter William Goldman was right: Nobody knows anything, including what will happen next to money. The theorists behind MMT want to replace our current certainty of millions without work with a much different certainty. Governments can create full employment by legislating a job guarantee, becoming the “employer of last resort,” hiring every person who comes to them asking for a job. That’s the case made by Bard College economics professor Pavlina Tcherneva and the trio of authors who wrote Macroeconomics, the textbook of the discipline. In that 604-page tome, the phrase always appears with capitalization: “Job Guarantee.” It would mean that governments would set a higher minimum wage than ever before, and if that minimum were a true living wage, private enterprise would have to match it to attract workers. And then, suddenly, everyone would be both employed and making a decent living. Private enterprises would therefore have more prosperous customers, and all would then rise in a virtuous cycle. Given the immense stresses that climate change is sure to bring, finding useful work for people would not be a problem. There will be a lot to do. Recall that 5% unemployment is often said to be the “natural” level, such that markets get nervous when the jobless rate goes lower than that. Unemployment at 5% is said to create “wage pressure,” which it definitely does, because millions of people are thereby living in fear and will take any job they can get, even ones that don’t pay enough for a secure life. The phrase “wage pressure” is yet another indication of how markets exert power to keep power. In this context, a Job Guarantee would erase wage pressure (meaning fear and misery), and the less fearful and more productive populace that resulted might thrive in a feeling of security. But is there enough work for everybody? Yes, there is. Automation is a false problem here. Most jobs require a flexibility and creativity that only humans can bring to the task. And even if some of the jobs offered by government were make-work, such as the Works Progress Administration when it was building hiking trails and post offices in the 1930s, so what? Those trails and post offices are still useful and beautiful, and people got paid for doing good things when they otherwise would have been destitute. Arguments in favor of the unguaranteed labor market of today sometimes revolves around the word “efficiency.” But efficiency isn’t a physical constant; it’s a rubric for measuring how well a desired goal is getting done. Never make the mistake of thinking “efficient” is synonymous with “good.” All kinds of bad things can be achieved efficiently. Efficiency just means the most results with the least waste, so whether it’s good or not depends entirely on the desired goal. If the goal is prosperous people living in balance with a healthy biosphere, then a Job Guarantee, targeted at rapid decarbonization, habitat restoration, regenerative agriculture, and similarly necessary work, might be the most efficient course. If anyone doubts this, one has to ask first, are they doubting the method’s efficiency or the primacy of the goal itself? And if they think the goal is other than prosperous people living in balance with a healthy biosphere, they need to make that case—or think again. If they think there are better methods to reach that goal, more efficient methods, then they need to propose them. At least MMT is trying.Trump’s environmental deregulations means that nuclear plants are increasingly vulnerable to coastal floods – that causes non-stop Fukushimas and meltdowns that destroy the biosphereChen 19 [Christina Chen, Scoville Fellow for the NRDC Climate & Clean Energy Program covering nuclear policy, 9-16-2019, "Nuclear vs. Climate Change: Rising Seas," NRDC, ] /Triumph Debate Climate action isn’t simply about reducing emissions—it’s also about addressing local environmental concerns and minimizing risks to human health and safety. With that in mind, if nuclear power is going to have a role in addressing climate change, stronger safety and environmental regulations will be needed. Unfortunately, this approach is missing from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which in January voted in a 3-to-2 decision to water down recommendations from its own staff to reevaluate seismic and flooding hazards at nuclear sites. "This decision is nonsensical," Commissioner Jeff Baran wrote in his dissent, “Instead of requiring nuclear power plants to be prepared for the actual flooding and earthquake hazards that could occur at their sites, NRC will allow them to be prepared only for the old, outdated hazards typically calculated decades ago when the science of seismology and hydrology was far less advanced than it is today.” The January ruling came almost eight years after staff scientists released a list of recommendations in direct response to the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown. With the approval (and pending approvals) this year to rollback multiple safety regulations , the U.S. nuclear fleet, the oldest in the world, cannot afford to wait another decade to strengthen safety and environmental regulations in preparation of climate change--in this case, rising sea levels. WHAT ARE THE RISKS? Nuclear power plants require huge amounts of water to prevent fission products in the core and spent nuclear fuel from overheating (incidentally making nuclear the most water intensive energy source in terms of consumption and withdrawal per unit of energy delivered). That’s why over 40 percent of the world's nuclear plants are built along the coasts, with that number rising to 66 percent for just plants under construction. Unable to run on the electricity it generates itself to power the pumps that provide cooling water to the core and to the spent nuclear fuel stored onsite, a nuclear plant must rely on the grid or backup generators to ensure cooling water circulation. Any hazard that cuts off access to those sources of power restricts access to cooling water, ultimately risking a nuclear meltdown and off-site release of radiation, as happened during the flooding of Fukushima. Flooding evaluations conducted by the NRC concluded that 55 of the 61 evaluated U.S. nuclear sites experienced flooding hazards beyond what they were designed to handle. Even more alarming, in 2014, the flood barriers at Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie Nuclear Plant--one of the few plants reported to be prepared for disaster but which had been missing proper seals for decades--gave way to 50,000 gallons of water after heavy rainfall. Storm surges like the one at St. Lucie Nuclear plant and extreme weather events, as witnessed in Fukushima, pose very real risks to both operational and decommissioned plants, almost all of which (in the US) will continue to store nuclear waste onsite for decades until a permanent storage solution is found. Coupled with increasingly rising sea-levels, these risks will continue to grow. Even under a very low scenario of 1°C warming by midcentury, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment reports that the “frequency, depth, and extent of both high tide and more severe, damaging coastal flooding will increase rapidly in the coming decades.” And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that 1.5°C of warming could be reached in as little as 11 years. While all energy technologies will be impacted in some way by the increasing severity of natural disasters and sea level rise, the failure of nuclear power plants can result in irreversible health and environmental consequences on top of social and economic damages, including worst of all the release of radiation that can remain lethal for thousands of years. Under government estimates, the Fukushima meltdown resulted in the displacement of 165,000 people, cleanup and compensation costs of up to $200 billion, and a timeline of 30 to 40 years. Experts say, however, that true costs could reach $500 billion and decontamination timelines could be underestimated by decades. NUCLEAR IN EAST ASIA Despite initial vocal opposition from the public in many East Asian countries that have slowed down nuclear buildout after Fukushima, the direction of government policies for nuclear development in East Asia remain mostly unchanged, and have simply resulted in rather a more conservative, moderate pace. In fact, this pace has sustained much of nuclear development in East Asia, home to many countries that have found nuclear power as an attractive solution to addressing the dilemma between achieving energy security for an increasing population and decarbonizing to mitigate global climate change. Of the 56 nuclear power plants currently in construction around the world, 33 of them are in Asia; 16 in China alone. As observed in the graph below, if all nuclear units that are currently under construction reach completion, East Asia is slated to become the region with the largest number of operating nuclear power plants, 93 percent of which will reside along the coast. What is alarming is that East Asia and the Pacific region is uniquely vulnerable to sea-level rise. A 2015 report by Climate Central found that of the top 10 countries most likely to be affected sea level rise for 4°C warming, seven are in Asia. Similarly, in a study by the World Bank, China and Indonesia will be the most vulnerable to permanent inundation. Given the heightened flooding risks in Asia, strengthening the authority of regulatory structures that oversee the safety of nuclear build out will be increasingly important. WHAT'S THE PLAN? Fukushima was a lesson to the global community that even one of the world's most technologically advanced and experienced countries can fail to prevent a nuclear meltdown. To prepare for the realities of rising sea levels that pose unique risks to different nuclear plants, regulators must require climate adaptation plans and heightened safety oversight. Nonetheless, at the international scale, not much work is being done to address these sea-level rise concerns. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), in recognizing that the "world is ill-prepared for the risks from a changing climate," conducted a study on the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to climate change, which is not yet available to the public. Since 2014, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has begun to include a section about the impacts of climate change on nuclear energy in its annual Climate and Nuclear Power Report. Yet even as these international organizations detail the many hazards changing climate poses to nuclear reactors, preventative and/or adaptation measures do not seem to be prioritized or encouraged, especially for existing nuclear plants. “OUTSIDE OF THEIR SCOPE” AT HOME Similar attitudes are held here in the U.S. Perched at the southern tip of Florida, the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is seeking to be the first U.S. nuclear plant permitted to run for 80 years. Initially refusing to consider sea-level rise in the environmental review of the license extension, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released a revised draft this year, only to come to the following conclusion: It’s outside of the scope of the agency. "If new information about changing environmental conditions (such as rising sea levels that threaten safe operating conditions or challenge compliance with the plant’s technical specifications) becomes available, the NRC will evaluate the new information to determine if any safety-related changes are needed at licensed nuclear power plants," the NRC report said. The report arrives at this conclusion by utilizing lower-bound sea level rise estimates from the 2018 U.S. Climate Change assessment, rationalizing that the report “assigns very high confidence to the lower bounds of these projections and medium confidence to the upper bounds.” As highlighted by this Bloomberg analysis released this year, nuclear plant operators are not only allowed to perform their own flood risk estimates but are also able to decide what assumptions are made, with review from the NRC. The uncertainty that comes with sea-level rise projections obviously exists. In securing the safety of such critical infrastructure, however, using the highest sea-level rise estimates is the only way to ensure that all actions that can be taken against a potential threat are taken. On the other hand, relying on the lowest storm surge estimates is akin to receiving a warning about a potential threat, and taking the bare minimum actions to prepare for it. Changing ambient temperatures are already posing serious risks to nuclear plants across the world. Nuclear regulators cannot wait until sea-level rise coupled with storm surges begin severely impacting operational safety of their plants—they must act now. With the world’s scientists calling attention to the climate crisis ahead of us, action must be taken to ensure nuclear plants are part of the solution, not the problem.Biodiversity loss causes extinction—turns and outweighs everythingTorres 16 [Phil Torres, conservationist, science advocate, and educator, with a BS in entomology?from Cornell, working on a?PhD?at?Rice University in tropical conservation biology, 5-20-2016, "Biodiversity Loss: An Existential Risk Comparable to Climate Change," Future of Life Institute, ] /Triumph Debate The sixth extinction. The repercussions of biodiversity loss are potentially as severe as those anticipated from climate change, or even a nuclear conflict. For example, according to a 2015 study published in Science Advances, the best available evidence reveals “an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way.” This conclusion holds, even on the most optimistic assumptions about the background rate of species losses and the current rate of vertebrate extinctions. The group classified as “vertebrates” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and all other creatures with a backbone. The article argues that, using its conservative figures, the average loss of vertebrate species was 100 times higher in the past century relative to the background rate of extinction. (Other scientists have suggested that the current extinction rate could be as much as 10,000 times higher than normal.) As the authors write, “The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history.” Perhaps the term “Big Six” should enter the popular lexicon—to add the current extinction to the previous “Big Five,” the last of which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But the concept of biodiversity encompasses more than just the total number of species on the planet. It also refers to the size of different populations of species. With respect to this phenomenon, multiple studies have confirmed that wild populations around the world are dwindling and disappearing at an alarming rate. For example, the 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook report found that the population of wild vertebrates living in the tropics dropped by 59 percent between 1970 and 2006. The report also found that the population of farmland birds in Europe has dropped by 50 percent since 1980; bird populations in the grasslands of North America declined by almost 40 percent between 1968 and 2003; and the population of birds in North American arid lands has fallen by almost 30 percent since the 1960s. Similarly, 42 percent of all amphibian species (a type of vertebrate that is sometimes called an “ecological indicator”) are undergoing population declines, and 23 percent of all plant species “are estimated to be threatened with extinction.” Other studies have found that some 20 percent of all reptile species, 48 percent of the world’s primates, and 50 percent of freshwater turtles are threatened. Underwater, about 10 percent of all coral reefs are now dead, and another 60 percent are in danger of dying. Consistent with these data, the 2014 Living Planet Report shows that the global population of wild vertebrates dropped by 52 percent in only four decades—from 1970 to 2010. While biologists often avoid projecting historical trends into the future because of the complexity of ecological systems, it’s tempting to extrapolate this figure to, say, the year 2050, which is four decades from 2010. As it happens, a 2006study published in Science does precisely this: It projects past trends of marine biodiversity loss into the 21st century, concluding that, unless significant changes are made to patterns of human activity, there will be virtually no more wild-caught seafood by 2048. 48% of the world’s primates are threatened with extinction. Catastrophic consequences for civilization. The consequences of this rapid pruning of the evolutionary tree of life extend beyond the obvious. There could be surprising effects of biodiversity loss that scientists are unable to fully anticipate in advance. For example, prior research has shown that localized ecosystems can undergo abrupt and irreversible shifts when they reach a tipping point. According to a 2012 paper published in Nature, there are reasons for thinking that we may be approaching a tipping point of this sort in the global ecosystem, beyond which the consequences could be catastrophic for civilization. As the authors write, a planetary-scale transition could precipitate “substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population.” An ecosystem service is any ecological process that benefits humanity, such as food production and crop pollination. If the global ecosystem were to cross a tipping point and substantial ecosystem services were lost, the results could be “widespread social unrest, economic instability, and loss of human life.” According to Missouri Botanical Garden ecologist Adam Smith, one of the paper’s co-authors, this could occur in a matter of decades—far more quickly than most of the expected consequences of climate change, yet equally destructive. Biodiversity loss is a “threat multiplier” that, by pushing societies to the brink of collapse, will exacerbate existing conflicts and introduce entirely new struggles between state and non-state actors. Indeed, it could even fuel the rise of terrorism. (After all, climate change has been linked to the emergence of ISIS in Syria, and multiple high-ranking US officials, such as former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hageland CIA director John Brennan, have affirmed that climate change and terrorism are connected.) The reality is that we are entering the sixth mass extinction in the 3.8-billion-year history of life on Earth, and the impact of this event could be felt by civilization “in as little as three human lifetimes,” as the aforementioned 2012 Nature paper notes. Furthermore, the widespread decline of biological populations could plausibly initiate a dramatic transformation of the global ecosystem on an even faster timescale: perhaps a single human lifetime. The unavoidable conclusion is that biodiversity loss constitutes an existential threat in its own right. As such, it ought to be considered alongside climate change and nuclear weapons as one of the most significant contemporary risks to human prosperity and survival. Climate change causes extinction—turns and outweighs everythingSprat and Dunlop 20 [David Spratt, Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action; and Ian Dunlop, member of the Club of Rome AND formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association, chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading, 5-30-2019, "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach," Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, ]] /Triumph Debate 2050: By 2050, there is broad scientific acceptance that system tipping-points for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and a sea-ice-free Arctic summer were passed well before 1.5°C of warming, for the Greenland Ice Sheet well before 2°C, and for widespread permafrost loss and large-scale Amazon drought and dieback by 2.5°C. The “hothouse Earth” scenario has been realised, and Earth is headed for another degree or more of warming, especially since human greenhouse emissions are still significant. While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2–3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability. The destabilisation of the Jet Stream has very significantly affected the intensity and geographical distribution of the Asian and West African monsoons and, together with the further slowing of the Gulf Stream, is impinging on life support systems in Europe. North America suffers from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves, drought and inundation. The summer monsoons in China have failed, and water flows into the great rivers of Asia are severely reduced by the loss of more than one-third of the Himalayan ice sheet. Glacial loss reaches 70 percent in the Andes, and rainfall in Mexico and central America falls by half. Semi-permanent El Nino conditions prevail. Aridification emerges over more than 30 percent of the world’s land surface. Desertification is severe in southern Africa, the southern Mediterranean, west Asia, the Middle East, inland Australia and across the south-western United States. Impacts: A number of ecosystems collapse, including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic. Some poorer nations and regions, which lack capacity to provide artificially-cooled environments for their populations, become unviable. Deadly heat conditions persist for more than 100 days per year in West Africa, tropical South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia, which together with land degradation and rising sea levels contributes to 21 perhaps a billion people being displaced. Water availability decreases sharply in the most affected regions at lower latitudes (dry tropics and subtropics), affecting about two billion people worldwide. Agriculture becomes nonviable in the dry subtropics. Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions. The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. Ten percent of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people. According to the Global Challenges Foundation’s Global Catastrophic Risks 2018 report, even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated due to sea-level rise, and In high-end scenarios “the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end”. Inequality / PovertyA jobs guarantee would effectively address structural inequalities in the labor marketWray et. al 18 [ L. Randall Wray, ?Professor of Economics at Bard College with a Ph.D. from Washington University, Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute, April 2018, “Public Service Employment: a Path To Full Employment” Levy Economics Institute of Bard College,] /Triumph Debate*** PSE = public service employmentThe PSE program would play a progressive role in addressing certain racial, ethnic, and gender inequalities in labor markets. Blacks and Hispanics tend to face labor market conditions that are more uncertain, difficult, or unstable. These groups tend to face higher unemployment and underemployment rates, as well as a longer duration of unemployment. They are also less likely to work in the highest paying occupations (management, professional, and related), receive considerably lower median weekly earnings in nearly all occupational groups,22 and are twice as likely to be among the working poor. Not surprisingly, these groups stand to benefit more than proportionally from the PSE program. Using demographic data for the segments of the CNIP 16+ discussed above, we find that the share of racial and ethnic minorities participating in the program would be greater than their respective shares of both the CNIP 16+ and the labor force. This section breaks down the demographic composition of the program’s potential workforce23 for the subsections of the CNIP 16+ selected above.Working decreases poverty empirically – 3 reasonsWray et. al 18 [ L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at Bard College with a Ph.D. from Washington University, Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute, April 2018, “Public Service Employment: a Path To Full Employment” Levy Economics Institute of Bard College,] /Triumph Debate*** PSE = public service employmentThe pattern is similar for individuals between ages 18 and 64. Those who worked for at least one week during 2016 experienced poverty rates much lower than those who did not work for at least one week: 5.9 percent compared to 30.5 percent. Families with children under the age of 18 were more likely to be at or below the poverty line, and while families with no workers faced the highest poverty rates, families where members of the household worked only part time also experienced poverty rates well above national averages. The opportunity to work full time greatly reduces the incidence of poverty. In 2016, 8.75 million individuals between the ages of 18 and 64 who worked during the year lived in poverty. The poverty rate for individuals in the same age group who worked full time was only 2.2 percent, while those who worked less than full time or did not work at all faced much higher poverty rates: 14.7 percent and 30.5 percent, respectively. The BLS (2017a) identifies three major labor market problems that prevent working people from escaping poverty: low earnings, unemployment, and involuntary part-time employment. In 2015, 82 percent of the working poor experienced at least one of these three problems. Around 40.3 percent of workers who participated in the labor market for at least 27 weeks, and experienced all three problems above, lived below the poverty threshold. Those who experienced low pay and some period of unemployment had a 41.4 percent chance of falling below the poverty line. Low earnings was by far the most common single problem for the working poor—25 percent of those who worked at least 27 weeks in low-paying jobs lived below the poverty line. The PSE program described above tackles all three problems at once, providing full-time work at a living wage. And because the program sets an effective national minimum wage of $15 per hour, with benefits that include childcare and healthcare, we expect the implementation of the program to also benefit private sector workers who are paid less than the minimum wage or who do not receive adequate benefits from their employers.26 A study by the Economic Policy Institute (Cooper 2017) estimates that over 40 million workers would be affected by an increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Even if the legal minimum wage were not raised, the existence of a PSE program that pays $15 would ensure that anyone ready and willing to work would be able to receive at least that wage.A jobs guarantee can transform income distributionTcherneva 13 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Department of Economics @ Bard College, “The Job Guarantee: Delivering the Benefits That Basic Income Only Promises – A Response to Guy Standing”, ] /Triumph DebateA living wage would not only include sufficient income to provide for oneself and one’s dependents, but would also establish the minimum standard for benefits, which would include vacation, health, retirement, personal days, and paid family leave. This wage-benefit package would support both leisure activities and unpaid work. The JG itself would be structured in a way to alleviate the unpaid care burden of families. Public sector jobs would include activities that are not normally valued by the private sector and thus not adequately supplied or remunerated. The BIG proposal does not offer a solution to the public squalor that has plagued the modern world. There has been a systematic destruction of public services, investments, and social safety-nets. The JG reverses these trends by focusing on socially useful output and public goods provisioning for all. The JG is also a powerful vehicle for transforming the way income is generated and distributed in the economy without introducing the problematic incentives of BIG or its inflationary impact.Job guarantee helps those at the bottom by establishing a floorTcherneva 13 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Department of Economics @ Bard College, “The Job Guarantee: Delivering the Benefits That Basic Income Only Promises – A Response to Guy Standing”, ] /Triumph DebateThere are two ways to improve the income distribution through policy. One is to work within the existing structures that produce certain factor income shares, and to redistribute income after it has been earned and those shares have been determined by employing various income redistribution schemes. The other policy is to change the very way income is earned (Minsky, 1973, pp. 93–95). The Job Guarantee approach can do the latter by directly increasing and stabilizing the share of labor income in production.2 It also ensures that by employing the unemployed, it improves incomes at the bottom of the income distribution faster than incomes at the top, thus, improving within labor income distribution. As Minsky had once argued, “instead of the demand for low wage workers trickling down from the demand for the high wage workers, such a policy should result in increments of demand for present high wage workers ‘bubbling up’ from the demand for low wage workers” (1968, p. 338). Such a policy, far from working through the prevailing structures that produce income inequality, will begin to transform them by stabilizing incomes and employment at the bottom and by employing workers in the production of valuable public goods and services. Furthermore, the JG establishes a minimum wage-benefits standard for the entire economy and fundamentally transforms the way income is generated by prioritizing the individual and her contribution to socially useful activities and by focusing on the needs of those at the bottom. Indeed, it has the unique potential to transform the meaning and nature of work.HomelessnessDue to COVID-19, homelessness is dramatically increasingCS, 20 [Community Solutions, May 11, 2020, “ANALYSIS ON UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECTS 40-45% INCREASE IN HOMELESSNESS THIS YEAR”, Community Solutions, ] /Triumph DebateAn analysis conducted by Dr. Brendan O’Flaherty, a professor of economics at Columbia University, projects an increase in homelessness by 40-45% this year over January 2019, an addition of nearly 250,000 people, if homelessness follows unemployment the way that it has done so in the earlier part of this century. The U.S. unemployment rate has reached 14.7% — a level unseen since the depths of the Great Depression in 1933. A number of respected models predict unemployment has not reached its peak. This is unprecedented,” Dr. O’Flaherty said. “No one living has seen an increase of 10% of unemployment in a month.” This analysis underscores the devastating impact that COVID-19 will have on inflow into homelessness, and Community Solutions urges federal policymakers to address this imminent crisis as they consider the fourth stimulus bill.?Methodology The model used unemployment projections and data on current homelessness using a standard regression developed by Dr. Kevin Corinth in “The impact of permanent supportive housing on homeless populations,” published in the Journal of Housing Economics in 2017. Using data on homelessness and unemployment from 2007 to 2009, it found that for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate, homelessness per 10,000 people increased by 0.65Minimum wage is not enough to allow homeless people to afford shelter? ? ? ? ? ? ? NCH, 09 [National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009, “Employment and Homelessness”, National Coalition for the Homeless, ] /Triumph DebateIn addition to the erosion in the value of the minimum wage, there are other factors that contribute to the decline in wage decline. As more countries compete against each other, the result may be adding a downward pressure on wages. Also, the weakening in union power and labor policies may have some affect on the wage decline (International Labor Organization, 2008). Declining wages, in turn, have put housing out of reach for many workers: a household would need more than one full time minimum wage worker to afford a two-bedroom rental apartment at fair market rent. Infact, in the median state a minimum wage worker would have to work 87 hours each week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at 30% of his or her income, which is the federal definition of affordable housing. In addition, 40% of households with "worst case housing needs" -- households paying over half their incomes for rent, living in severely substandard housing, or both -- have at least one working person. The most recent HUD report (2005) shows that there were nearly six million households with “worst-case housing needs” in America.?The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. A survey of 23 U.S. cities found that eleven of the cities reported an increase in the number of employed homeless people, one city reported a decrease and seven other cities reported no change from the previous year (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2008). In today’s economy, one of the hardest burdens for workers is the continued dramatic decline in wage growth. For the first year of the recession, wage growth remained relatively strong; nominal (non-inflation adjusted) hourly wages for production/nonsupervisory workers (who comprise over 80% of payroll employment) grew 3.9% from December 2007 to December 2008. Since that time, however, wage growth has slowed abruptly; in May 2009, wages grew at a 1.3% annualized rate, one-third the earlier pace (Economic Policy Institute, 2009). If this percentage continues to drop, it will become harder for a bluecollar worker to support his or her family. Additionally, rising costs of gasoline and food are taking large portions of these workers’ pay checks (Economic Policy Institute, 2008).Homeless people are more likely to face housing discrimination when applying for jobs, especially by the private sector? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Golabek-Goldman, 17 [Sarah Golabek-Goldman, Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, 2017, “Ban the Address: Combating Employment Discrimination Against the Homeless” The Yale Law Journal, ]/Triumph DebateEmployers are often reluctant to hire the homeless or formerly homeless. The Chronic Homelessness Employment Technical Assistance Center has re- ported that provider staff members are “frequently challenged by pervasive negative stereotypes when approaching employers about hiring qualified homeless job seekers.”7 Employers harbor doubts about homeless applicants’ motivation, dependability, and ability to assimilate into the workplace, as well as concerns about their poor appearance, attire, behaviors and hygiene. Homelessness is associated with stigmas such as mental illness and substance abuse. A survey conducted by the National Coalition for the Homeless reported that 70.4% of homeless respondents “felt that they had been discriminated against [by private businesses] because of their housing status.” A Ban the Address campaign would complement other initiatives designed to protect the homeless against discriminatory policies and help them regain self-sufficiency. Recent literature on the plight of the homeless has focused on the criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities.11 Some jurisdictions have adopted diverse policies that may reverse the trend by addressing underlying problems, such as a deficiency of shelters.12 The Ban the Address movement could help further reduce criminalization. If homeless individuals were able to secure employment, they would be better positioned to afford housing and avoid violating discriminatory ordinances targeting those without homes. A Ban the Address movement would also further the aims of Housing First (where it exists) by increasing employment, mobility, and overall self sufficiency among Housing First participants.13 Because a large proportion of homeless individuals become or remain homeless due to economic difficulties, a Ban the Address movement has the advantage of addressing a primary cause of homelessness while creating sustainable, long-term independence.A well-paying job is necessary to escape homelessness, which is almost impossible to obtain NCH, 09 [National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009, “Employment and Homelessness”, National Coalition for the Homeless, ] /Triumph DebateAs bad as it is for the 44% of homeless people who have jobs and can't escape homelessness, climbing out of homelessness is virtually impossible for those without a job. For those with limited skills or experience, opportunities for jobs that pay a living wage are very limited. Additionally, many members of the homeless population have to combat barriers such as limited transportation and reduced access to educational and training programs (Long, Rio, & Rosen, 2007). In such a competitive environment, the difficulties of job seeking as a homeless person can be almost insurmountable barriers to employment. As bad as it is for the 13% of homeless people who have jobs and can't escape homelessness, climbing out of homelessness is virtually impossible for those without a job. For those with limited skills or experience, opportunities for jobs that pay a living wage are very limited. In such a competitive environment, the difficulties of job seeking as a homeless person can be almost insurmountable barriers to employment. Mental or physical illnesses also play vital roles in the employment participation of homeless individuals or those at risk for becoming homeless. Research statistics illustrate that a disability, mental or physical, can result in difficulty acquiring work. In addition to mental illness and substance abuse, incarceration also serves as a barrier for employment. Incarceration can decrease the types of employment available to an individual after release from jail or prison. Along with the previously mentioned barriers, the lack of access to technology serves as a handicap for the homeless searching for work. In this job market, some knowledge of computers and technology is essential for every field. Although there are computers available through public access, some homeless individuals lack computer knowledge and fear failure.The wages provided by a federal jobs guarantee are needed to reduce poverty and homelessnessPaul, 18 [Mark Paul, Postdoctoral associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University, February 2018, “A Path to Ending Poverty by Way of Ending Unemployment: A Federal Job Guarantee”, The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, ] /Triumph DebateFigure 1 demonstrates just how large the gap became between the number of those seeking jobs and the number of jobs offered during the Great Recession. No amount of individual effort — hard work nor “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” drive—could overcome the dramatic shortage of jobs available during the cyclical decline. Moreover, unemployment is one of the strongest predictors of poverty, households whose usual breadwinners are out of work be- ing three times more likely to be poor than working households (Achiron 2009, 13). But working households are not immune from the plague of poverty; a job in and of itself is not a sufficient condition to escape poverty. Given that at least 25 percent of workers earn wages below the poverty line (Mishel et al. 2012), and 44 percent of homeless individuals report having taken on paid employment in the past month (Burt et al. 1999), nonpoverty wages need to be an essential component of reducing poverty. Furthermore, the costs associated with unemployment go far beyond poverty. The nature of the harms from unemployment or underemployment are well documented. In addition to inflicting lasting damage on an individual’s labor market prospects, unemployment is associated with increased rates of physical and mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, child and spouse abuse, failed relationships, suicide and attempted suicide, and a host of other personal and social ills (Goldsmith, Veum, and Darity 1997; Darity 2003).Mental HealthPeople with mental health issues are less likely to be employedNAMI, 14 [National Alliance on Mental Illness, July 2014, “Road to Recovery: Employment and Mental Illness”, National Alliance on Mental Illness,? ] /Triumph DebateEmployment rates are inexcusably low and getting worse for people living with mental illness. Employment declined from 23 percent in 2003 to 17.8 percent in 2012. Appendix 1 shows state employment rates for people served in public mental health systems, while the chart at right shows the low and declining employment rates for individuals living with mental illness. Studies show that most adults with mental illness want to work? and approximately six out of 10 can succeed with appropriate supports. Some states are doing better than others in making supported employment available to people served by public mental health systems. Yet it is deplorable that nationwide, only 1.7 percent of people served in state mental health systems received supported employment services in 2012. Even a college education has not been an effective hedge against unemployment or underemployment. As a nation, we can certainly do far better in providing the services people living with mental illness need to secure gainful employment. Failure to connect people with mental illness who want to work with effective supported employment programs carries a high public price tag. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability. People with mental illness are the largest and fastest growing group of Supplemental Worldwide. Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) beneficiaries. Increasing access to effective employment assistance would bring economic benefit to individuals affected by mental illness and to society as a whole. Work Disincentives in Public Benefits Fear that employment status will lead to loss of vital public income supports and medical benefits remains a real concern for people living with mental illness. The problem is illustrated by the cycle of employment, benefit loss and unemployment. When individuals who have SSI or SSDI start a job they may lose Medicaid or Medicare benefits, yet receive inadequate, if any job-based mental health benefits. Because they risk losing the ability to pay for mental health treatment many either resign from employment because they don’t want to relapse or disengage from treatment, then experience job loss when symptoms interfere with performance of their duties. Because this process is painful and regaining public benefits can be a lengthy, uncertain process, many are forced to drop out of the labor force and settle for public support. Until now, the following story has been all too common. Susan (not her real name) received SSDI and SSI with mental health services covered by Medicare and Medicaid. As her recovery from bipolar disorder progressed, she went back to work part-time with no employer sponsored health coverage. Despite the fact that she enjoyed her job and her employer was pleased with her performance, she resigned after seven months because she did not want to lose the medical benefits that paid for the care she needed to continue her recovery. She decided that the risks of working outweighed the benefits, and is no longer seeking paid work.Federal intervention is needed to standardize the support for people with mental illness Karakus et. al, 11 [Mustafa Karakus, Ph.D, Associate Director for Social Policy and Economics Research at Westat,? February 1, 2011, “FEDERAL FINANCING OF SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT AND CUSTOMIZED EMPLOYMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESSES: FINAL REPORT” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ] /Triumph DebateThere are very limited partnerships with DOL funded One-Stop Career Centers. CMHCs often do not have direct relationships with the Workforce Development Board and have little familiarity with the potential use of WIA funds. One-Stop Career Centers, in general, do not have expertise to serve persons with serious mental illness and in most cases they refer clients to VR agency. It appears that most One-Stop Career Centers have been trained and equipped with adaptive technologies to serve persons with physical disabilities and, to some extent, to serve persons with developmental disabilities; however, there have been almost no specific trainings related to serving persons with serious mental illness. In addition, the performance measures for One-Stop Career Centers (e.g., employment rate, earnings rate, literacy rate (youth), and retention) may create inadvertent disincentives to invest in serving persons with serious mental illness. In Washington State, the Work Force Development Board has been actively examining ways to improve access to their WorkSource Centers for people with mental illness and their participation in program services. Some WorkSourceCenters in Washington have made attempts to increase access to people with mental illness through grant funds such as, CE and Disability Navigator Projects. However, such efforts were not sustainable after the grant funding ceased. Providers in Washington see CE as an innovative flavor of SE and see it as a valuable tool particularly for some people with mental illness that require a more individualized (customized) approach to employment. Also, in Washington State, Medicaid managed care savings go through RSNs -- mostly counties -- and the RSNs have a large variation in their approach to SE. The system may require changes in order to attain a consistent approach to SE service in Washington. Stronger Federal Policies Coupled with Steady Federal Funding that is Based on Process Measures are Needed to Provide Employment Support to Individuals with Serious Mental Illness.Stronger federal policies are needed to get states to commit to provision of vocational services for people with mental illnesses. Such policies should lead various state agencies to work together and collaborate effectively. These policies should be backed by a sustainable federal funding stream. Rules and regulations should be predictable, easy to understand, clear, and not left to individual interpretation. There is a need for investment in the data infrastructure to streamline the processes and improve interagency collaborations in serving individuals. Also, providers and states need education, training, and technical assistance related to the most effective use of TTW funding. Collaborations and partnerships with DOL’s One-Stop Career Centers and use of related WIA funds should be promoted. The incentives to serve people with mental illness should be aligned with all agencies’ objectives and strategic missions. For example, VR’s focus on outcomes and funding contingent on performance may be aligned with the VR’s own mission but it may not always be consistent with the principles of IPS and/or the mission of DMH. Since the evidence base is already established for IPS SE services, process based (e.g., fidelity) reimbursement mechanisms can improve access to services for people with mental illness by changing incentives and create a reliable, sustainable funding system for providers. Attitudinal barriers and stigma regarding ability to work must be specifically addressed in federal agency policies and training. Training efforts to support individuals with disabilities must specifically address persons with mental illness and their right to work. 3. CURRENT STATE LEVEL MEDICAID FUNDING OPTIONS3 States use a range of strategies to cover services needed by individuals with mental illness to live and work in the community. Exactly what services are available and how they are used by providers to assist people in accessing and sustaining competitive employment varies and depends in part on how States use available Medicaid state plan options and waivers. It is important to keep in mind that the Medicaid program operates under broad federal guidelines but is administered by the states. This means that Medicaid programs vary considerably from state to state in terms of who is covered, services provided, and how those services are delivered. While there are certain mandatory benefits that must be covered through each state’s Medicaid plan, such as outpatient hospital services, physician services, and emergency room care, states can elect to amend their Medicaid plan to include a variety of additional “optional” benefits. For example traditional behavioral health services such as diagnostic evaluations, individual therapy and medication management are often provided through the mandatory outpatient hospital benefit and/or the optional clinic benefit. The behavioral health services offered through the outpatient hospital or clinic options however, are limited in terms of service location and the types of providers who are eligible to deliver the services and under what conditions (e.g., must be provided under the direction of a physician). As discussed below, the limitations inherent in both the clinic option and the mandatory outpatient hospital benefit have led some states to pursue other optional benefits that allow for greater flexibility in service location, provider type, and benefit design so as to better serve individuals with mental illness in community-based settings.A federal jobs guarantee, by definition, has to provide these supports to guarantee a job for allKim, 18 [Anne Kim, Senior Fellow at The Progressive Policy Institute, established columnist, May 2018, “Guaranteed Jobs: Too Big to Succeed”, Progressive Policy Institute,?] /Triumph DebateOne way to gauge the scope of the challenge around potential participants’ employability is to examine the ranks of workers “marginally attached” to the workforce, defined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as those who want to work and have looked for work in the last 12 months or those available to work but who have not searched for work in the last four weeks. These workers would presumably be prime targets for a federal jobs guarantee program. Among the 1.59 million workers considered “marginally attached” in 2017, less than a third reported being “discouraged over job prospects,” while the vast majority cited other reasons for not being in the labor force, such as the lack of child care or transportation, “ill health or disability,” and family responsibilities.18 Among the 1.59 million workers considered “marginally attached” in 2017, less than a third reported being “discouraged over job prospects.” If the purpose of a federal jobs program is to provide safety net employment for workers who cannot otherwise find private sector jobs, such an effort cannot succeed unless it also helps workers overcome the very barriers that made private sector work tougher for them to attain. This means the government not only needs to provide jobs, it needs to provide training so that workers can competently perform the work they’re given; affordable child care and transportation; remedial help if necessary with basic literacy and numeracy as well as so-called “soft skills”; mental health services and other accommodations. All of these are immensely complex, expensive and time-consuming services. But if the federal government is not willing to provide or at least subsidize these services, the “guarantee” of a job is meaningless unless there is some assurance of a worker’s potential success. And even then, there are a host of unanswered questions about the worker’s end of the bargain. Can a worker with a guaranteed job be fired? What if an employee is guilty of malfeasance or simply can’t perform? What rights and duties does a “guarantee” create?Mental illness is costlyRice et. al 98 [Dorothy P. Rice, Former director of the National Center for Health Statistics and is now the Professor Emerita at the Institute for Health & Aging and the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, 1998, “Health Economics and Cost Implications of Anxiety and Other Mental Disorders in the United States”,? British Journal of Psychiatry,?doi:10.1192/s0007125000293458] /Triumph DebateBackground Mental disorders impose a multi-billion dollar burden on the economy each year; translating the burden into economic terms is important to facilitate formulating policies about the use of resources. Method For direct costs, data were obtained from national household interview and provider surveys; for morbidity costs, atiming model was used that measures the lifetime effect on current income of individuals with mental disorders, taking into account the timing of onset and the duration of these disorders, based on regression analysis of Epidemiologic Catchment Area study data. The total economic costs of mental disorders amounted to US $147.8 billion in 1990. Anxiety disorders are the?most costly, amounting to $46.6 billion, or 31.5% of the total; schizophrenic disorders accounted for $32.5 billion, affective disorders for the $30.4 billion, and other mental disorders for $38.4 billion. Conclusions Mental illnesses, especially anxiety disorders, are costly to society. Although anxiety disorders have a higher prevalence than affective disorders and schizophrenia, use of medical care services is lowest for anxiety disorders. Anxiety disorders appear to be under-recognised and untreated even though treatment interventions have been shown to be effective and can be delivered in a cost-efficient manner.People with severe mental illness who work see more improvement in symptoms and quality of life than those who don’tBond et. al 01 [Gary R. Bond, Professor of Psychiatry at Dartmouth Medical School and the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center with a PH.D. from the University of Chicago, July 2001, “Does competitive employment improve nonvocational outcomes for people with severe mental illness?” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, ] /Triumph DebateThe authors examined the cumulative effects of work on symptoms, quality of life, and self-esteem for 149 unemployed clients with severe mental illness receiving vocational rehabilitation. Non-vocational measures were assessed at 6-month intervals throughout the 18-month study period, and vocational activity was tracked continuously. On the basis of their predominant work activity over the study period, participants were classified into 4 groups: competitive work, sheltered work, minimal work, and no work. The groups did not differ at baseline on any of the nonvocational measures. Using mixed effects regression analysis to examine rates of change over time, the authors found that the competitive work group showed higher rates of improvement in symptoms; in satisfaction with vocational services, leisure, and finances; and in self-esteem than did participants in a combined minimal work-no work group. The sheltered work group showed no such advantage.Mental Illness is more debilitating than physical illness in the workplaceDitton, 12 [Mary Ditton, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Health Management at the School of Health for the University of New England, January 2012, “Employment and Mental Illness”, Mental Illnesses - Understanding, Predicting, and Control,] /Triumph DebateBullying in the workplace is the failure management to shape workplace relationships in a constructive manner. The phenomena of bullying, in its obvious form is associated with persistent insults, offensive remarks, persistent criticism, personal and even physical abuse. In its subtle form bully consists of excluding or isolating the victim from his/her peer group or excluding them from information and/or appropriate interactions and opportunities in the workplace. The exact frequency of bullying is hard to determine but it is generally more common that employers like to state Einarsen et al (2003). In Australia the federal health and Safety regulator Comcare said that workplace bullying is on par with workplace stress as the main causes of serious mental stress claims (Griffiths, 2011). Employees who suffer mental illness are disadvantaged compared to employees with physical illnesses for two reasons. Firstly the nature of mental illness is such that it rarely starts suddenly. There is a gradual deterioration in wellbeing particularly with depression, and with treatment there is a gradual recovery. The gradual nature of the onset and recovery means that the employee is likely to be at work and not performing at his/her best. This is usually hidden, and fellow workmates cover and do what is necessary to protect their colleague, or if it is obvious the lower performance is viewed critically. The burden of hiding the depression-illness is an additional problem for the employee as workplaces generally are not sympathetic or knowledge about the true nature of the cycle of depression and its impact on the persons’ performance. 7. Future research Employment and mental illness is an important area for future research. These include: 1. What are the optimal social networks and social supports for employees and employee groups in different situations and how are these matched? There is not a universal social network or support that is beneficial to all employees in every circumstance. For example, employees living alone and near retirement have different social needs from the workplace than young employees with children who are just entering the workplace. Tailoring support to the particular mix of employees would ensure the most beneficial effect for their health in the most efficient manner.Unemployment due to COVID-19 is expected to increase suicide ratesKawohl et. al 20 [Wolfram Kawohl, Ph.D., President of the Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy and Chief Physician, Board Member of Psychiatric Services Aargau AG (qualifications translated from German), 2020, “COVID-19, Unemployment, and Suicide”, The Lancet Psychiatry,?doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30141-3] /Triumph DebateClose to 800000 people die by suicide every year.3 We used our core model’s estimates (intercept, sex, age group, and unemployment)2 to describe the non-linear connection between unemployment and suicide. We applied the overall estimates to World Bank Open Data (ie, worldwide number in the labour force in 2019, unemployment rate [modelled estimate from the International Labour Organization] for 2019, and male and female populations in 2018 in the four age groups). Because the model predicted only 671 301 suicides with this data, instead of 800 000, we added a correction term of 0·17 to address differences in space (194 vs 63 countries) and time (2020 vs 2000). The expected number of job losses due to COVID-19 were taken from the International Labour Organization’s press release from March 18, 2020,1 reporting a decline of 24·7 million jobs as a high scenario and 5·3 million jobs lost as a low scenario. In the high scenario, the worldwide unemployment rate would increase from 4·936% to 5·644%, which would be associated with an increase in suicides of about 9570 per year. In the low scenario, the unemployment would increase to 5·088%, associated with an increase of about 2135 suicides. According to WHO, each suicide in a population is accompanied by more than 20 suicide attempts.3 Thus, the number of mentally distressed people who might seek help from mental health services can be expected to increase in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the economic crisis of 2008 showed that the increase in suicides preceded the actual rise in the unemployment rate.2 We therefore expect an extra burden for our mental health system, and the medical community should prepare for this challenge now. Mental health providers should also raise awareness in politics and society that rising unemployment is associated with an increased number of suicides. The downsizing of the economy and the focus of the medical system on the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to unintended long-term problems for a vulnerable group on the fringes of society. It is important that various services, such as hotlines and psychiatric services, remain able to respond appropriatelyCrime / IncarcerationJobs and higher wages, both in and out of prison, are more likely to keep people from reincarcerationVisher et al. 08 [Christy Visher, Ph.D. from Indiana University, Director of CDHS and Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware, October 2008, “Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States”, Urban Institute Justice Policy Center,] /Triumph DebateResults showed that working before prison and earning wages early after release were significantly related to reincarceration the first year out. After controlling for all the factors listed above, respondents who worked in the 6 months before prison were nearly half as likely to be reincarcerated 12 months out as those who had not worked (16 percent compared with 28 percent). Similarly, the more wages earned two months after release, the lower a respondent’s likelihood of reincarceration. Predicted probabilities of reincarceration were 8 percent for those earning more than $10 per hour; 12 percent for those earning $7 to $10 per hour; and 16 percent for those earning less than $7 per hour—compared with 23 percent for those who were unemployed. Also notable was that respondents who participated in job training classes while in prison (about a fifth of the sample) were less likely to be reincarcerated one year out—with a difference approaching significance (p = 0.084) of 13 percent compared with 22 percent. Neither pre- nor post-prison work was related to self-reported recidivism outcomes after release, but releasees who had held a job while in prison were significantly less likely to report having been rearrested eight months out (19 percent compared with 28 percent of those with no job in prison). Collectively, these results point to the importance of past employment experiences and meaningful employment early after release in achieving longer term reintegration success. All things equal, former prisoners who are able to secure a job, ideally at higher than minimum wage, by two months out are more likely to successfully avoid recidivism the first 8 to 12 months after release. In-prison jobs and evidence-based employment programs may help toward this end.Ex-prisoners are disproportionately more likely to be unemployedHorn, 18 [Steve Horn, established journalist and former research fellow and reporter for the Center for Media and Democracy, September 8, 2018, “With 27 Percent Unemployment, Jobs Crisis Hits Ex-prisoners the Hardest” Prison Legal News, ] /Triumph DebateThe Prison Policy Initiative obtained its data from the National Former Prisoner Survey, conducted in 2008 under the auspices of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. That data, not available online, is stored in a warehouse at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. To put the ex-prisoner unemployment rate in context, it is “higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate during any historical period, including the Great Depression,” the PPI report explains. And it’s not a matter of being voluntarily unemployed or laziness, as critics often claim of those who lack a job. “Our estimate of the unemployment rate establishes that formerly incarcerated people want to work, but face structural barriers to securing employment, particularly within the period immediately following release,” the study states. “This perpetual labor market punishment creates a counterproductive system of release and poverty, hurting everyone involved: employers, the taxpayers, and certainly formerly incarcerated people looking to break the cycle.” For ex-offenders not looking for work because they have given up on finding a job, the statistics are even more alarming. “Joblessness” has been described by economists as a more accurate figure for measuring unemployment numbers than the unemployment rate, which does not include people without jobs who are not actively seeking work. Over 51 percent of formerly-incarcerated Hispanic and African-American women fit within the jobless category, while over 40 percent of male African-Americans and more than 33 percent of male Hispanic ex-prisoners are jobless. Further, over 38 percent of formerly-incarcerated white women and 27 percent of white males are classified as jobless. Compared to the general population of U.S. citizens who have never served time, the unemployment rate for ex-prisoners is over five times higher. And there is another startling discrepancy: the data indicates that ex-prisoners are actually more active in seeking jobs than those who have never been behind bars, according to the PPI report. “Among 25-44 year old formerly incarcerated people, 93.3% are either employed or actively looking for work, compared to 83.8% among their general population peers of similar ages,” the report notes. “Though unemployment among formerly incarcerated people is five times higher than among the general public, these results show that formerly incarcerated people want to work.” “These high unemployment rates reflect public will, policy, and practice – not differences in aspirations,” PPI study co-author Lucius Couloute explained in a press release. While having a job and thus regular income helps to reduce recidivism rates, the opposite – not being employed – often means a whole world of trouble for ex-prisoners trying to rebuild their lives. “The transition from prison back to the community is fraught with challenges; the search for employment is one of many tasks that can derail successful reentry,” the report states. “In the period immediately following release, formerly incarcerated people are likely to struggle to find housing and attain addiction and mental health support. They also face disproportionately high rates of death due to drug overdose, cardiovascular disease, homicide, and suicide within this crucial period.” Additionally, not all jobs are equal. The PPI report explains that ex-offenders frequently work in the most unstable, lowest-paying jobs, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and, all too often, re-incarceration. It’s a bleak picture that can have tragic outcomes.A jobs guarantee can help in removing hiring barriers to ex-prisoners? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Abrams, 2019 [Leah Abrams, Degree of Public Policy from Duke, Associate at West Wing Writers, December 6, 2019, “Who gets the job? Examining the relationship between automatic expungement policies and racial discrimination in NC” Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, (1).pdf?sequence=1] /Triumph DebateThe job guarantee is a promising proposal for addressing the employment penalty faced by justice-involved adults, as long as they remain eligible to enroll. Additionally of note is the concept of a ?Targeted ?Job Guarantee, or a policy aimed directly at the justice-involved community that could be implemented at the state or local level. Such a policy would guarantee employment to a key subgroup: justice-involved individuals. It would likely address many of the collateral consequences of incarceration and conviction outlined above; including increasing income levels and health outcomes, and reducing recidivism and homelessness. A targeted job guarantee aimed directly at justice-involved North Carolinians is a promising policy alternative beyond the methods discussed in this project, and it merits additional attention in future criminal justice discourse. VII. Conclusion Expungement is a proven pathway to “unmarking” and proposals making it more accessible loom on the horizon in states across the nation—North Carolina included. To the extent that automatic expungement policies incentivize hiring justice-involved applicants, they should be encouraged and supported. Additionally, as these initial results show, they may be significantly useful in increasing the perceived favorability of black male applicants as compared to the status quo condition—a desirable result given consistent discrimination in the criminal justice system.Federal jobs guarantee can help formerly incarcerated people reintegrate into communitiesTraub 18 [Amy Traub, Amy holds a BA in political science from the University of Chicago and an MA in political science from Columbia University, where she completed coursework toward a Ph.D. July 18, 2018. “Out of Prison, But Still Out of a Job,” Demos, ] /Triumph Debate?In our federal policy briefing book, Everyone’s Economy, Demos recommends policies that include requiring employers to remove questions about arrest and conviction from initial job applications (known as “ban the box”); mandating that employers wait until after they make a conditional offer of employment to request a job applicant’s arrest or conviction record; and following hiring guidelines from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which direct employers to take into account the time passed since the offense, whether the offense is related to the job, and evidence of rehabilitation. The recommendations draw on best practices developed by the National Employment Law Project. While 30 states, as well as many local jurisdictions, have adopted some form of fair-chance hiring policy, these efforts have not gone far enough. The Prison Policy Initiative recommends additional reforms around expunging criminal records, reforming occupational licensing rules that bar people with past convictions, and offering tax incentives to employers who hire people with a conviction record. A public jobs guarantee (see page 40 of Everyone’s Economy) would go further to address the problem: By making the federal government an employer of last resort for the formerly incarcerated and any other Americans seeking work, involuntary joblessness would be eliminated. People with conviction records would have far greater opportunity to reintegrate into their communities and support themselves and their loved ones. The rest of us would too.Federal jobs guarantee can help formerly incarcerated people establish a work historyNunn et al. 18 [Ryan Nunn, Jimmy O’Donnell, and Jay Shambaugh, Ryan Nunn of The Hamilton Project and the Brookings Institution. Jimmy O’Donnell of The Hamilton Project. Jay Shambaugh of The Hamilton Project, the Brookings Institution, and The George Washington University. December, 2018. “Labor Market Considerations for a National Job Guarantee,” The Hamilton Project, ] /Triumph DebateAnother group that often faces discrimination and hiring barriers in the labor market is the formerly incarcerated. Private employers value criminal background checks, which appear to play a strong role in many hirers’ decisions (Finlay 2009; Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2006). Call-back rates for job interviews are far lower both for black applicants and for applicants with criminal records (Pager 2003). In addition to private-sector barriers, public policies also present impediments: many states make it difficult or impossible for people with criminal records to obtain occupational licenses that are legally required to work in a particular field (Rodriguez and Avery 2016). In conjunction with reforming licensing and other institutions that impose collateral consequences of conviction, employment support programs could help the formerly incarcerated to establish a work history and improve their labor market outcomes (Doleac 2016). RAISING EMPLOYMENT IN STRUGGLING PLACES Gaps in employment exist not only across demographic characteristics, but also across place. Figure 3 shows the extent of concentrated poverty in large U.S. metro areas. As Austin, Glaeser, and Summers (2018) point out, many parts of the country—even in times of overall prosperity—face significant economic struggles; moreover, labor market outcomes do not appear to converge over time in the same way that they did in the past. In a 2018 framing paper, The Hamilton Project explored these geographic gaps, noted the lack of convergence across economic outcomes of counties from 1980 to 2016, and explored the challenge for public policy presented by these regional disparities (Nunn, Parsons, and Shambaugh 2018). Figure 4 shows that several counties in Appalachia, the Southeast, and the Southwest have prime-age employmentto-population ratios below 60 percent, while a number of counties in the upper Midwest and Northeast feature rates above 80 percent. These gaps dwarf employment rate gaps across groups or over time and help motivate geographically targeted employment support programs.A federal jobs guarantee would reduce spending on incarceration? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Tcherneva, 18 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, ?Associate Professor and Director of the Economics program at Bard College, Research Associate at the Levy Economics Institute, April 2018, “The Job Guarantee: Design, Jobs, and Implementation”, Levy Institute of Economics of Bard College, ] /Triumph DebateResearch indicates that most social problems—from homelessness and child malnourishment, to mental and physical health problems, to certain types of crime—are connected in one way or another to unemployment. For example, the average cost of incarceration in the United States is $35,000 per year per inmate, which is slightly below the $37,440 in wages and benefits that the JG provides. In New York State, the cost is $75,000 per inmate—the equivalent of two JG jobs. And in New York City, it is $169,000 per inmate per year, or equal to four-and-a-half living- wage JG jobs. Many of those who are behind bars for economic reasons (i.e., related to the absence of stable well-paid jobs and the associated pathologies unemployment creates) would be better served by taking up a JG job instead. Thus the federal JG program will also be a boon to state finances, causing large-scale savings on incarceration and other anti-poverty measures. All of these savings are not estimated in the cost calculations above. A more elaborate model will be needed to estimate the reduction in medical expenditures, incarceration costs, and other anti-poverty measures, as well as the positive social multipliers and growth that would result from implementing a JG.Decreased unemployment leads to decreased crime? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Raphael, 98 [Steven Raphael, Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, September 1, 1998, “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime”, Journal of Law and Economics, ] /Triumph DebateUsing the unemployment effects estimated here, one can make out-of-sample predictions concerning the effects on crime rates of the two percentage point drop in the unemployment rate. Our IV parameter estimates from the least restrictive specification - including state-specific time trends - predict declines of 9 percent for burglary, half of a percent for larceny, 13 percent for? auto theft, 13 percent for murder, 14 percent for rape and robbery, and nearly 30 percent for assault. Expressed as a percentage of actual declines, our parameter estimates indicate that 50 percent of the decline in the burglary rate, 11 percent of the decline in larceny, 80 percent for auto theft, 70 percent for murder, 90 percent for rape, 60 percent for robbery, and 280 percent of the decline in assault, can be attributed to recent declines in the unemployment rate.Economy - GeneralThe current system isn’t equipped to handle the upcoming economic crisisMcGaughey 20 [Ewan McGaughey, Lecturer in private law at King’s College and research associate at the University of Cambridge Centre for Business Research, 05-13-2020, “COVID-19 and job security: how to prevent a ‘pandemic of unemployment’”, LSE COVID-19 Blog, ] /Triumph DebateThe unemployment rate had been under 4% in the US and UK, and already people were struggling, because of soaring underemployment, and non-enforcement or evasion of labour rights. But the loss of jobs is now worse than the global financial crisis from 2007. It could be worse than the Great Depression from 1929. If there’s mass unemployment, people will not automatically be rehired when (or if) the virus is contained. If people are unemployed, they will have less income. They will spend less on business. Business will go bust, or may fire more people: a sinking spiral of dole queues and shuttered shops. This is why on the current policy, the most likely outcome is a new economic depression. This will be the first “You’re Fired” depression. The coronavirus won’t be responsible for a depression, because we know that mass unemployment is avoidable. It’s time to think hard about job security rights: to reasonable notice, a fair dismissal, severance pay on redundancy, and the crucial right to votes at work. Why the United States is the most vulnerable In the countries hit hardest by coronavirus, unemployment in the US is easily the worst. The US has no self- standing job security rights, except for a duty on employers to give 60 days warning before making mass layoffs. This is the “Donald Trump” system of job security. An arbitrary, incompetent or venal boss can say “you’re fired” for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. The only state with a law stopping wrongful discharge is Montana, population one million. Many have proposed a ‘just cause’ discharge system. All states could enact one. But as it stands, the US depression will probably be the worst, because the US has the worst job security in the world. Why Britain is really in trouble Though matters are not as bad, the UK is hit severely. UK job security laws require that an employer gives reasonable notice of at least one to twelve weeks before dismissal. An employer cannot, at any time, dismiss an employee in a way that breaches the basic ‘duty of mutual respect’, and after two years’ work, an employer can only dismiss for a fair reason as assessed by an Employment Tribunal. Also, after two years’ work, employers must give a redundancy payment.Automation is destroying jobs – we need reformEstlund 19 [Cynthia Estlund, Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, 2019, “Three Big Ideas for a Future of Less Work and a Three-Dimensional Alternative”, Duke Law, ] /Triumph DebateAutomation is destroying jobs. About that there is no doubt. Robots and algorithms can perform a growing range of job tasks faster, more cheaply, and or just plain better than humans, and are bound to replace them in many existing jobs. But technology has been replacing human labor and destroying jobs throughout the history of capitalism. The question that engages and divides economists and technology experts is whether automation will also generate enough new wealth, new consumer demand, and new jobs to offset the inevitable job losses. If so—and that remains the betting line among economists—then automation may yield higher productivity, stronger economic growth, and broadly shared gains. But if this time is different—as many observers and a growing number of economists believe—then we might face a future of much less work, or at least much less work for those with merely ordinary human skills. In that case, absent major policy interventions of some kind, many workers will face wage-depressing competition both from machines and from other displaced workers, while economic gains from automation will be sharply skewed toward those at the top who make or own the technology or who have scarce skills that are complemented by technology. While recognizing those conflicting predictions about the future, this article takes seriously the claim that this time may be different. The current wave of innovation—as suggested by the terms artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)—is producing hard and soft technologies that increasingly rival or surpass human performance on tasks that were long thought to require uniquely human capabilities. In short, “the functional capabilities of machines appear to be rising much faster and with fewer apparent natural limits than those of humans,”2 while their costs are falling. That makes it plausible that automation in the near future will destroy more jobs than it creates and drive down wages in the low- and medium-skill jobs that remain. That trajectory, though far from certain or inevitable, is likely enough that we should be thinking hard about how to respond.The economy won’t recover without job growthPicchi 20 [Aimee Picchi, writer for CBS Money Watch with a degree in journalism 10-10-2020, "What's the status of a second $1,200 stimulus check?," CBS, ] /Triumph DebateFor months, millions of Americans grappling with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic have been pinning their hopes on Congress delivering another round of financial relief, including direct cash payments and an extension of enhanced unemployment benefits. But the door for such assistance — slammed shut by President Donald Trump on Tuesday only for him to nudge it ajar later that day — may remain open. Mr. Trump is backing a revised stimulus package, according to White House economics adviser Larry Kudlow, who spoke to reporters on Friday morning. Kudlow didn't provide specifics about the relief plan, although he noted it would likely include stimulus checks as well as aid for the ailing airline industry. "I don't want to walk through the details because [Treasury Secretary Steven] Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi will be on the horn this afternoon" to negotiate the package, Kudlow said. That's a reversal from Mr. Trump's position earlier this week, when he pushed for a more limited series of separate measures: stimulus checks, $25 billion in aid for airlines and $135 billion in fresh loans for small businesses. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is championing a broader $2.2 trillion package passed by Democrats in the lower chamber last week, on Wednesday scoffed at the president's idea of targeted relief. "It's hard to see any clear, sane path in anything that he is doing," she said on "The View." Economists warn that failing to inject another dose of fiscal stimulus could stall the recovery, given the ongoing pandemic and economic headwinds. Job growth around the U.S. is slowing as big businesses continue to lay off workers, with the airline industry cutting tens of thousands of jobs this month. "Without faster job growth — unlikely at this stage of the recovery — or increased fiscal aid, households, businesses, and state and local governments will be increasingly susceptible to a deterioration of the health situation," noted Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. "Spreading political mess" Prior to the Friday's negotiations, Wall Street analysts had said the odds of reaching a compromise on either a broad package or more limited measures, such as a stimulus payment, before the November 3 election were dwindling. Replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program, which offers low-cost loans to small businesses, "is unlikely because lawmakers in both parties would likely want to attach additional measures to such a bill," Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips told investors in a report. "A standalone bill to authorize another round of stimulus payments to individuals is even less likely, as neither party has made this a priority." After both political allies and opponents of Mr. Trump had voiced their opposition to his decision to shut down the stimulus negotiations, the president's push for smaller relief bills appears to be "a hasty attempt to clean up a spreading political mess," according to Height Securities. "Making this push after gladly taking the blame for killing the larger talks is not a winning strategy, and we expect that Pelosi has little motivation to give Trump wins on the type of standalone aid he is asking for," Height analysts added. Struggling to pay the bills With the pandemic showing few signs of abating and earlier government aid now running out, many businesses and households are facing a financial crunch. One in three U.S. adults struggled to pay for basic expenses like food and rent at the end of September, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. The Democrats' updated HEROES (or Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions) Act was designed to offset some of those pressures. The relief bill, which passed the House on Thursday, would have supported a wide range of economic programs, from food stamps to restoring $600 in extra weekly jobless benefits. But Mr. Trump on Tuesday tweeted that he was pulling the plug on negotiations over further stimulus. After the virus erupted in the U.S. this spring, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act had distributed some 160 million checks to Americans, offering cash payments of $1,200 for individuals and $2,400 for married couples, up to some income limits. A better economic boost?FJG acts as a buffer for when inevitable economic downturnAntonopoulos 09 [Rania Antonopoulos, Visiting associate professor of economics at Bard College and a research scholar at the Levy Institute specialized in gender and economics and international competition and globalization, 06-2009, “Promoting gender equality through stimulus packages and public job creation: Lessons learned from South Africa's Expanded public Works Programme”, The Levy Economics Institute, ] /Triumph Debate*** ELR = employer of last resortEmployer of last resort (ELR) is a policy recommendation that is particularly relevant for one group of people whose economic suffering is based largely on a chronic and severe lack of employment opportunities—namely, the jobless. Its main feature is that the government steps in as guarantor to make available a job to those for whom the market fails to secure one, at a minimum wage.1 Beyond loss of income, and particularly troubling, joblessness is associated with not only poverty but also marginalization and social exclusion, susceptibility to extremist ideologies, the subjection of people to high levels of violence, and overall loss of hope. The current global crisis is clearly not helping on this front. There is, therefore, a particular urgency to engage in dialogue and pursue new policy directions, and it is generally acknowledged that fresh ideas are needed. From our perspective, in addition to new thinking, it is bold policy action that is in high order. In this context, ELR, which makes it the obligation of the state to provide a job to those unable to find one, is an option that warrants attention. At its core, ELR is a policy instrument that proposes an “employment benefit”—“employment insurance,” if you will—that, when set up as a permanent institution, also acts as an automatic stabilizer from a macroeconomic point of view. When markets are unable to generate sufficient numbers of job openings, public service job creation provides a work opportunity, at a minimum wage, to anyone willing and able to work.After COVID-19, the cyclical impact of unemployment makes economic recovery more difficult than it needs to be – FJG solvesLayard 20 [Richard Layard, British labour economist and programme director of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, 05-21-2020, “How a job guarantee scheme can avoid the slide into long-term unemployment”, LSE COVID-19 Blog, ] /Triumph DebateWidespread unemployment will be with us for a long time – potentially long after a vaccine or an effective treatment for COVID-19 has been found. Unemployment is already in excess of 10 percent of the workforce in Britain, the US and elsewhere. Many more have been furloughed. And even as lockdowns ease, perhaps only temporarily, those businesses that survive will be reluctant to drive new hiring – more layoffs are much more likely. This means the jobless will struggle to find new work and may end up in long-term unemployment. And as we’ve learned in other downturns, it can be very difficult to reverse that. Employers are frequently reluctant to consider hiring someone with a long period of unemployment in their recent history. For the person seeking work, therefore, a vicious cycle of failure and despair can result, and they gradually withdraw from the labour market. Depression and ill-health sometimes follow, adding to the burden on the NHS and making it even harder for the individual to get back in the workforce. As the workforce shrinks, demand falters and tax revenues fall further.? The first part of our response should be trying to stop as many as possible from becoming unemployed in the first place. The recent renewal of the UK furlough scheme is welcome in this regard, as are two changes that it will now include. The first is some element of cost-sharing with employers. Without this, there was a risk that employers would have been reluctant to release workers who have no long-term job, because furloughing is easier than making them redundant.A FJG would use workers to solve problems in a crisis, like COVID, that would allow the economy to bounce back fasterIIPP 20 [Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Educational institution in London, 06-2020, “A GREEN ECONOMIC RENEWAL FROM THE COVID-19 CRISIS”, University College London, ] /Triumph DebateA job guarantee programme (JGP) would ensure that all unemployed persons receive the opportunity to contribute their labour to solving societal challenges, while the economy rebounds (Tcherneva 2018). The vast increase in unemployment is a waste of potential that could immediately be targeted to environmental protection and restoration, health care needs, Covid-19 test-and-trace operations, training and re-skilling in accordance with the prerequisites of a green industrial strategy, and other tasks tailored to local community needs. A JGP is a societal infrastructure that expands in times of need. If this infrastructure and public sector capability to mobilise the unemployed for the public purpose was already in place, governments would have been able to rapidly scale up test-and-trace undertakings to limit the contagion, provide additional social care and deliver necessities to the isolated. Such an employment programme will work on the macro level as a strong automatic stabiliser, as it expands spending immediately in response to layoffs (ibid). Furthermore, a stabilising psychological effect will arise from the lower uncertainty of income in uncertain times. This will lower people’s precautionary motive to save in times of crisis. The targeted approach to unemployment is crucial since we have witnessed several ‘jobless recoveries’ in recent decades, where unemployment has not recovered in tandem with GDP.The economy won’t recover even if coronavirus is kept in checkIrwin 20 [Neil Irwin, senior economics correspondent for The NYT with a MBA from Columbia in Economics and Business Journalism, 10-3-2020, "The Pandemic Depression Is Over. The Pandemic Recession Has Just Begun,” NYT, ] /Triumph DebateThere is a straightforward narrative of the economy in 2020: The world shut down in the spring because of the coronavirus pandemic, causing an economic collapse without modern precedent. A sharp recovery began in May as businesses reopened. That is accurate as far as it goes. But the snapback effect over the summer has masked something more worrying: We’ve entered a longer, slower grind that puts the economy at risk for the indefinite future. In the details of government employment data — covering hundreds of industries — can be seen a jobs crisis that penetrates deeply into the economy. Sectors that in theory shouldn’t be much affected by the pandemic at all are showing patterns akin to a severe recession. Business news headlines are reflecting a drumbeat of layoffs normally seen in recessions. In the last few weeks alone, the oil giant Shell said it was cutting 9,000 positions, with Disney eliminating 28,000 and the defense giant Raytheon 15,000. After shedding jobs in the spring, these sectors have brought workers back slowly, or not at all, through the summer. Some have continued cutting positions. Employment at corporate headquarters — “management of companies and enterprises,” in the official terminology — fell by 92,000 in March and April, with another 4,000 jobs lost since. The 3.9 percent contraction in these jobs, typically white-collar professional positions, is considerably worse than the 2.4 percent drop during the 2008 recession. A similar pattern is evident across dozens of industries, employing tens of millions of workers. These sectors did not endure a prolonged pandemic-induced shutdown or collapse in business. But they have shed jobs over the last half-year at rates consistent with a serious downturn. The list is varied and includes real estate, automobile dealerships, advertising and heavy construction. It even includes truck transportation, a sector that functions as the economy’s circulatory system, given its crucial role enabling all sorts of commerce. Over all, even if you exclude the sectors directly affected by the pandemic — air transportation; arts and entertainment; hotels; restaurants; and both private and public education — the number of jobs in America was 4.6 percent lower in September than in February. That is not far from the 5.3 percent contraction in total employment that took place during the entire 18 months of what is now known as the Great Recession, and around three times worse than the job losses in the 2001 recession Executives in these industries and analysts who study them describe two related phenomena. One is the mechanical effect of shutdowns in large swaths of the economy. But as is often the case in recessions, the pandemic has prompted many companies to accelerate shifts that were already underway. That implies that even as public health restrictions loosen and as vaccines get closer, the overall economy is not poised for a quick snapback to pre-pandemic levels. Rather, scarring is taking place across a much wider range of sectors than the simple narrative of shutdown versus reopening suggests. When the economy does get back to full health, many jobs will no longer exist, and American workers will need to find other types of work — and historically, those kinds of readjustments take time. “We do expect there to be a new steady state, but not until 2023 or 2024,” said Sophia Koropeckyj, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. In a new report, she estimates that five million people will find it difficult to get new work after the pandemic because their old jobs have disappeared or changed significantly. “I don’t think the severity of this downturn has been well understood yet given the bounce-back over the summer.” Concentric circles of damage The list of things they make at Herron Printing & Graphics is, more accurately these days, the list of things they do not make. Based in Gaithersburg, Md., the company produces the branded tchotchkes and trinkets that companies give out at trade shows that are currently not being held. It prints menus for restaurants that now require customers to pull up menus on their phones; it makes the logo-bearing notepads found on the desks in hotel rooms that are closed indefinitely. Seven months in, business is still down 90 percent from pre-pandemic levels, said the owner, Randy Herron. He has cut the staff to three employees from 12 and postponed purchases of equipment indefinitely. He is dipping into his savings to keep the business alive, counting on a day when a vaccine arrives and creates a surge of activity in travel-related industries — and, he hopes, commensurate demand for the goods he supplies. Mr. Herron’s business is more exposed than most printers, because his client list is heavily tilted toward the hotel and restaurant industries, but the employment numbers for his industry tell the story. In September, printing industry jobs were 12.5 percent below February levels, similar to the 15 percent employment drop experienced in the 2008-9 recession. “People don’t realize that if one industry is hurting, it’s going to hurt several other industries that supply them and leave people without money to spend,” said Mr. Herron, who is also president of the National Print Owners Association. Simply put, when you take a huge segment of the economy out of commission for months on end, the impact can’t be confined to the workers in those industries. The suppliers of hotels and restaurants suffer revenue collapses, and so on in concentric circles outward. Mr. Herron, for example, said there was no chance he would be purchasing new printing equipment or software for the foreseeable future. The damage to businesses’ investment spending is a key way that the economy could remain impaired even when public health concerns ebb. A lurch into a more automated futureA COVID-19 vaccine won’t save the economy – it’s irrelevantRiley 20 [Charles Riley, Europe Editor at CNN Business, 9-6-2020, "A vaccine won't cure the global economy," CNN, ] /Triumph Debate An effective vaccine has been touted as the magic bullet that will allow the global economy to quickly shift back into gear. Yet there are reasons why the recovery may be slow going: vaccines are typically not 100% effective and there will be a limited number of doses to go around. Distribution could be a problem, both between countries and within them. Even if those challenges are overcome, some people may choose not to take the vaccine. Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics, wrote recently in a research note that there are a range of potential outcomes for economies once a vaccine is certified. And it would be wrong, he said, to assume that a vaccine will transform the economic outlook for next year. "At one end of the spectrum lies a highly effective vaccine that is produced and distributed quickly. At the other lies a less effective vaccine that faces significant production and distribution challenges and would be in relatively short supply in 2021," he said. "In most scenarios in between, it is likely that containment measures, including social distancing and restrictions on some foreign travel, will remain in place for the foreseeable future." The first challenge is the vaccine itself: The World Health Organization has said it would prefer a vaccine to be at least 70% effective, but it has set its minimum threshold for a Covid-19 vaccine at 50%. That means every other person who is vaccinated may still be at risk of an infection that would prevent them from working and spending money. Supply is another important factor: According to Shearing, figures from developers suggest 1 billion doses may be available this year, with another 7 billion ready for distribution in 2021. But those numbers assume multiple vaccines are approved, and supply could turn out to be significantly lower. Specialized needles and syringes will be needed to administer the vaccine, but countries including the United States don't have enough on hand. There's also a global shortage of glass vials to contend with. The WHO does not expect widespread vaccinations until the middle of next year, a spokesperson said Friday. Finally, many people are reluctant to take a vaccine: According to a survey commissioned by Deutsche Bank, only 61% of people in France say they plan to take a vaccine if one is certified in the next six months, while the same is true for 70% to 75% of Germans, Italians, Spanish, Brits and Americans. In Europe, only half of the population agreed that "vaccines are safe," the bank said last week in a research note. "From the perspective of the global economy the issue is not as simple as whether there is or isn't a vaccine," said Shearing.Jobs guarantee is market favoring Merrill 14 [David Merrill, University of Oxford, “Hyman Minsky, Hegel and the Ethics of the Job Guarantee”, Homo Oeconmicus, ] /Triumph DebateOn the other hand, the JG is market favoring in a multitude of ways. The JG provides a wage and benefits package only at the lower end and so does little to threaten the commercial viability of most enterprises in the private sector. At the same time, JG both provides a floor with respect to wages and benefits and shrinks the informal sector, bringing welfare advantages to workers in the private sector. The JG will be a counter cyclical spending program counteracting private sector employment fluctuations. JG’s uniform fixed wage will have a stabilizing influence on prices. Therefore, it is right to conclude that the JG does not violate the market favoring principle but has the potential to be one of its chief bulwarks. Is such a program coercive? Is it a type of workfare? Is it fundamentally at odds with the freedom that should be at the heart of economic justice? The work in question is not a condition for the receiving of traditionally construed welfare benefits. It is a condition for gaining a livelihood. Should existing benefits be denied to an individual who is capable and available to partake in the JG program? A first thought is to say that when an individual becomes unemployed they are entitled to unemployment benefits so that the first months of unemployment can be dedicated to finding a new job in the private sector. The extent of the unemployment benefits might be a function of the individual’s participation in an insurance scheme. However, the situation such an individual is in may not be reflective of the problem the JG addresses. If there is no chronic unemployment problem for the individual in question, that is to say, the issue at hand is merely frictional unemployment, then the JG is not relevant. The main problem the JG addresses is the lack of jobs. When the problem is a lack of jobs, supply side remedies regarding job search or education, training and skills are of secondary importance.FJG improves the skills of workers which makes companies spend less money in hiring and more in improving productionMurray and Fostater 13 [Michael J Murray, Assistant professor of Economics at Bemidji State University and a research associate with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, Mathew Forstater, professor of Economics at the University of Missouri—Kansas City; director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability; and research associate with the Jerome Levy Economics Institute, 01-07-2013, “The Job Guarantee: Toward True Full Employment”, Palgrave Macmillan, ] /Triumph DebateIn addition to providing full employment and macroeconomic stability, and reducing the social and economic costs of unemployment, the JG has numerous other potential benefits. Staying employed maintains the skills of workers, whose productivity declines during periods of joblessness. The JG can provide training and education, which may open opportunities for employment in new occupations and industries. Businesses benefit from hiring workers who have been able to maintain and even enhance their capabilities. By guaranteeing high and stable incomes and demand, the uncertainty characterizing investment decisions is reduced, and firms will have the resources and incentives to retool and make use of the latest technologies. In addition to creating jobs, income, and demand, and developing skills and offering opportunities for training and education, the JG also supports the provision of public services. Suddenly there is no labor constraint for providing services often in short supply and for addressing unmet social and community needs. Libraries and community centers can stay open every night, and additional helping hands are available for playgrounds, nursing homes, and recycling centers. Revitalized infrastructure reduces costs and stimulates productivity. The JG is also the only real means of achieving the right to employment found in numerous government and other documents, such as the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The right to employ- ment is also the most important means to many other economic and social rights, such as the right to food, housing, and health care.A FJG boosts the economy because people feel more confident and are willing to spend moreIIPP 20 [Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Educational institution in London, 06-2020, “A GREEN ECONOMIC RENEWAL FROM THE COVID-19 CRISIS”, University College London, ] /Triumph DebateThe “right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment” is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 23.1). It has since been advocated by the US civil rights movement and, most recently, as a part of plans for a Green New Deal programme (Mazzucato and McPherson 2018). A job guarantee programme (JGP) would ensure that all unemployed persons receive the opportunity to contribute their labour to solving societal challenges, while the economy rebounds (Tcherneva 2018). The vast increase in unemployment is a waste of potential that could immediately be targeted to environmental protection and restoration, health care needs, Covid-19 test-andtrace operations, training and re-skilling in accordance with the prerequisites of a green industrial strategy, and other tasks tailored to local community needs. A JGP is a societal infrastructure that expands in times of need. If this infrastructure and public sector capability to mobilise the unemployed for the public purpose was already in place, governments would have been able to rapidly scale up test-and-trace undertakings to limit the contagion, provide additional social care and deliver necessities to the isolated.Such an employment programme will work on the macro level as a strong automatic stabiliser, as it expands spending immediately in response to layoffs (ibid). Furthermore, a stabilising psychological effect will arise from the lower uncertainty of income in uncertain times. This will lower people’s precautionary motive to save in times of crisis. The targeted approach to unemployment is crucial since we have witnessed several ‘jobless recoveries’ in recent decades, where unemployment has not recovered in tandem with GDP. 4. A fair and achievable green transition for the Global South Both the historical ecological debt owed by advanced economies, and the current imbalances in per capita carbon emissions and other resource use, obligates the developed world to shoulder a greater part of the burden of the transition. Importantly, developing countries do not have the same financial or productive capacity to embark on a vigorous green transition, even as significant proportions of their populations are still deprived of the means to live securely and with dignity. This means that expansion of the material consumption of the poor in developing countries is necessary, but it must be achieved in sustainable ways and without further damaging the natural environment. It will be decisive for global heating that they do not lock in to polluting legacy technologies. Also, countries still in the process of urbanisation need to be encouraged to develop more eco-friendly and sustainable patterns of urban development that reduce energy dependence and waste, as well as allow more pleasant and liveable environments. These goals must be supported by financial means, as well as access to new green technologies and capital goods. Intellectual property rules are being used to deny governments and private investors in the Global South the right to access relevant technologies needed for an effective green transition.A federal jobs guarantee would increase GDP by billionsWray et. al 18 [ L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at Bard College with a Ph.D. from Washington University, Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute, April 2018, “Public Service Employment: a Path To Full Employment” Levy Economics Institute of Bard College,] /Triumph Debate***PSE = public service employmentReal, inflation-adjusted GDP (2017Q4 dollar values) would be boosted by $560 billion per year on average, once the PSE program is at full strength (from 2020 to 2027).? The economic stimulus generated by the PSE program would also increase private sector employment by up to an additional 4.2 million private sector jobs relative to the baseline, due to the “multiplier effects” of the program. Even though it boosts GDP by over $500 billion per year, adds more than 19 million private and public service jobs, and raises wages nationwide above $15 per hour, the program’s impact on inflation is minor: the boost to inflation peaks at 0.74 percentage points higher than the baseline projection and then progressively falls to a negligible 0.09 percentage points higher than the baseline by the end of the simulation period. The program’s net impact on the federal budget averages 1.53 percent of GDP in the first five years of the program (2018–22) and 1.13 percent of GDP in the last five years (2023–27). These net budgetary impacts could be significantly overestimated, since the simulation makes very cautious assumptions about offsetting reductions in Medicaid and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) expenditures that would result from higher employment and wages. State-level government budgets are improved by a total of $53 billion per year by boosting employment and growth. Based on the demographics of estimated PSE participants, the program would disproportionately benefit women and minorities. ? One full-time worker in the PSE program could lift a family of up to five out of poverty. With one full-time and one part-time worker, a family of eight could rise above the poverty line. ? In addition to these measured benefits, the PSE program would lower spending by all levels of government, as well as by businesses and households, on a range of costly problems created by unemployment. It is possible that the program would “pay for itself” in terms of savings due to reduced crime, improved health, greater social and economic stability, and larger reductions in Medicaid and EITC expenditures than those assumed in the simulations. ? The projects undertaken in every community would provide visible benefits, meeting specific local needs through work that involves caring for people, strengthening communities, and protecting and renewing the environment. This report develops a blueprint for the design, jobs, and implementation of the PSE proposal for the United States.Federal jobs program increases wages - both private & public sectorMuralidharan 20 [Karthik Muralidharan, Paul Niehaus, and Sandip Sukhtankar. Karthik Muralidharan works for UC San Diego. Paul Niehaus works for UC San Diego. Sandip Sukhtankar works for the University of Virginia. 04/19/20, “General equilibrium effects of (improving) public employment programs: experimental evidence from India” (Current%20WP).pdf] /Triumph Debate?Public employment programs may affect poverty through both the income they provide and their effects on private labor markets. We estimate both effects, exploiting a large-scale experiment randomized across 157 sub-districts (with an average population of 62,500 each) that improved the implementation of India’s national rural employment guarantee scheme. The reform raised low-income households’ earnings by 13%, with 90% of this gain coming from nonprogram earnings, driven by increases in both market wages and private-sector employment. Workers’ reservation wages increased and their employment gains were higher in treated areas with more concentrated landholdings, consistent with monopsonistic labor markets. We also find increases in credit, private assets, and longer-term enterprise counts and non-agricultural employment, underscoring the far-reaching market impacts of the initial reform. Overall the results suggest that public employment programs can effectively reduce poverty in developing countries, and may also improve economic efficiencyFJG Stops The COVID-19 Spread – 3 WaysCOVID-19 has led to job loss, resulting in less access to healthcare in the USDarity and Milam 20 [William Darity, Jr., and Dawn Milam, William Darity, Jr. is a Samuel DuBois Cook Distinguished Professor of Public Policy, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy. Dawn Milam is a Senior Advisor at The Justice Collaborative Institute. 09/2020, “The Case For A Federal Job Guarantee Program,” The Justice Collaborative Institute, ] /Triumph Debate?The United States is several months into the worst recession since the Great Depression. Record numbers of workers have lost their jobs, with thousands more furloughed or fearing future layoffs. More than 27 million Americans are receiving some kind of unemployment benefit. And because most American workers receive health insurance through their employer, the job crisis has even more significant consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic: A recent study shows that 5.4 million workers lost their health insurance between February and May, nearly 40% more than the previous record-setting losses in the 2008-09 recession. The CARES Act provided important stop-gaps to address the overwhelming unemployment numbers, offering an additional $600 per week until the end of July, to all those receiving unemployment insurance, and extending the length of time they could receive benefits. The legislation also established the Paycheck Protection Program to provide federally guaranteed loans to small businesses for the purpose of maintaining payroll, benefits, and other expenses for eight weeks. But these programs are limited, intended only as emergency measures, and not as solutions to the deepening employment crisis. Even before the pandemic, the country was marked by steep income inequality, with the productivity gains of economic expansion going to the wealthiest Americans. The most vulnerable groups—including Black and Latinx people, veterans, and people with disabilities—are much more likely to be involuntarily unemployed or underemployed. Forty percent of workers in America are employed in insecure, “contingent” jobs, and almost half (44%) of workers work in low-wage jobs. The coronavirus pandemic has only widened the divide between those with and without employment that offers a meaningful path to financial security.2 out of 5 people said they or their spouse had health coverage affected due to lost/furloughed job because of COVID-19Collins et al. 20 [Sara R. Collins, Munira Z. Gunja, Gabriella N. Aboulafia, Erin Czyzewicz, Christian H. Kline, Robyn Rapoport, and Sarah Glancey, Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., is vice president for health care coverage and access at The Commonwealth Fund, 06/23/2020, “An Early Look at the Potential Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Health Insurance Coverage,” The Commonwealth Fund, ] /Triumph DebateTwenty-one million people in the United States were unemployed in May — more than 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. With more than half the U.S. adult population dependent on their employer or a family member’s employer for their health insurance, a key concern is that many of the newly unemployed have lost their health benefits along with their jobs.2 Federal survey data will not be available for some time to assess COVID-19’s impact on health insurance coverage. To provide an early look at how the pandemic has affected health coverage, the Commonwealth Fund and the survey research firm SSRS conducted a nationally representative telephone survey of 2,271 adults ages 18 and older from May 13 through June 2, 2020. We asked respondents whether they or their spouse or partner had lost a job or been furloughed since February, whether either or both had health insurance through that job, and what their current insurance status was. We also asked for their views on balancing health risks with opening the economy and whom they most trusted to make that determination. Among people who said they or a spouse or partner lost a job or were furloughed because of the pandemic, two of five had health coverage through the affected job. Among those who previously had coverage through an affected job, one of five said they or a spouse or partner were now uninsured. Among those who previously had coverage through an affected job, one of five said they or a spouse or partner were now uninsured.Healthcare for COVID-19 is expensive & actively discourages people from seeking out medical treatment (1/7 people poll)Konrad 20 [Walecia Konrad, Walecia Konrad is an award-winning financial journalist and content producer specializing in health care and personal finance. She has worked at CBS MoneyWatch, The New York Times, Money, SmartMoney and BusinessWeek, 05/15/2020, “After battling COVID-19, survivors may have to fight big medical bills,” CBS News, ] /Triumph DebateTreatment costs could top $20,000. Exactly what's covered by insurance for COVID-19 patients with out-of-pocket health care costs is a mystery to plenty of patients like Thomas. The patchwork of initiatives from the government and health insurance industry may create as much confusion as relief for consumers. "I wish there were a federal law that said it was illegal to give a bill to a patient during all this," said Karen Pollitz, senior fellow at Kaiser Family Foundation. "But it all depends on who is taking care of you." Costs for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 may reach $20,000 per person, while individuals can expect to pay an average of at least $1,300 in out-of-pocket costs, according to a Kaiser analysis. Even patients who aren't hospitalized may still face pricey medical bills for outpatient treatments, testing and ER visits that don't end in hospital admission, health advocates said. Fear of racking up heavy medical bills may be keeping at least some people from seeking COVID-19 treatment. About one in seven adults said they would avoid seeking medical care for a fever and dry cough due to concerns about costs, according to a recent study from Gallup and West Health. Dozens of insurers, including Aetna, Cigna and Humana have waived some combination of co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles for COVID-19 treatments including hospital stays, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. But these waivers vary in what they cover, and not all people with insurance may be eligible. In many cases, these waivers apply to treatment from out-of-network providers — an important consideration for patients in hard-hit areas where it may be impossible to limit your options to in-network care. Bills for out-of-network services are often the cause of surprise medical expenses. Before the outbreak, several members of Congress were working on ways to eliminate surprise billing. Now, several patient advocate groups are encouraging lawmakers to deal with the issue for all patients in the next stimulus bill. The pandemic "shines a bright light on just how broken our health system is," said Emily Holubowich, vice president of federal advocacy for the American Heart Association. Patients with heart disease are at much higher risk for serious complications from COVID-19 and, in turn, expensive medical bills.Lack of insurance discourages medical treatmentTolbert 20 [Jennifer Tolbert, and the Uninsured Washington, DC Jennifer Tolbert is Director of State Health Reform at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and an Associate Director for the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 03/16/2020, “What Issues Will Uninsured People Face with Testing and Treatment for COVID-19?,” Kaiser Family Foundation, ] /Triumph DebatePeople who are uninsured will likely face unique barriers accessing COVID-19 testing and treatment services. Over half of the uninsured do not have a usual place to go when they need medical care, and one in five uninsured adults in 2018 went without needed medical care due to cost (Figure 2). Studies repeatedly demonstrate that uninsured people are less likely than those with insurance to receive services for major health conditions and chronic diseases. Without a usual source of care, the uninsured may not know where to go to get tested if they think they have been exposed to the virus and may forego testing or care out of fear of having to pay out-of-pocket for the test. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to screen and stabilize patients with emergent conditions, however, they are not required to provide the care at no cost for patients who cannot pay, and they are not required to provide treatment for non-emergent conditions. As a result, uninsured individuals are less likely to use the emergency department than people with insurance, and the high costs of ED care may dissuade those without coverage from seeking care in that setting. Uninsured individuals who contract COVID-19 and need medical care will likely receive large medical bills, even if they have low incomes and are unable to pay. When uninsured individuals need medical care, the costs can be prohibitive. Uninsured people pay the full cost of care, often at higher rates than those with insurance whose coverage may negotiate lower rates than a hospital otherwise charges. While some uninsured can get care at community health centers and other safety net providers, these providers have limited resources and capacity, and not all uninsured have geographic access to a safety net provider. Because the U.S. lacks a comprehensive hospital charity care policy, uninsured individuals who use hospital care will be billed for the services. Uninsured individuals who meet certain criteria may qualify for a hospital’s charity care program to reduce any hospital bills; however, not all hospitals are required to offer charity care programs, and among those that do, the eligibility criteria can vary widely. Fear of large and unaffordable medical bills can deter uninsured individuals from getting the care they need. In the context of a public health emergency, decisions to forego care because of costs can have devastating consequences.Federal jobs guarantee includes health insurance like other fed jobsPaul et al. 18 [Mark Paul , William Darity, Jr. , and Darrick Hamilton, Mark Paul is a Postdoctoral Associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. William Darity Jr. is the Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and Economics and the Director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Darrick Hamilton is Professor of Economics and Urban Policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy and Department of Economics at the New School for Social Research, and Director of the Doctoral Program in Public and Urban Policy at The New School. 03/09/2018, “The Federal Job Guarantee—A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ] /Triumph DebateAlthough the programs listed above may have been effective in reducing unemployment, poverty, hunger, and other social ills, they fall short of providing a social insurance system that offers a genuine path to full employment and the elimination of poverty. We recommend a slate of bold legislation to achieve and maintain full employment and end working poverty in the U.S. economy. We recommend: ? The permanent establishment of a National Investment Employment Corps (NIEC). The NIEC will provide universal job coverage for all adult Americans. The permanent establishment of the NIEC would eliminate involuntary unemployment. ? The elimination of poverty wages through the pay structure of the NIEC. The federal job guarantee would provide a job at a minimum annual wage of $24,600 for full-time workers (poverty line for a family of four) and a minimum hourly wage of $11.83. Workers would have the opportunity to advance within the program, rising from the minimum wage in the program to an estimated mean salary of $32,500. The wage would be indexed to the inflation rate to ensure that the purchasing power of enrollees is maintained and the wage will vary to allow for some degree of regional variation. The minimum wage rate in the program will also rise to meet the national minimum wage if it were to exceed the wage rate recommended here. The inclusion of fringe benefits. To provide a true non-poverty wage and meet the fundamental rights of American citizens, the policy will include health insurance for all full-time workers in the program. The health insurance program should be comparable to that offered to all civil servants and elected federal officials. In addition, the NIEC would offer benefits such as retirement plans, paid family and sick leave, and one week of paid vacation per three months worked. These benefits, in conjunction with non-poverty wages, will set a reasonable floor in the labor market—which, through competitive forces, will result in private-sector workers having the dignity of fringe benefits as well. A Bold Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment The persistence of involuntary unemployment in the U.S. economy is the status quo—but it need not be. Recent research has highlighted the policy mechanisms behind rising inequality in the United States; likewise, unemployment substantially affects inequality and is itself affected by the policy.12 While the Federal Reserve initially had a single mandate of price stability, the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (commonly known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act) legally required the Federal Reserve to pursue “maximum employment,” thereby creating the modern dual mandate of the Federal Reserve. While the maximum employment mandate has resulted in sizable employment gains when the Federal Reserve chooses to prioritize it, the mechanism has proven far from sufficient in achieving full employment in the Keynesian sense—that is, an economy where anyone who wants a job can find a job.13 Although the federal government has established full employment as a national goal in the past— via the Employment Act of 1946 and the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978—it has failed to achieve these goals through macroeconomic stabilization policies, monetary or fiscal. The only time the United States was operating near full employment was during World War II. From 1943 to 1945, the U.S. operated at an average unemployment rate under 1.7 percent.14 Thus, this paper proposes the creation of a National Investment Employment Corps to achieve permanent full employment in the U.S. economy through large-scale, direct hiring by the federal government.15 We argue that not only would such a policy bring the economy to sustained full employment, but it also would constitute a sizable restructuring of the labor market.16 The federal job guarantee would provide a job, at non-poverty wages, for all citizens above the age of 18 that sought one.17 The minimum wage rate in the program is $11.83 an hour, equivalent to $24,600 per year for full-time workers, which is the current poverty line for a family of four. This rate would be indexed to inflation, ensuring that workers’ purchasing power is maintained over time.18 The program would incorporate wage variation based on time and performance in the program, a worker’s previous experience, education, and region of residence; thus, we estimate a mean annual wage for all employees at approximately $32,500. The permanent establishment of the NIEC would eliminate persistent involuntary unemployment in the economy, ensuring that the United States lives up to the unfunded mandate to achieve and maintain full employment as outlined in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. But we know that a job is not sufficient for workers to live a life of decency and guard against poverty. To provide an adequate living for workers and keep them and their families financially stable, workers will receive a benefits package in addition to a non-poverty wage as part of their compensation. At this time, we estimate additional expenditures of $10,000 per full-time worker per year to provide adequate health insurance and benefits. Since workers would be public employees, the insurance would be comparable to current health insurance plans offered to civil servants, including members of Congress. Other fringe benefits will also be provided to workers, including paid family and sick leave and one-week paid vacation per three months worked.Federal jobs guarantee incentivizes private-sector health care benefits tooPaul et al. 18 [Mark Paul, William Darity Jr., Darrick Hamilton, and Khaing Zaw, Mark Paul is a postdoctoral associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. William Darity Jr. is Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African American Studies, and Economics, and director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Darrick Hamilton is associate professor of economics and urban policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy and Department of Economics, New School for Social Research, and director of the doctoral program in public and urban policy at the New School. Khaing Zaw is a research associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University., 02/2018, “A Path to Ending Poverty by Way of Ending Unemployment: A Federal Job Guarantee,” Russell Sage Foundation, ] /Triumph DebateThe FJG would reach persons in the workforce who are subject to persistent exclusion from work, ensuring their capacity to secure employment. Groups continuously subjected to higher odds of joblessness, including exoffenders, recent military veterans, and racialethnic groups who experience discrimination, would be assured decent work at nonpoverty wages (Schmitt and Warner 2010; Loughran 2014; Darity 2003).6 These are the same groups subject to stubbornly high rates of poverty, in part because of their weaker job prospects (Proctor, Semega, and Kollar 2016; Western and Pettit 2010). The persistent racial unemployment gap, as discussed, would effectively be eliminated by the FJG. By establishing a condition whereby the lowest paid job in the FJG program offers nonpoverty wages and benefits, including health insurance for the worker and their family, the federal job guarantee would set a new economy-wide floor on the level of compensation that the private sector would need to offer to attract workers. Minimum wage laws and living wage standards are effective only to the extent that employees actually have jobs. A FJG, on the other hand, would combine an assurance of employment with an assurance of decent compensation. The FJG also will function as an automatic stabilizer, its numbers of participants expanding during economic downturns and contracting during more prosperous times. Other articles in this double issue make important contributions on how best to improve and expand the existing system of social insurance. Our proposal offers a bold, yet historically grounded, alternative. The FJG fundamentally would alter the nature of poverty and the structure of the labor market by mandating a full employment economy achieved by the government taking the function of direct job creation. Some of the authors have been advocates of a FJG for several years (Darity 2010, 2012; Darity and Hamilton 2012), but a number of issues and criticisms have been advanced about the FJG policy. Our objective is to provide a comprehensive design for a FJG that explicitly addresses these central criticisms and to further explore the impact of a FJG on poverty.There is still a shortage of COVID-19 medical materialsContera 20 [Jessica Contrera, Jessica Contrera is a reporter for The Washington Post's local enterprise team, 09/21/2020, “The N95 shortage America can’t seem to fix,” The Washington Post, ] /Triumph Debate?It was purchased by Johns Hopkins Hospital, the famed medical institution that has tracked cases of the novel coronavirus around the world since the pandemic’s start. When its map of dots marking clusters of infections began to show pools of red across the United States, Hopkins was quietly unpacking a stock of personal protective equipment it had been building for over a year — a literal lifesaver when the onslaught of covid-19 cases led to a massive shortage of N95s. Six months later, that shortage persists, leaving health-care workers exposed, patients at risk and public health experts flummoxed over a seemingly simple question: Why is the world’s richest country still struggling to meet the demand for an item that once cost around $1 apiece? At Hopkins, nurses are asked to keep wearing their N95s until the masks are broken or visibly dirty. Williams, a 30-year-old from Georgia with a marathoner’s endurance and a nurse’s practicality, went into health care after working for three years in the corporate offices of retailers Abercrombie & Fitch and Under Armour. She understood supply chains. She believed that the makers of N95s, anticipating the pandemic’s eventual end, would invest only so much in expanding production. She believed it was her duty, on top of risking her life for her patients, to make her disposable respirator mask last through as many 12-hour shifts as she could. When the country was short of ventilators, the companies that made them shared their trade secrets with other manufacturers. Through the powers of the Defense Production Act, President Trump ordered General Motors to make ventilators. Other companies followed, many supported by the government, until the terrifying problem of not enough ventilators wasn’t a problem at all.Federal jobs guarantee can be used to produce COVID-19 resourcesPham and Thacker 20 [Joshua Pham and Grayson Thacker, Joshua Pham and Grayson Thacker both are working on an MS from Wright State University. Spring, 2020, “Distributed Manufacturing in Dayton: Combating COVID-19 Through Public Service Employment,” Student Paper in Local and Gloal Regional Economies, ] /Triumph Debate?In conclusion, this paper is focused on offering Dayton an alternative job program that would catapult the local economy and have limited environmental externalities. This solution is imperative to the Dayton economy as it has experienced a mass exodus of manufacturing. The day and age of centralized manufacturing in Dayton are done. Therefore, something needs to replace the loss of industry and production. Distributed manufacturing is a solution that has become more feasible to implement within this local economy. Dayton water supply is relied on by the Great Miami Buried Valley Aquifer, this requires heavy regulation to ensure the water is not contaminated. Unfortunately, this comes at a high cost for business as production costs are no longer as affordable as transition to another local economy where restrictions are minimal. Thus, this gives rise to distributed manufacturing, making adherence to strict environmental regulations possible while still giving economic access to low skilled laborers. Furthermore, this paper gives a detailed account of certain sectors of the Dayton economy that would flourish with a new jobs program. Face shields, masks, and other commodities can easily be produced with 3D printing to aid not only the current coronavirus crisis but bring jobs back into the Dayton economy. This will have a variety of positive effects on economic activity, and, as it begins to grow, many other avenues will open for continual growth and development in this local economy. Most of all, this will be a very environmentally friendly proposition. Moreover, this is a highly probable job program as the fixed and variable costs of distributed manufacturing are quite low. This was analyzed in the Green New Deal context, although this deal is not dedicated specifically to distributed manufacturing. It is conceivable a slight expansion on the already intensive deal can be funded through redistribution of funds and cutting funding in other areas of the economy. Also, local governments need to begin the push for these initiatives. Political support for the Green New Deal is currently scarce, but successfully beginning to change the conversation with the growing stress of climate change. Overall, this plan is economically feasible, the next step is acquiring enough political support for implementation. Undoubtedly, something is needed to bring Dayton’s economy back to strength and a guaranteed job program that aims at increased manufacturing jobs and increased skill sets is an excellent start.Federal jobs guarantee can be used to manufacture necessary medical suppliesRobertson & Wood 20 [Cassandra Robertson and Holly Wood, Cassandra Robertson, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Cornell Population Center, where she researches economic mobility and social policy. Holly Wood, PhD, is an independent scholar, writer and activist, 04/06/2020, “Coronavirus is draining America's public infrastructure. A federal jobs policy would protect its workers,” The Guardian, ] /Triumph DebateIf a federal jobs guarantee policy were enacted, the federal government would be empowered to provide both a living wage and health insurance to the recently unemployed. They would be put back to work manufacturing the supplies our nation’s healthcare workers desperately need and providing the essential services necessary to keep our nation’s schoolchildren, elderly and vulnerable fed and cared for during this frightening time. These jobs would pay a living wage of at least $15 an hour and include healthcare benefits. Instead of bailing out the stock market, our federal government could instead organize a civic labor force working for the health and security of American families through this continuing pandemic. There is clear historical precedent for this type of response during a crisis. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which provided jobs for workers who needed them aimed at strengthening the public infrastructure and building prosperity for the next generation of American children. Dramatically expanding AmeriCorps, an existing federal program which already employs thousands of workers in various civic improvement projects, would put more people to work in service to their communities. What would these federally-employed workers get paid to do? The United States might follow the example of other developed nations in nationalizing essential manufacturing. This was exactly the purpose and scope of the Defense Production Act. No factory capable of producing masks, protective gear, hand sanitizer, or ventilators should be standing idle through a healthcare crisis. Failing to use these resources for the benefit of the greater good during a deadly pandemic is unacceptable. Medical supplies are not the only things America needs to survive this pandemic. According to CNN, while some food banks are shutting down, others are reporting that demand has quadrupled. Food pantries are unable to keep up with demand, as laid-off workers seek food assistance and volunteers are stuck at home. Right now, the National Guard is employed in this essential work of feeding those who cannot feed themselves. Given that summer is coming, and with it forest fires and hurricanes, it is only a matter of time before we will need them elsewhere. Preparing and delivering meals safely is obviously a critical mission for our federal government during a pandemic, and the administration should be making plans to employ civilian workers to perform this essential labor.Universal Basic Income CPUBI reduces work, while the aff boosts hoursSpross 20 [Jeff Spross, economics and business correspondent at The Week, 3-11-2020, "Andrew Yang is right about coronavirus," The Week, ] /Triumph DebateBefore Andrew Yang dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary back in mid-February, he built his campaign around one central proposal: a universal basic income (UBI). Essentially, it was a no-strings-attached check that would go out monthly to every adult in America, the same amount for everybody, regardless of their employment situation or income level or anything else. Yang's big idea didn't win him the Democratic nomination, and the way he pitched it came with a few problems. But Yang's UBI might be just the thing we need in terms of an economic response to the coronavirus. "Lower interest rates do nothing for the wage worker losing shifts and tips, for the mom stuck at home looking after her child because the school closed, for the restaurant or theater losing business because people are staying in," Yang noted yesterday on Twitter. "The only stimulus that would work is #UBIStimulus." Saying it's the “only stimulus that would work” goes a little far. But basically Yang is right: The coronavirus is a unique kind of economic shock that limits the effectiveness of traditional stimuli, such as infrastructure spending, public works, and interest rate cuts (which the Federal Reserve just tried). But coronavirus is also a unique economic shock to which UBI's strengths are particularly well suited. And understanding why that is can help us structure the rest of our economic response as well. In a classical recession, workers are still available to work, and the factories can still run, but the money to employ them simply isn't there. That means there are lots of options for re-employing those resources, from direct cash aid to infrastructure projects to public works and other public investments. But when you're talking about quarantines and economic shutdowns from a disease outbreak like COVID-19, the situation is entirely different: By definition, the workers affected can't go back on the job, and factories need to stay shuttered to prevent spreading the infection. Of course, this means any stimulus will be of limited help. We can't prevent economic damage from a coronavirus outbreak — we can only mitigate it. But some forms of stimulus will also do that much better than others: Passing a big infrastructure bill can't re-employ the workers under quarantine, for instance. And you never know when the workers you have re-employed with your public works might all get sick. What you need is a form of stimulus that's maximally flexible and adaptable — and there's nothing more flexible and adaptable that straight cash handed out to citizens. It will boost demand going to the parts of the economy that are still functioning, and that have lost demand from the parts that have shut down. And as Yang argued, it will also support people who are quarantined and aren't working, but who still need to buy essentials (the quarantines we've been seeing around the world still allow people minimum travel to buy essentials, or shipping to bring in essentials ordered online). Another thing is that low-income Americans will be the hardest hit by coronavirus. They're the least likely to have paid sick leave, they're disproportionately employed in industries like food service and retail where working from home simply isn't an option, and they tend to be the workers first hit when the economy sheds jobs in any form of recession. This also means low-income workers will provide the biggest stimulus bang-for-the-buck, turning around and immediately spending most of the money they get back into the economy. Now, you might think this point would also call for more targeted cash handouts to less fortunate Americans specifically. But as Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute pointed out, another critical part of a stimulus response to coronavirus will be speed. Income tests introduce bureaucracy, which will slow the program down. Simply handing out the same amount of money to everybody may be less focused, but it makes things as simple and fast as possible. The good news is that, even though Yang had trouble pushing a UBI in the presidential debates, economists are catching on to the strengths of straight cash aid in this circumstance. Bivens recommends it, as does Jay Shambaugh, the director of the centrist Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. Jason Furman, formerly the chief economic advisor to President Obama, just called for "a simple one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria," with automatic triggers to extend the payments if economic conditions worsen.UBI prevents social inequalityStanding 20 [Guy Standing, Research Professor in Development Studies at the University of London, 4-1-2020, "Coronavirus has made basic income not just desirable but vital," World Economic Forum, ] /Triumph Debate***edited for a spelling mistakeAn analogy is the Spanish flu of 100 years ago. It resulted in over 40 million deaths globally. But, while there was a recession, it was nothing compared with what is coming now. In 1920, the rising economic superpower, the US, was able to bounce back because it had inbuilt resilience. Private debt was less than 50% of GDP, corporate debt was insignificant, finance was not domineering. By contrast, before the coronavirus pandemic hit, US private debt was over 150% of GDP, corporate debt 73%, and finance accounted for 350% of GDP. Moreover, most of the big corporations were locked in global supply chains, in which disruptions at any point could be expected to disrupt the whole. This was an incredibly fragile economic system. Even a small recession in such circumstances would have spiralling negative effects. This is not a small one. Many millions of people will be unable to service their debts, resulting in mass homelessness, social illnesses, violence and worse, while numerous corporations and small businesses will become insolvent. [Graph transcribed: Support for a Universal Basic Income Program in the U.S., U.K. and Canada Do you support or not support a universal basic income program as a way to help people in [the U.S./ the U.K./Canada] who lose their jobs because of advances inartificial intelligence % Support U.K 77% Canada 75% U.S. 43% Gallup/Northeastern University April June 2019] We have seen the bail-out take off, with new fancy monetary instruments coming to the fore. A danger is that we will see an attempted repeat of the post-2008 strategy of Quantitative Easing coupled with fiscal austerity, with cuts to public social spending that has left all OECD countries disgracefully ill-prepared for the rescue phase of the pandemic. Inequalities will be intensified and other Giants will be strengthened. Ultimately, this is the biggest demand shock in modern history. That is where basic income comes into the equation, moving from desirable to essential. After years of intellectual loneliness, basic income is today finding converts and open advocates from across the political spectrum. We must hope that will result in more politicians showing some backbone in this debate. It will be important to take account of the lessons learned through pilots and other experiments. The design does matter a lot. A basic income is the payment of a modest amount in cash or the equivalent, paid to individuals, not households, which are structured so that vulnerable members could easily be disadvantaged. Individualized gender equality matters at all times. They are not lump-sum capital payments. That is a mistake being made in several countries. These have several disadvantages, including a “weakness-of-will” effect, inducing a gambling mentality of spending it all in one go, leaving the person vulnerable in the next phase. Regular modest payments induce gradual improving behaviour and capabilities. In our pilots, we have seen how. The basic income should be quasi-universal. It should not be called a universal basic income, because for pragmatic reasons it would have to apply only to usual legal residents, not to citizens living abroad or to recent migrants, for otherwise it could lead to a flood of migration and to xenophobic opposition. This is not a call to omit help for migrants and refugees. They should be helped by other schemes, and by more than they have been. A basic income system should be designed in such a way that everybody has equal basic security, or equal command over subsistence resources. This means that all those with extra costs of living and diminished earnings capacity, such as those with disabilities or frailties, should be provided with supplements that in effect give them a basic income equal to everybody else. The basic income must not be means-tested. Targeted schemes directed at the poor are superficially attractive for those who know little about social policy. But there is an adage attributed to Richard Titmuss that benefits that are only for the poor are invariably poor benefits. Targeting requires means-testing, which in turn implies that an impoverished person who tries to raise their earned income faces a poverty trap, losing benefits, in many cases leaving them worse off it [if] they take a low-wage job. This is economic illiteracy. And research all over the world shows that every means-tested benefit involves high exclusion errors, in which large numbers of those who should receive the benefits do not do so. Advocates of means-testing should face up to that once and for all. Crucially, a basic income system should be a source of abiding basic security, that is, be guaranteed and non-withdrawable. In that regard, governments would be well-advised to make it clear that it would be paid monthly for at least the duration of the pandemic and recession. That security is psychologically important. It is one reason for not using the language of “helicopter money”. Another is that this conveys an image of fluttering banknotes dropping to where the fittest would grab them first.UBI is the best way to ensure an economic recoveryWiderquist 20 [Karl Widerquist, associate professor of philosophy at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar, 3-20-2020, "America is in crisis. We need universal basic income now," Guardian, ] /Triumph DebateA few members of Congress recently have suggested that the United States government institute an emergency Universal Basic Income (UBI) in response to the twin crises of coronavirus and the stock market collapse, which many economists believe could signal the start of a significant recession. UBI provides an unconditional sum of money from the government for permanent residents whether or not they work. Proposals for an emergency UBI vary. One common suggestion from lawmakers is $1,000 a month for adults and $500 a month for children for four months or more if the coronavirus persists. This amount would be an enormous help in this crisis. I’ve studied UBI for more than 20 years, and I find that opposition to it usually comes down to two main arguments: that everyone should work or that we simply can’t afford it. Whether these are valid or invalid arguments against UBI in normal times has been debated for decades, but they simply don’t apply to the emergency UBI during the current situation. Right now, we don’t need everyone to work. In fact, we need a lot of people to stop working. We don’t want food service and healthcare workers who might be sick to go into work and infect people because they can’t afford to stay home. In an economy where millions of people live paycheck-to-paycheck, an emergency UBI would give non-essential employees the opportunity to stay home during the coronavirus outbreak, slowing the spread of the disease. The more people we have who can afford to stay home the better off we’ll be, at least for the duration of the outbreak. Most economists will agree that the economy needs injections of cash right now. When economies slide into recession, there is a “multiplier effect” as people lose their jobs and businesses contract, they spend less. Other people then lose their jobs or contract their businesses, and this multiplier effect continues. The economy shrinks, income declines, and money literally disappears from circulation. Governments can help stop this process by creating money and injecting it into circulation. After the 2008-2009 economic meltdown, the United States government and governments around the world created trillions of dollars worth of currency out of thin air and injected it into the economy, usually by buying back their own debt, in an effort to stimulate demand and reverse the multiplier effect. Buying back government debt isn’t necessarily the best way to stimulate the economy, however. The money goes mostly to people who are already rich, and they have very little incentive to invest that money when everyone else is losing income. An emergency UBI is just about the best economic stimulator that exists in modern times because it gets money in the hands of everyone. No one’s income would go to zero due to stock market-related layoffs or corona-related precautions. That income helps people maintain some of their spending, which helps prevent others from losing their jobs through the multiplier effect. Congress should act now. An emergency UBI, providing $1,000 per adult and $500 per child, per month, for four months or as long as the outbreak lasts, can help everyone get through this critical time. The sooner our government acts, the sooner we start to recover. We don’t know how bad coronavirus will get. We shouldn’t have to worry about how we will be able to buy food and pay rent as well. The economy needs more money and less labor. We need people to spend money. And we don’t need them to work for it.UBI solves health careLabonté et al. 18 [Ronald Labonté, Professor and Canada Research Chair Of Globalization and Health Equity at the University of Ottawa, Arne Ruckert, research Associate at the University of Ottawa's Institute of Population Health, and Chau Huynh, research Associate at the University of Ottawa's Institute of Population Health, 03-2017, "Reducing health inequities: is universal basic income the way forward?," OUP Academic, ] /Triumph Debate UBI and healthcare Healthcare utilization, whether publicly or privately financed, is a significant cost to the economy. With the provision of income supplements, hospitalization and doctor visits can diminish. Results from the Manitoba Mincome experiment indicate a 8.5% decline in healthcare utilization and decreased doctor visits for psychiatric reasons.8 In India, the occurrences of common illnesses diminished amongst participants in its income pilot, particularly when accompanied by an incentive to attend regular preventative health check-ups, potentially minimizing more serious (and publicly or privately costly) health problems from developing.9 This is a rather important result considering the disproportionate use of healthcare services from low-income groups compared to higher-income groups, and with regards to high-cost hospital expenditures. Finally, although there is presently no empirical evidence surrounding this point, it is probable that a basic income could also guarantee more equitable access to drugs in countries where no public or private drug insurance plans are available. Considering the seemingly inexorable rise in the cost of drugs, access to appropriate medication is increasingly compromised, especially for vulnerable households. A universal income could mitigate the negative effects of such rising drug costs and improve universal access. Structuring UBI for health equityInternal Net Benefit - OverworkFederal jobs guarantee increases working hoursTreuhaft 20 [Sarah Treuhaft. Sarah is a managing director of PolicyLink, 01/02/2020. "A Federal Job Guarantee Is a Crucial Tool to Fight Inequality." Institute for Policy Studies, () /Triumph DebateSkyrocketing inequality and persistent racial inequities are erasing the American dream for all but the lucky few and hobbling true economic prosperity. Tackling this toxic inequality must be the fight of this decade, and doing so requires breaking up the stranglehold of wealth at the top, growing the largest and most diverse middle class in history, and ensuring that no person or family falls below a standard of living that affords them economic security and dignity. One crucial tool that would go a long way toward establishing a new baseline of economic security for all is a Federal Job Guarantee: a public option for a good job that pays a living-wage and offers full benefits on projects that address long-neglected community needs and produce public benefits. Environmental restoration and energy efficiency retrofits to address our climate crisis; sidewalk and street repair, public art, and greening projects to reinvigorate disinvested neighborhoods; and new teachers’ aides, child care workers, and elder care workers to create a care infrastructure are just a few examples of the community-building work that would become possible with a job guarantee. RACIAL INEQUALITYGet the facts Guaranteed jobs would address a key failure of our economy: the inability to provide jobs for all even in the best of times. Today, amidst record-low unemployment, millions of Americans — 11.2 million as of the most recent jobs report — want full-time work but cannot find it. Some 5.8 million workers are actively job-seeking. Another 4.2 million are working part-time but want more hours. And 1.2 million want a job but have given up looking for one. This is a chronic crisis that disproportionately harms Black, brown, and rural communities. A job guarantee would also target our epidemic of low-wage, unstable jobs. A recent Brookings Institution analysis revealed that 44 percent of American workers earn less than $18,000 per year. And the latest Fed study found that 17 percent of workers contend with unpredictable, varying schedules. Guaranteed jobs would provide them with a far better option. A Federal Job Guarantee would set a new, higher standard — not only for wages but also for hours, schedules, and benefits — that private employers would need to compete against to find workers. Ensuring that all who want to work can have a good job would transform our economy. No one would need to go through the devastating experience of not finding employment. Workers facing discrimination because of their race, their gender identity, or for having a criminal record would gain economic opportunity. People stuck in jobs where they are harassed or unsafe would have a viable alternative. Poverty, racial inequity, and working poverty would decline. And, when the next recession hits, workers could take up guaranteed jobs — maintaining consumer demand and moderating the effects of the downturn for workers and businesses alike. This vast potential to deliver on economic security, dignity, and stability is why hundreds of individuals, leaders, and organizations working for racial, economic, and environmental justice have signed on to a Jobs for All manifesto calling on policymakers to enact a job guarantee. We hope that the readers of this blog will also sign on. In putting forth this manifesto, we seek to bolster growing political momentum for a job guarantee. Last fall, Senator Cory Booker and Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman and Ilhan Omar introduced legislation for a pilot job guarantee program in 15 communities across the country. A job guarantee is also a key feature of the Green New Deal Resolution introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with 98 cosponsors. And Senator Bernie Sanders has made a job guarantee a key plank in his economic policy agenda in his bid for the presidency A job guarantee is also one of the most popular economic policies around. Multiple polls show that a majority of eligible voters support guaranteed jobs—including a good share of Republicans (48 percent according to one poll). At this time of unprecedented economic and ecological upheaval, it is time for bold policies that move us toward an inclusive and sustainable economy. It is time for a Federal Job Guarantee.Reducing working hours solves climate changeStainburn 13 [Samantha Stainburn, GlobalPost Breaking News business writer internally citing David Rosnick, Economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research with a M.A. in Economics from George Washington University, 2-6-2013, "How to prevent climate change: work ‘European’ hours," World from PRX, ] /Triumph DebateA study released this week from the Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR), a liberal think tank based in Washington, DC, suggests a new way for Americans to slow down global warming: work fewer hours. Economist David Rosnick, the study author, calculates that if Americans reduced their hours by 0.5 percent each year — that’s about 10 hours a year or 12 minutes a week for people who work a 40-hour week — the expected temperature rise by 2100 could be cut by 25 to 50 percent. Over the next century, working fewer hours would prevent a 1.3 degree Celsius temperature increase, Rosnick’s analysis indicates, according to US News & World Report. "If the world were to follow a more European model of work, we would expect fewer hours, less output and lower emissions of greenhouse gases,” Rosnick writes, according to US News & World Report. With shorter work weeks and more vacation time, Western Europeans work about 50 percent fewer hours than Americans, CEPR said.Reducing work hours puts the US in line with international agreementsRosnick and Weisbrot 6 [David Rosnick, Economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research with a M.A. in Economics from George Washington University, and Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the of the Center for Economic and Policy Research with a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan, 12-2006, “Are Shorter Work Hours Good for the Environment? A Comparison of U.S. and European Energy Consumption,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, ] /Triumph DebateLonger Work Hours Means More Energy Use Countries where people work fewer hours use much less energy than the United States. If we assume constant energy efficiency (energy per unit of GDP) and a constant productivity (GDP per hour of work), then energy use per hour of work must be constant. Table 4 shows that, under this simplifying assumption, if workers in “Old Europe” had worked as many hours in 2003 as had workers in the United States, the EU-15 would have consumed 18 percent more energy. 6 Table 3 represents a simplified estimation of how energy consumption per country would increase if work hours increased. However, the relationship between energy consumption and work hours could be more complicated. For example, workers (or families) with less leisure time may dry their laundry by machine rather than drying it on a clothesline. They may not take the time to walk or bicycle to work, but rather drive. These behavioral changes in response to increased work hours would cause energy efficiency to decline as work hours increased. On the other hand, they may have their clothes professionally laundered, or take a cab. While these decisions would increase energy consumption, they would also increase hours worked in the economy, so the effect on this measure of energy efficiency is indeterminate. Finally, they may pay professionals to paint their homes rather than do it themselves. While this would consume the same amount of much energy, it would increase hours worked, thereby increasing this measure of energy efficiency. Of course, as people leave their homes to work, energy savings at home might balance the extra energy consumed at work. Any net effect of work hours on energy consumption is not easy to predict. We therefore try to estimate this relationship between energy efficiency (as measured per hours worked) and an increase in hours. The appendix explains how this is done. Based on this estimation, we can delineate a range of possible relationships between an increase in work hours and energy consumed. Table 4 takes the low estimate of this range: that every one percent increase in work hours per worker results in a 0.32 percent increase in energy consumed per work hour. In other words, energy use per work hour increases as work hours increase, but here we are using the lowest (most conservative) estimate of the amount by which it increases. 8 Collectively, these three scenarios cover a range of possible energy responses to changes in work hours. If, in 2003, other developed country workers worked as many hours as Americans, by these estimates they would have consumed anywhere from 12 to 41 percent more energy. Similarly, if Americans traded work for leisure, they could reduce their energy needs by 9 to 26 percent. Conclusion If Americans chose to take advantage of their high level of productivity by shortening the workweek or taking longer vacations rather than producing more, there would follow a number of benefits. Specifically, if the U.S. followed the EU-15 in terms of work hours, then: ? Employed workers would find themselves with seven additional weeks of time off. ? The United States would consume some 20 percent less energy. ? If a 20 percent energy savings had been directly translated into lower carbon emissions, then the U.S. would have emitted 3 percent less carbon dioxide in 2002 than it did in 1990.9 This level of emissions is only 4 percent above the negotiated target of the Kyoto Protocol. On the flip side, there is political pressure within European countries to adopt a more American labor model. If Europeans did in fact give up their shorter workweeks and longer vacations, they would consume some additional 25 percent more energy. Translated into carbon emissions, this would have enormous consequences for those countries that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Over 1990 levels,10 the EU-15 emitted 8 percent more carbon dioxide in 2002, despite a clear commitment to reduce emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. Thus, the EU-15 must cut emissions by 14 percent from 2002 levels. However, if EU-15 workers had consumed 25 percent more energy and consequently emitted 25 percent more carbon dioxide in 2002, they would have had to cut emissions by more than one-third from that level to meet their commitment to Kyoto. According to the IPCC Third Assessment Report,11 the amount of global warming is tied to the speed by which emissions are cut. If by 2050 the world is emitting 10Gt (10 billion metric tons) of carbon, we may be on a path to 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming. On the other hand, if the level of emissions is 14Gt of carbon dioxide in 2050 may mean 4.5 degrees of warming. A worldwide choice of American work hours over European levels could result in 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of additional warming, in addition to higher fuel prices. Finally, the debate over the European and American models, depending on the extent to which either side prevails, will have economic and environmental implications for a number of middle-income countries. These countries – especially the fast-growing economies of Asia – will most likely choose between these two models of labor market institutions and consumption. South Korea and Taiwan are already at European levels of GDP per capita. China (at $8,004 per person) is still far behind but is growing rapidly and is the second largest economy in the world in absolute size,12 and at current growth rates will pass the United States in less than a decade. The American model is still portrayed throughout the international business press as the one to emulate. The environmental consequences of developing countries’ choices could be very serious.The US is key to global climate targetsRahmstorf 17 [Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Ocean Physics at Potsdam University, 06-02-2017, “The world needs the US in fight against climate change,” Hill, ] /Triumph DebateIn the scientific community, there has long been an overwhelming consensus about the basic facts of human-caused global warming. Apart from the studies that demonstrate this, I can vouch for this fact from my personal experience of working in climate science for the past thirty years. The United States is currently the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China; in terms of the accumulated historical emissions it is the largest. And, of course, U.S. emissions per person are about twice as large as those of China or of Europe. That means that the U.S. has a large responsibility for the worldwide consequences of these emissions that it cannot just walk away from. Leaving the Paris Agreement and withdrawing from its emissions reduction commitment is a reckless and irresponsible act. The Trump administration will not be able to derail the global effort to halt global warming, since almost every country on the planet by now understands — at least partly — how serious the threat of further global warming is. But the U.S. can delay progress enough to push the Paris goals out of reach. If the U.S. does not reduce its emissions in the coming years along with the rest of the world, we will altogether fail in keeping global warming below a highly dangerous level. Our children will pay a high price for this.Biden doesn’t solve climate changeAronoff 19 [Kate Aronoff, climate change writer for the Guardian, 5-13-2019, "Joe Biden would be a disaster for climate change," Guardian, ] /Triumph DebateLast year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called for “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to avert full blown climate catastrophe. It’s not too late to stave off the worst impacts, they urged – indeed, it’s “possible within the laws of physics and chemistry”. But we need to act fast. Presidential candidate Joe Biden, 76, seems to have a very different understanding of the climate crisis than the world’s leading climate scientists. Several top advisers to the former vice-president previewed his “middle of the road” plan on the issue for Reuters on Friday. He’ll have the US rejoin the Paris agreement, which Trump has said he will leave exit as soon as that document’s terms allow in early 2021. He’ll preserve existing regulations on emissions and fuel efficiency that the current administration has targeted. Like Obama, he’ll embrace an “all of the above” energy strategy, with plenty of room for new natural gas development and exports as well as carbon capture and storage, to indefinitely extend the life of the coal industry. The Sunrise Movement – one of the leading groups pushing for a Green New Deal – has rightfully called Biden’s plan a “death sentence for our generation,” advocating instead the kind of economy-wide mobilization scientists have urged. “Right now, we need a little bit more reality around this dialogue,” Heather Zichal told Reuters, taking a swipe at such plans. Zichal, “who has become Biden’s informal advisor on climate change policy,” Volcovici writes, also served as a top climate advisor to the Obama administration. Until recently, she sat on the board of directors of Cheniere Energy, a natural gas company that would stand to profit handsomely if federal policy stands by natural gas as a so-called bridge fuel to renewables. Her resignation from Cheniere, an official statement of theirs clarified, “was not due to any disagreement with the company or its management with respect to any matter relating to the company’s operations, policies or practices”. And why would she? Before leaving Cheniere last summer, she made over $1m through her four year stretch there, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The only reality Zichal seems concerned with is one where the the fossil fuel companies that she has gotten rich off of keep realizing fat profits. Scientific reality is a different story. A recent report from Oil Change International found that allowing the industry continuing to explore for and extract all the new fuel deposits they intend to would run directly counter to the goals inscribed in the Paris agreement. As the IPCC report indicates, meeting those will mean that global natural gas usage decline by 74% by mid-century – and arguably much faster in the US. Staying below 2C means keeping 80% of known fossil fuel reserves buried underground. As out of touch as they are with the scale of the climate challenge, Biden’s industry-friendly plans aren’t surprising. In a video announcing his White House bid, Biden painted Donald Trump’s presidency as an aberration. His promise? Get the country back to business as usual. Presumably, that also means the business of digging up and and burning as many fossil fuels as humanly possible. Last November, Obama bragged to a crowd in Houston about the explosion of oil and gas drilling during his time in office. “Suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas – that was me, people,” he said, fishing for an applause. The upshot here isn’t complicated: Biden does not have a plan to keep warming below 1.5 or even 2C. If every country fully lived up to its pledges in the Paris agreement, for instance – including the Clean Power Plan the Obama administration crafted to satisfy its contribution – we’d be on track for a little over 3C of warming, displacing tens of millions of people from the world’s coastal cities, submerging low-lying island states and gravely threatening the world’s food supply. As atmosphere scientists Andrew Dessler told HuffPost’s Alexander Kaufman, Biden’s plans would “be more in line with stabilizing at 3-4C of warming, rather than staying below 2C”. “Middle Class Joe” may well believe that the climate crisis poses an existential threat, which is more than can be said of the current administration. If his climate plan is to get us back to 2016, he’s not any more in touch with reality than they are.Pricing & ProductivityFederal jobs guarantee will lead to higher pricesPaul et. al 18 [Mark Paul, William Darity Jr., Darrick Hamilton and Khaing Zaw, Mark Paul is a postdoctoral associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. William Darity Jr. is Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African American Studies, and Economics, and director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Darrick Hamilton is associate professor of economics and urban policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy and Department of Economics, New School for Social Research, and director of the doctoral program in public and urban policy at the New School. Khaing Zaw is a research associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University., February, 2018, “A Path to Ending Poverty by Way of Ending Unemployment: A Federal Job Guarantee,” The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, ] /Triumph Debate?A classic concern with the FJG is that a substantial exodus from the private sector will occur (for example, private-sector employment crowding). A few points are notable. First, the private sector jobs that are most vulnerable to competition from a FJG are generally the least desirable to workers, offering them the lowest wages and benefits package. Second, the minimum level of compensation offered in our proposal is not out of line with historic minimum wages once inflation and productivity increases are taken into account. In fact, if the minimum wage increased with inflation and productivity from its peak in 1968, it would have been $18.70 per hour in 2016 (Cooper 2015). Minimum wage studies have not uncovered evidence of mass layoffs in low-wage sectors following substantial minimum wage hikes. In part, the change in the floor of minimum compensation induced by a FJG would redistribute some income from profits to wages. This will likely lead to higher prices in some sectors, and to some firms exiting from industries that offer the lowest wages and compensation packages (for a review of the magnitude of potential price increases under a $15 minimum wage in the United States for the fast-food industry, see Pollin and Wicks-Lim 2016).FJG causes massive inflation---standard of living issues cause wage spikes and price increasesBaker 18 [Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., 4-27-2018, "Dems’ Job Guarantee Isn’t Nearly as Easy as It Sounds," Daily Beast, ] /Triumph DebateThat sum comes to roughly 1.8 percent of GDP. There also has to be some spillover effect. Workers who had been earning $16 or $17 an hour will have to see some bump in pay when the pay for those at the bottom jumps to $15 from levels that are currently as low as $7.25 an hour. If 20 million workers are in the bump range, and they get an average pay increase of $2 an hour, that raises the cost by another $70 billion, putting the total at $420 billion, or 2.1 percent of GDP.And this brings us to inflation. As a first approximation, this 2.1 percent figure would be the impact on the level of prices, although it would be dampened by reduced profit margins and increases in productivity. In any case, a Federal Reserve Board committed to a 2.0 percent inflation target would send interest rates soaring in response to this rise.But even if the Fed can be controlled, this rise in pay for those at the bottom will mean a reduction in living standards for those higher up. They will have to pay more for restaurants and haircuts, as well having their house cleaned and their lawn mowed.Most of us won’t shed any tears for the “hard to get good help” crowd, but if we haven’t taken steps to weaken their economic power—which won’t be easy because they are powerful—we can expect to see doctors, lawyers, and other high-end earners getting pay hikes to protect their living standards. This is a story of serious wage-price spiral, unless we introduce other measures.None of this means we should reject a job guarantee out of hand. We can start with a lower wage and limit the program to long-term unemployed, or in other ways restrict the size. But we should also look to measures to weaken the economic power of those at the top. It is government policies, like restricting the entrance of qualified foreign doctors and allowing pension funds that pay private equity partners to lose them money, not laws of economics, that gives us a situation where doctors get $260,000 a year, hedge fund boys over a million, and CEOs more than $20 million. Reversing these policies will open the door for much higher pay and living standards for those lower down the income ladder.Federal jobs guarantee increases wages across the board – leading to business closure and layoffsHenwood 19 [Doug Henwood. Doug is a journalist, economic analyst and author. 02-21-2019, "Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Helping." Jacobin, () /Triumph DebateThere’s material to admire in the JG, but there are some problems. The shyness about big infrastructure projects — in another recent paper, Tcherneva and four [Modern Monetary Theory] MMT colleagues explicitly differentiate their JG scheme from the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) — is inexplicable. Yes, lots of care work needs to be done, and that would be essential to any humane policy agenda. And yes, infrastructure has a manly prestige that is missing in caring labor, which is often marginalized as “women’s work.” Care work badly needs to be taken far more seriously (though it’s hard to see how having it done by a transient workforce contributes to that). But women can do vital infrastructure work too. Tcherneva et al. quote Nick Taylor’s book on the WPA as saying it brought the United States into the twentieth century. (A look at the Living New Deal’s catalogue of WPA projects shows the degree to which we’re still living on it — schools, highways, hospitals, post offices, airports, harbors, public art — and haven’t really built anything on a comparable scale since.) The JG is not designed to bring us into the twenty-first, unless you think casualized labor is a model for our time. JG work could fill some important social needs, but how seriously dedicated to serving those needs could the program be if it were staffed by a transient workforce? Sometimes the whole concept sounds like workfare. Invoking that word isn’t just polemic. In a review of a book by the great post-Keynesian economist Hyman Minsky, whose JG program is the direct ancestor of MMT’s, Flavia Dantas, who’s written on the JG for the Levy Institute, cites Minsky (his words are in the embedded quotes): “Although well intentioned,” welfare schemes intended for poverty reduction among those fit to work were “‘poorly thought-out programs’ that appealed to ‘sentimentality with regard to hunger and clichés about consumer sovereignty,’ created government-dependency, and disrupted ‘social cohesion or domestic tranquility.’” (Some of this — “sentimentality with regard to hunger”! — sounds like it was lifted from the Daily Caller.) To Minsky, denying the people the right to work — which he saw as a fundamental human propensity — was a “major social injustice,” in Dantas’s words. Writing in 1944, Beardsley Ruml of all people offered a persuasive critique of using a JG as a mechanism for regulating the business cycle. Ruminating in a largely orthodox fashion — no proto-MMT kinks here — on the prospects for a postwar fiscal policy, he cautioned against using public works projects as a countercyclical strategy, because of the human undesirability of bringing hundreds of thousands of men into the construction industry and forcing them out again as an offset to the free play of economic forces elsewhere in the business system. These men are not statistical units that can be properly moved from one column of an accounting sheet to another in order to preserve a general balanced level of employment. Nor can they be shifted long distances from their homes to places and at times convenient to the business cycle. Despite the advocates’ assurances that they don’t want to compete with private sector jobs, the $15 an hour pay could have a substantial impact on the national wage structure. Though it’s a bit more than half the average hourly wage, it’s at about the thirty-seventh percentile of the wage distribution, meaning 37 percent of workers are paid that much or less. It would be nothing but good to raise their wages, but we should be honest about how disruptive it might be. It would put a lot of low-wage employers out of business — often deservedly so — and force survivors to cut back on staffing, with machines taking the place of people if possible. It would have massively uneven geographic effects. Nearly one in six metropolitan areas — mostly small, and in the South — have a median wage below $15; more than two-thirds, accounting for well over a third of employment, have a median below $18. Not only would such a program challenge the American wage structure in profound ways, it would change the entire boss-worker relation. In a classic 1943 essay, “Political Aspects of Full Employment,” the economist Michal Kalecki noted — perhaps optimistically — that while Keynesian economic management could assure a low unemployment rate close to zero over the long term, the capitalist class would resist this. One reason is that investment and hiring depend on the confidence of the business class, and they want politicians to be dedicated to keeping that level of confidence high. Shake that confidence and managers will pull back and throw the economy into a slump. You might think that the strong markets of a full-employment economy would appeal to managers and stockholders, but there would be a larger political problem. As Kalecki wrote, “under a regime of permanent full employment, the ‘sack’ would cease to play its role as a disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. . . . Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the ‘normal’ capitalist system.”Federal jobs guarantee hurts pricing, margins and productivityNunn et al. 18 [Ryan Nunn, Jimmy O’Donnell, and Jay Shambaugh, Ryan Nunn of The Hamilton Project and the Brookings Institution. Jimmy O’Donnell of The Hamilton Project. Jay Shambaugh of The Hamilton Project, the Brookings Institution, and The George Washington University. December, 2018. “Labor Market Considerations for a National Job Guarantee,” The Hamilton Project, ] /Triumph DebateFigure 9 displays the top 10 detailed industries by total private-sector employment of workers earning less than $15 per hour, with employment broken out by wage level. The second-largest industry—food service—contains the most workers earning less than $15 per hour. In many states, food service workers are subject to a lower minimum wage than other sectors under the assumption that the income deficit will be made up by tips; we use earnings variables that include tips. There are also a large number of grocery store, department store, and construction workers who earn less than $15 per hour, though only 20.1 percent of the workers in the construction industry earn less than $15. By contrast, well over half of those employed in many of the other industries shown are earning less than $15. A job guarantee could therefore necessitate a dramatic shift in how these industries employ workers. They would either have to shift pricing, margins, or productivity to pay current workers $15 an hour, or they would need to change their employment patterns substantially. The $10-per-hour wage threshold implies a different picture. Only the food service industry employs more than 500,000 workers earning less than $10 per hour (including tips). Fully 24 percent of the food service industry workers earn less than $10, suggesting that a job guarantee would imply substantial changes in employment patterns. The average across the other Levy Institute’s (Wray et al. 2018) call for the public sector to employ program participants, generally through federal grants provided to state and local governments. Regardless of whether work occurs in the private, public, or nonprofit sectors, it is necessary to assess the likely industries and occupations in which participants will work. Infrastructure and public work projects are obvious possibilities, to the extent that they contribute to valuable public goods and can be staffed in part by workers with relatively low skill levels.12 However, the modern labor market might not be able to accommodate all of the workers who would participate in a job guarantee if, for instance, public works projects were the exclusive output.A federal jobs guarantee would decrease productivityStanding 20 [Guy Standing, Professor of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network, 03-19-2020, “Battling Eight Giants: Basic Income Now”, Bloomsbury Academic, ] /Triumph DebateAnother failing of the job guarantee route is the mapping of a path to ‘workfare’. What would happen to somebody who declined to accept the guaranteed job? They would be labelled ‘lazy’ or ‘choosy’ and thus ‘ungrateful’ and ‘socially irresponsible’. Yet there are many reasons for refusing a job. Studies show that accepting a job below a person’s qualifications can lower their income and social status for the long term. As what is happening in the current UK benefit system attests, those not taking jobs allocated to them would face benefit sanctions, and be directed into jobs, whether they liked them or not. Jobs done in resentment or under duress are unlikely to be done well.? A job guarantee would be a recipe for perpetuating low productivity. What would happen if a person in a guaranteed job performed poorly, perhaps because of limited ability or simply because they knew it was ‘guaranteed’? If you are guaranteed a job, why bother to work hard? If you are an employer and are given a subsidy to pay employees guaranteed a job, why bother to try to use labour efficiently? If subsidized through tax credits or a wage subsidy, a worker would need to produce only a little more value than the cost to the employer to make it profitable to retain him or her. This would cheapen low- productivity jobs relative to others and inhibit the higher productivity arising from labour-displacing technological change. If a job of a certain type is guaranteed, what happens if an employer wishes to invest in technology that would remove the need for such jobs? Those calling for a job guarantee also ignore the fact that any market economy requires some unemployment, as people need time to search for jobs they are prepared to accept, and firms must sift applicants for jobs they want to have done. To adopt a job guarantee policy would risk putting the economy in gridlock.WorkfareAn FJG inevitably devolves into workfare? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Standing 13 [Guy Standing, Professor in Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, “Why a Basic Income Is Necessary for a Right to Work”, 2013, Basic Income Studies, ] /Triumph DebateA feature of jobs in the tertiary open economy is that an increasing proportion of them yield wages or incomes that are inadequate to satisfy the aspirations or needs of those doing them. Real wages in the USA, France and elsewhere have stagnated for several decades, and the benefits associated with jobholding have gone down for most workers. For a growing number of people, jobs are not the route to income adequacy. And they are not the route to occupational development or work satisfaction either. A job guarantee cannot be made without stating the wage, labour time and type of activity that would be guaranteed. In reality, the labourist perspective implies a low wage for many people and little choice in terms of type of labour. Suppose a person does not want the job a local bureaucrat says is available? Implicit in the silence on that issue is the hidden presumption that in such cases a state benefit would be denied to the ungrateful supplicant. Job guarantee advocates should be required to state where they stand on this. In reality, policy-makers operating workfare schemes have steadily shortened the period allowed before sanctions come into effect.? Finally, there is the awkward matter of equity. Without any caveat, Harvey advocates giving to all those laid off “a guaranteed job roughly equivalent to the one they lost”. This would mean a newly unemployed financial services employee of Lehmann or Bear Sterns would receive a job doing financial services and receive “roughly” as much as in the job he had lost through the recklessness of the firm, whereas a seamstress in New Jersey would receive an onerous job paying a pittance. Besides the moral hazards in such a guarantee, this would imply covering the risks taken by bond traders and would offend any respectable principle of social justice. Moreover, in saying that a job would be provided to those who lost their job, decisions would have to be taken on determining eligibility. It would involve formulating tests of voluntary job- quitting and job-seeking, which are notoriously inaccurate and inequitable, as discussed elsewhere (Standing, 2002). Harvey does not mention how these would be resolved.A jobs guarantee program is akin to other workfare programsMatthews 18 [Dylan Matthews, Dylan Matthews is an American journalist. He is currently a correspondent for Vox. He previously worked as a staff reporter focused on the Federal Reserve, the federal budget, and tax policy at the Washington Post,? 04/27/2020, “4 big questions about job guarantees,” Vox, ] /Triumph Debate?Indeed, job guarantee programs bear a certain resemblance to “workfare” programs in the 1990s, where cash welfare was replaced with subsidies given to poor households in exchange for the head of household actively seeking work. Leftists and liberals generally hated those proposals at the time, viewing them as a scheme to take benefits away from people who find it hard to work. A job guarantee wouldn’t be taking existing benefits away from people; it would be conditioning new benefits on work. That’s a very significant difference, not least because the pay for job guarantee jobs would be much greater than welfare benefits used to be. But if a job guarantee plan winds up stranding people in $15-an-hour government jobs when they’d be happier either not working or working in jobs with clearer future prospects, then it would somehow combine the worst of normal welfare (whose high phaseout rates trapped recipients in a situation where they couldn’t work on top of it even if they wanted to) and workfare (which imposed strict and punitive requirements on households whether or not they could work).Workfare results in class stratification White, 04 [Stuart White, lecturer in political theory at the University of Oxford, “ What’s Wrong with Workfare?”, 2004, Journal of Applied Philosophy, ] /Triumph DebateI turn now to the final objection to workfare that we will consider. This objection accepts that there is a fairness-based work ethic that in a just society the state could, perhaps should, enforce. However, the claim is that because our society is unfair in certain other major respects, fairness is best served, in all all-things-considered andsecond-best sense, by not enforcing work in the welfare system. While workfare might be part of a fully just social order, in the context of our societies it would in fact serve only to consolidate or exacerbate existing injustice. So we should eschew it until such time as we have done a great deal more to tackle basic structural injustices.There are at least two major reasons for this kind of contextual concern about workfare. One is a concern about inequity in the enforcement of a notional social duty. Workfare makes sure that the people who depend on welfare meet the demands of a fairness-based work ethic. But what about people who have, say, inherited large amounts of wealth? The inheritance-rich are not likely to need welfare and they are under little other economic pressure to work. So they will be free to avoid the notional duty to work while the duty is enforced on others. They might try to justify their non-work on the grounds that they are already contributing to production through the provision of capital, but we have already seen the problem with this sort of argument above. In short, in contemporary capitalist societies it is hard to argue with the claim that workfare forces the asset-poor to work, while leaving the asset-rich (or at least the inheritance-rich) free to ignore any such duty. is point is particularly important, I think, in seeing why, in contemporary circumstances, workfare can make no claim to clear moral superiority over basic income even if one is a proponent of a fairness-based work ethic. The objection to basic income is that, being unconditional with respect to work, it allows people to free-ride on the produc tive efforts of others, which is allegedly unfair. But, in contemporary circumstances, workfare too results in an unfairness: the inequity in the enforcement of the alleged, fairness-based duty to work. If this is so, however, then merely pointing to the alleged unfairness of basic income can hardly be a decisive objection to it (even if it is a valid objection). After all, it might be that the unfairness resulting from basic income is less troubling than that which results from workfare.Warfare forces the underprivileged to work in poor jobs against their willWhite, 04 [Stuart White, lecturer in political theory at the University of Oxford, “What’s Wrong with Workfare?”, 2004, Journal of Applied Philosophy, doi:10.1111/j.0264-3758.2004.00281.x] /Triumph DebateThis point is particularly important, I think, in seeing why, in contemporary circumstances, workfare can make no claim to clear moral superiority over basic income even if one is a proponent of a fairness-based work ethic. The objection to basic income is that, being unconditional with respect to work, it allows people to free-ride on the productive efforts of others, which is allegedly unfair. But, in contemporary circumstances, workfare too results in an unfairness: the inequity in the enforcement of the alleged, fairness-based duty to work. If this is so, however, then merely pointing to the alleged unfairness of basic income can hardly be a decisive objection to it (even if it is a valid objection). After all, it might be that the unfairness resulting from basic income is less troubling than that which results from workfare. This thought receives further support from a second contextual worry about workfare. This is that it consolidates the market vulnerability of unjustly disadvantaged workers. In a society in which there is considerable injustice in the background distribution of assets and opportunities, some individuals will face unjustly limited employment opportunities. A combination of no inherited wealth and poor education will restrict their options, so that they have little choice but to move into poor quality (abusive or exploitative, or simply very unpleasant) jobs. A permissive welfare system, in which individuals are not required to look for a job as a condition of welfare receipt, can alleviate this situation. The permissive welfare system 'decommodifies' labour-power, giving workers an alternative source of income to employment, and so reducing the pressure on disadvantaged workers to take poor quality jobs. In this way, the permissive welfare system functions as a kind of compensation for the background injustice. However, if, in this context, we shift to a more workfare-style welfare system, there is obviously a risk that this will put the pressure back on to disadvantaged workers to take poor quality jobs. Indeed, in some cases there is no doubt that this is the intent: in the logic of the Victorian Poor Law, tough, punitive work-conditions in welfare help to make the circumstances of welfare recipients 'less eligible' than that of the workers in the most undesirable jobs in the economy, so ensuring that the welfare system does not give workers the incentive to avoid these jobs. In the view of some radical critics, this is the fundamental point of workfare in a capitalist society, the function it serves that helps to explain why it exists [31]. Now, if workfare has this effect, and results in the inequity described above, then there is surely a strong case against workfare, and in favour of basic income, even if basic income does lead to some degree of unjust free-riding. The unfairness associated with basic income seems less important than that potentially associated with workfare in a society with significant background inequalities in initial assets and opportunities. Considerations of this sort help to motivate what Brian Barry calls the ‘pragmatic’ argument for basic income as the fairest-policy-in-the circumstances (as opposed to ‘principled’ arguments which typically employ variants of the inheritance argument to stake a claim for basic income as a fully just policy) [32].Workfare is a threat to human rights and is similar to state sanctioned forced laborHinton 12 [Eleanor Hinton. Elenaor has a MA at the University of London, 03/09/2012, “The Social and Political Significance of Workfare in the United Kingdom A Normative Human Rights Critique” ] /Triumph Debate?This paper provides a critical analysis of the workfare schemes introduced by the coalition government. Workfare is presented as the product of neoliberal ideologies that have introduced notions of conditions and reciprocity to the realisation of traditionally entitlement-based rights. The history of the welfare state is assessed from a political economic perspective. It is suggested that the rationale behind the schemes is fuelled by political and corporate motivations, which effectively subordinate the importance of human rights. This new social contract is explored from different philosophical perspectives of economic and social rights. Evidence of corporate and political reactions to social pressure suggest that civil society can be effective in discouraging decisions that pose a threat to human rights standards. The compatibility of workfare schemes with a normative understanding of specific rights is assessed. The study concludes that workfare constitutes a serious threat to human rights, signifying the erosion of the British welfare state, and hence basic welfare entitlements. There is a strong argument that workfare is a modern form of state-sanctioned forced labourStigmaA federal jobs guarantee leads to increased stigma around unemploymentEstlund 19 [Cynthia Estlund, Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, 2019, “Three Big Ideas for a Future of Less Work and a Three-Dimensional Alternative”, Duke Law, ] /Triumph DebateIt is no wonder that the idea of a job guarantee has caught the American political imagination as the idea of basic guaranteed income has not. And if the menu of policy options miraculously came to include both (and only) the UBI and the FJG, I would vote for the latter. But I do want to emphasize this point: Even in a future political climate that favored big transformative policies like the UBI or the FJG, we would be forced to choose between them. The FJG is in direct competition with proposals for a full-scale UBI in at least three ways: They are mutually incompatible as a matter of sheer cost, political salability, and normative foundations. Among other things, backers of a UBI would be seeking to reduce the stigma that attaches to unemployment, while backers of a job guarantee would be actively burnishing the social valorization of paid work. Indeed, a job guarantee itself would likely contribute to the stigmatization of unemployment by rendering it more plainly a matter of individual volition. For all these reasons, it is fair to assume that a federal job guarantee is an alternative, not a complement, to a UBI that is enough to live on. For those who strongly favor a UBI, that might be reason enough to resist calls for a job guarantee. On the other hand, for those (like me) who are skeptical of the UBI precisely because of its displacement and decentering of paid work, the job guarantee has an obvious corresponding appeal.Federal jobs guarantee will lead to stigmatizationMatthews 18 [Dylan Matthews, Dylan Matthews is an American journalist. He is currently a correspondent for Vox. He previously worked as a staff reporter focused on the Federal Reserve, the federal budget, and tax policy at the Washington Post,? 04/27/2020, “4 big questions about job guarantees,” Vox, ] /Triumph DebateOver time, you can imagine that woman doing well at her CVS job, enough so that CVS keeps employing her without needing government money. She could even go on to get a better job at Walgreen’s without any government intervention because the program has built up her skills and given her experience at a respected firm. Now suppose that, instead, the government agency gives her a job at Government Pharmacy. Even if she does well there, CVS and Walgreen’s could look at an application from her in the future and say, “Well, she worked at Government Pharmacy, and they will employ literally anyone. So how do we know she’s any good? Why should we take a chance on her when she hasn’t been able to hack it in a private sector job in this field?” That could be a recipe for her to be stuck working at Government Pharmacy indefinitely. Maybe that’s okay, especially if Government Pharmacy offers good jobs with the prospect of long careers. Many job guarantee advocates envision job guarantee jobs as exactly that: real public sector positions with the possibility of advancement and an upward career trajectory. But it’s also possible that in practice, the work will be stigmatized and viewed by other employers and the rest of society as a kind of dole. That would wind up hurting the workers who sign up, and could deter people who need help from signing up in the future. Indeed, job guarantee programs bear a certain resemblance to “workfare” programs in the 1990s, where cash welfare was replaced with subsidies given to poor households in exchange for the head of household actively seeking work. Leftists and liberals generally hated those proposals at the time, viewing them as a scheme to take benefits away from people who find it hard to work. A job guarantee wouldn’t be taking existing benefits away from people; it would be conditioning new benefits on work. That’s a very significant difference, not least because the pay for job guarantee jobs would be much greater than welfare benefits used to be.People will be discouraged from participating and reintegration due to stigmaNunn et al. 18 [Ryan Nunn, Jimmy O’Donnell, and Jay Shambaugh, Ryan Nunn of The Hamilton Project and the Brookings Institution. Jimmy O’Donnell of The Hamilton Project. Jay Shambaugh of The Hamilton Project, the Brookings Institution, and The George Washington University. December, 2018. “Labor Market Considerations for a National Job Guarantee,” The Hamilton Project, ] /Triumph DebateA job guarantee could have different types of effects on workers’ long-term career outcomes. On the one hand, a guaranteed job might attract individuals who would otherwise have obtained more schooling: by making it easier to immediately obtain employment, a job guarantee lowers the appeal of school enrollment. An empirical literature has examined this effect in the context of minimum wage laws, which may reduce school enrollment to an extent (Neumark and Wascher 2007). In a very different context, the recent surge in oil and gas extraction and associated increase in labor demand for low-skilled workers raised the male high school dropout rate by 0.3 percentage points in the average labor market with shale reserves (Cascio and Narayan 2015). The extent to which a job guarantee would reduce the incentives for human capital accumulation depends on the attractiveness of the program and whether there are any advantages (e.g., pay, working conditions, etc.) in the program for those with more skills. Stigma of Program Participation. Another potential impact of a job guarantee—and indeed of targeted employment subsidies more generally—is to stigmatize the targeted population, possibly creating a negative labor market signal that could both discourage participation and possibly impair subsequent career progress (Burtless 1985; Hamersma 2014; Neumark 2013). If a job guarantee is primarily taken up by people who have struggled in the labor market for reasons that are (from the perspective of employers) outside their own control and unrelated to their personal characteristics, participation in the program should not produce stigma. However, if a job guarantee is taken up by people with persistent labor market deficits, some of which are not readily observable by private employers, then participation in a job guarantee could serve as a negative signal of job readiness and productivity. Stigmatization could manifest as unexpected difficulty in transitioning from the job guarantee program to private sector employment. Depending on the structure and goals of the program, which may seek to provide temporary assistance during times of distress, this could be undesirable in and of itself. Moreover, some participants could miss out on wage growth that they would otherwise have experienced had they not entered the program if job guarantee wages do not rise with experience as fast as wages in the private sector.The stigma surrounding government assistance prevents people from taking part in essential programs ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ribar 14 [David Ribar, Professor of Economics at Georgia State University, “How to Improve Participation in Social Assistance Programs”, December 2014, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, ] /Triumph DebateIf the programs are means-tested or have other enrollment criteria, applicants and existing beneficiaries may also have to supply additional information in order to establish their eligibility. While the administrative steps associated with enrollment and continuation serve important purposes, they can also act as barriers to participation. Other aspects of social assistance programs, such as the stigma that participation might engender, can also raise barriers. Such barriers can reduce participation rates among otherwise eligible people. This consequently undercuts the fundamental well-being objectives of assistance programs and reduces their effectiveness. While numerous reasons have been offered for why people might “leave money on the table” by failing to take up benefits, researchers and policymakers are also concerned about other behavioral and unintentional reasons for non-participation. One set of explanations focuses on simple inertia, or “status quo bias” [1]. Although potential beneficiaries may see the programs as being helpful, they delay taking the active steps necessary for enrollment, simply as a result of inertia or procrastination. Another explanation is that people lack sufficient awareness or information about the programs, their personal eligibility, the benefits of the programs, and the actual application procedures [2]. In addition to these considerations, the time, paperwork burdens, and inconvenience associated with applying for and remaining on public assistance also represent costs that have the effect of lowering participation rates [2]. Other explanations focus on social and psychological factors. For example, receiving public benefits may be considered as stigmatizing or demeaning, which would reduce their value to potential recipients and potentially deter them from applying [3]. Finally, even if people apply for assistance and successfully negotiate every administrative hurdle, they may still not receive benefits if the program runs out of funding. Programs with entitlement status guarantee benefits to all eligible people who apply, but programs without this status may exhaust their funds, which would leave needy and deserving people unserved. DISCUSSION OF PROS AND CONS Participation rates can and do change Many disadvantaged people, for a range of reasons, do not participate in social assistance programs for which they are eligible. These reasons can be “strategic,” in the sense of there being a long-term reason associated with deferring benefit receipt or avoiding a program. But they can also be as a direct result of certain features of the program itself, such as onerous application processes, bewildering rules or program choices, misinformation, inconvenient official policies, and demeaning delivery methods. Additionally, burdensome administrative steps associated with enrollment and continued benefit, although serving important programmatic purposes, can also act as barriers to participation. All of these barriers to participation are addressable by appropriate policy measures, and there has been a considerable amount of empirical research to support these observations. The recent rates of participation in several large US social assistance programs (Figure 1) vary considerably [4], [5], [6]. Approximately just one-third of the lone-parent families that appear to be [are] financially eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is the largest cash assistance program in the US for disadvantaged families with children, actually participate in the program. An estimated two-thirds of eligible families, or about 3.7 million families, do not participate. Also, around only two-thirds of the disabled adult households that appear to be financially eligible for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is the largest means- tested cash assistance program for disabled people in the US, actually participate. This leaves about one-third (one million adults) who do not participate. Furthermore, approximately five-sixths of financially eligible households participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is the largest food assistance program in the US, leaving one-sixth (3.8 million households) who do not participate. Therefore, depending on the program, somewhere between one-sixth and two-thirds of those who appear to be eligible— which amounts to many millions of Americans—fail to take up benefits.Social stigma excludes people from essential participation in societyEccleston 08 [Collette Eccleston, Senior Vice President at Lieberman Research Worldwide, “The Psychological and Physical Health Effects of Stigma: The Role of Self-threats”, 2008, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, ] /Triumph DebateThe crucial question is, ‘what is about stigmatization that produces such disparities in health?’ One possibility is that membership in a stigmatized group affects whether and how people fulfill key social goals. In particular, human beings are motivated to maintain and preserve the social self; people want to see themselves as good, worthwhile, competent, and in control of impor- tant outcomes (Steele, 1988; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In turn, possessing these qualities helps people to maintain value and status in the eyes of others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The goal of preserving the social self is threatened in situations where one may be viewed negatively by others and/or in situ- ations that lower personal esteem, group-based esteem, or status. Unfortunately, such situations are inherent in stigmatized group membership. Stigmatized individuals are therefore more likely than non-stigmatized individuals to experience threats to their social selves (Major & O’Brien, 2005). Scope of the Paper This paper focuses on the extent to which stigmatized individuals’ health, a general state of physical and psychological well being, is affected by the self-threats that they face.1 Several recent empirical and theoretical reviews have addressed racism and discrimination specifically, and a number of mechanisms through which discrimination can affect health (e.g., Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Paradies, 2006; Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000). For example, among African Americans, institutional racism is partly responsible for lower socioeconomic status, which in turn negatively affects health (e.g., Mays et al., 2007; Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000). Because discrimination is a core part of stigmatization, I will discuss the relationship between discrimination and health. I will focus, however, on the idea that discrimination experiences, along with other aspects of stigmatization, are potentially threatening to the social self. I will focus on threats to the social self as a key mechanism through which stigma affects health. (See Schnittker & McLeod, 2005 for a more general argument concerning how a social psychological approach may be helpful in understanding health disparities). If maintaining a positive view of the self is indeed a fundamental human motive, threats to the self posed by stigmatization are likely to play a crucial role in how stigmatization affects health. Reflecting the literature, many of the research examples deal with the health of African Americans. Nonetheless, the general processes discussed are likely to be relevant to many other groups that are stigmatized in American society (e.g., older adults, gay men and lesbians, and Arab Americans).Trade OffsFJG doesn’t address structural barriers - becomes meaninglessKim 18 [Anne Kim, The director of domestic and social policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, May, 2018, “Guaranteed Jobs: Too Big to Succeed,” Progressive Policy Institute, ] /Triumph Debate?A third set of worries involves the preparation of workers for the jobs they would be asked to do. Current job guarantee proposals seem to assume that anyone who wants a job also has the skills and capacity to perform it, which is unrealistic. While the simple lack of available work might be all that stymies many workers, many other Americans who want to work face far more serious barriers, including the lack of skills, mental and physical disabilities that limit their capacity, caregiving obligations, mental health concerns or other issues that will need to be overcome if full-time employment is to be a reality. Barriers like these are especially problematic if a federal work program is focused on infrastructure projects, as Sanders proposes. Though liberals romanticize the Civilian Conservation Corps and other Depression-era federal work efforts, infrastructure jobs often involve physically demanding outdoor labor in all sorts of weather, along with grueling hours. They are not for everyone. One way to gauge the scope of the challenge around potential participants’ employability is to examine the ranks of workers “marginally attached” to the workforce, defined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as those who want to work and have looked for work in the last 12 months or those available to work but who have not searched for work in the last four weeks. These workers would presumably be prime targets for a federal jobs guarantee program. Among the 1.59 million workers considered “marginally attached” in 2017, less than a third reported being “discouraged over job prospects,” while the vast majority cited other reasons for not being in the labor force, such as the lack of child care or transportation, “ill health or disability,” and family responsibilities. If the purpose of a federal jobs program is to provide safety net employment for workers who cannot otherwise find private sector jobs, such an effort cannot succeed unless it also helps workers overcome the very barriers that made private sector work tougher for them to attain. This means the government not only needs to provide jobs, it needs to provide training so that workers can competently perform the work they’re given; affordable child care and transportation; remedial help if necessary with basic literacy and numeracy as well as so-called “soft skills”; mental health services and other accommodations. All of these are immensely complex, expensive and time-consuming services. But if the federal government is not willing to provide or at least subsidize these services, the “guarantee” of a job is meaningless unless there is some assurance of a worker’s potential success. And even then, there are a host of unanswered questions about the worker’s end of the bargain. Can a worker with a guaranteed job be fired? What if an employee is guilty of malfeasance or simply can’t perform? What rights and duties does a “guarantee” create?Even a job in the status quo is not an end to poverty? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? NCH, 09 [National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009, “Employment and Homelessness”, National Coalition for the Homeless, /Triumph DebateAnother trend impacting job security is non-standard work... In 1997, almost 30% of workers were employed in non-standard work arrangements (i.e. independent contracting, working for a temporary help agency, day labor, or regular part-time employment) (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999). Temporary employment has increased by 11% since 1972 (Kalleberg, Reskin, & Hudson, 2000). These non-standard work arrangements typically offer lower wages, fewer benefits, and less job security. Even temporary jobs are being affected by the worsening economy, with monthly losses that averaged 73,000 during the previous six months (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). A useful measure of the decline in job security is underemployment. Unlike the unemployment rate, measures of underemployment reflect not only individuals who are unemployed, but also involuntary part- timers and those who want to work but have been discouraged by their lack of success. As of March 2009, the underemployment rate is 15.8%, substantially higher than the 9.4% unemployment rate which translates into 24.4 million people who are underemployed or one out of every six American workers is either unemployed or underemployed. (Economic Policy Institute, 2009). The number of involuntarily part-time workers has nearly doubled since the start of the recession, from 4.6 million to 9.0 million. One reason for the higher level of underemployment is the increasing number of involuntary part-time workers -- workers who want to work full time but have only been able to obtain part time work. Thus, for many Americans, work provides no escape from poverty. The benefits of economic growth have not been equally distributed; instead, they have been concentrated at the top of income and wealth distributions. A rising tide does not lift all boats, and in the United States today, many boats are struggling to stay afloat.The benefits of jobs guarantees are not inherent - other programs can solveEstlund 19 [Cynthia Estlund, Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, 2019, “Three Big Ideas for a Future of Less Work and a Three-Dimensional Alternative”, Duke Law, ] /Triumph DebateFJG proponents rightly point out that its costs would be partly offset by large savings on existing programs that serve the working poor and the unemployed— Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, Earned Income Tax Credits, among others.91 Moreover, the FJG would have a wide range of tangible and intangible benefits. Tens of millions of non-FJG workers would get a sizable raise. The additional purchasing power of FJG participants not only would raise living standards for them and their families, but would inject an economic stimulus into poor communities where job opportunities have been scarce, and might yield private sector job gains.92 FJG jobs would also deliver some services and address community needs (as judged by the local governments and nonprofit entities that created the jobs) in those same needy communities. As important, though impossible to quantify, would be the gains in public health, crime reduction, and overall social well-being in a society in which everyone who wants a decent job has one.I make no effort here to tally up the overall costs and gains from a FJG, if that is even possible to do. But it is worth noting that most of the FJG’s benefits accumulate job by job, and do not hinge on the guarantee dimension of the FJG. Any sizable public investments that create low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs would boost incomes, psychic well-being, and social engagement of previously non-working individuals, reduce other social welfare expenditures, and deliver needed services. To be sure, a large public jobs program alone would not automatically reset the floor on wages and benefits in the rest of the economy as a FJG would do; but it would put upward pressure on those wages. Some of the costs of the FJG—especially the sheer budgetary outlays—are similarly cumulative as opposed to hinging on the guarantee. But the daunting open-endedness of the cost and size of the program is directly traceable to the guarantee feature. The guarantee feature also creates some of the practical challenges of the FJG: What does it mean for the federal government to guarantee a job to anybody who seeks one? The LEI version of the FJG avoids massively inflating the size of the federal workforce by delegating job creation and the role of employer to local governments and private organizations. But how is the guarantee to function in that model? Who would ensure that the least skilled or most scarred applicants are not ignored by sponsoring organizations? Or that jobs are real versus a scam on the federal fisc? Some kind of federal oversight, reaching down to the local level, would presumably be required.In order for a job guarantee to be successful, it needs external support programs Dolan 20 [Ed Dolan, Edwin G. Dolan holds a PhD in economics from Yale University. He has taught in the United States at?Dartmouth College, the University of Chicago, George Mason University and Gettysburg College, 01/14/2020, “Can We Put Everyone to Work? — The Alternatives to a “Job Guarantee.”” ] /Triumph DebateSecond, I think advocates overstate the ease of creating 10 to 15 million meaningful new public service jobs. To avoid competing with the private sector, they could not be jobs in hotels or factories. They could not require advanced skills or investments in heavy equipment, which would mean JG workers could play a limited role in projects like replacing aging bridges or building green energy infrastructure. When we read advocates’ descriptions of JG jobs, they talk about things like teachers’ aides, recycling, and planting trees on vacant lots. How many workers could be absorbed in such jobs before they became mere make-work? Third, many of those who remain out of work in today’s booming economy are, almost by definition, among the “hard to employ.” Those include people with criminal records, unstable housing, substance abuse issues, family situations that interfere with regular work schedules, and borderline mental and physical conditions that fall short of full disability but still create problems on the job. Programs that try to find work for the hard-to-employ are not a new idea. Many existing programs are well run. Still, their experience shows that lasting success requires intensive, one-on-one casework to help with things like soft job skills and support with personal issues. Even then, success rates are far from 100 percent. The leading JG proposals do not, in my view, come close to budgeting enough for administration, counseling, and support services. Work Requirements Although the issues just discussed make me skeptical of guaranteed jobs, I am no less skeptical of the leading conservative alternative – work requirements on welfare recipients. Welfare reforms of the 1990s already imposed work requirements on most recipients of cash welfare. The current administration now wants to extend work requirements to noncash programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance. A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers claims that the welfare reforms of the 1990s prove that work requirements can increase employment and reduce dependence. I see two reasons to doubt such confidence. For one thing, backers of work requirements assume there are many nondisabled welfare recipients who are able to work, but who choose not to. The data show otherwise. They show that a majority of nondisabled welfare recipients already work or face serious barriers to work. The following chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows data for Medicaid recipients. The figures for SNAP, housing assistance, and other programs are similar.Federal jobs guarantee trades off with other programs that address the root cause betterKim 18 [Anne Kim, The director of domestic and social policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, May, 2018, “Guaranteed Jobs: Too Big to Succeed,” Progressive Policy Institute, ] /Triumph Debate?As mentioned above, the large-scale national job program envisioned by its leading proponents would cost $543 billion, or 3 percent of GDP, to employ 10.7 million people. This translates to a per-worker cost of $50,747 a year – or just slightly below the median household income in 2016 of $57,617.19 By comparison, federal spending on Social Security totaled $922 billion in 2016 while benefiting 61 million people,20 a relative bargain by comparison. The $543 billion figure is also situated in the context of relatively low unemployment. At the height of the recession in 2010, the total share of workers unemployed and underemployed (“U.6”) was 17.1 percent,21 meaning that the cost of a federal jobs program could expect to double in a downturn, to more than $1 trillion a year. Spending of this magnitude would crowd out spending on a host of other priorities that might be better suited to building human and social capital, such as improving early childhood and K-12 education, expanding health care or making college and occupational training more affordable. Worse yet, funding for a federal jobs program could come at the expense of other safety net programs supporting children, disabled Americans and others who cannot work. As Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who served under President Barack Obama recently told The Washington Post, “It would be extremely expensive, and I wonder if this is the best, most targeted use of the amount of money it would cost.Federal employment programs overlap with other targeted programsGAO 11 [ United States Government Accountability Office, January 2011, “Multiple Employment And Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies” ] /Triumph DebateDue to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), both the number of—and funding for—federal employment and training programs have increased since our 2003 report, but little is known about the effectiveness of most programs. In fiscal year 2009, 9 federal agencies spent approximately $18 billion to administer 47 programs—an increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since our 2003 report. This increase is due to temporary Recovery Act funding. Nearly all programs track multiple outcome measures, but only five programs have had an impact study completed since 2004 to assess whether outcomes resulted from the program and not some other cause. Almost all federal employment and training programs, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide similar services to similar populations. These programs most commonly target Native Americans, veterans, and youth, and some require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment and training services from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service (ES), and Workforce Investment Act Adult (WIA Adult) programs is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services, such as job search assistance, to low-income individuals. Agency officials acknowledged that greater administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering these services, but said factors, such as the number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stops’ proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities provide the same services. Options that may increase efficiencies include colocating services and consolidating administrative structures, but implementation may pose challenges. While WIA Adult and ES services are generally colocated in onestop centers, TANF employment services are colocated in one-stops to a lesser extent. Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated their welfare and workforce agencies, and state officials said this reduced costs and improved services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition, little is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed.Money can be better spent to help distressed communitiesLowrey 17 [Annie Lowrey, Annie Lowrey is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers economic policy., 05-18-2017, “Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?” ] /Triumph Debate?Of course, there might be less salutary effects as well, and the CAP proposal leaves a number of questions unanswered. For example, the report suggests turning the current pool of unemployed, displaced, and discouraged workers into teachers’ aides, EMTs, and elder-care assistants. But those are jobs that require a considerable amount of training and skill, and are generally long-term careers rather than temporary gigs. They might not be the right ones for a public-jobs program aimed at disaffected workers, in other words. Moreover, those would not be easy job categories to expand in the event of a recession. Demand for health-, elder-, and child-care workers is mostly based on the country’s demography, after all, and again, those jobs require training. Supplying streets with crossing guards, cleaning up highways and national parks: Those more menial tasks might be better suited for a public jobs program, but are not mentioned. On top of that, the report seems to underestimate the cost of overhead and infrastructure—the program would need to be physically present in every zip code of this vast country, and the Washington has not run anything like this since the Great Depression. The fact that most government-sponsored worker-retraining programs perform abysmally goes unmentioned, too. The money might be better spent on a combination of targeted help for the long-term jobless, targeted help for distressed communities, targeted help for displaced workers, and targeted help to connect young people to the labor force, along with policies like infrastructure investment and expanded labor protections. But the report does not break out an estimated dollar-for-dollar impact of a jobs guarantee, or competing proposals. Moreover, it does not discuss how a jobs guarantee might change the Federal Reserve’s mandate to seek maximum employment along with price stability. (One question: Would the Fed allow higher interest rates that would cool off private-employment growth in a world with a jobs guarantee?) But rather than critique the idea’s policy merits, perhaps it makes more sense to look at the CAP proposal in political terms: another sign that Democrats are moving to the left, not the center, and thinking big, not small. Proposals like a jobs guarantee, Representative Ro Khanna’s $1 trillion expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the increasingly popular universal basic income might appeal not just to the Bernie Sanders left, but also to Trump voters who felt abandoned and unmoored during the Obama years, the thinking goes. The rise of populist movements and the shrinking of the middle class—with all the economic pain and political turbulence that comes with that—seems to have increased the appetite of both parties for dramatic proposals. As such, even before the CAP proposal had come out, the idea of a jobs guarantee had been gaining traction on the left. The economists and public intellectuals William Darity of Duke University and Darrick Hamilton of the New School have been pushing for a federal jobs guarantee, for instance, in part to ease the country’s profound racial disparities and to act as a more effective recession-fighting measure than unemployment insurance. The European Union recently implemented a youth-guarantee initiative to reduce the number of young people “not in employment, education, or training,” often referred to as “NEETs.”Welfare spending is more effective at reducing poverty than unemploymentLewis 18 [Nathaniel Lewis, Independent researcher and graduate of New. College of Florida, “Welfare Beats Jobs When It Comes to Poverty Reduction”, June 13, 2018, People’s Policy Project, ] /Triumph DebateWe see in the graph that it’s quite possible to have unemployment in the double digits, and poverty in the single digits, provided there is adequate social spending. Likewise, even a very low unemployment rate will produce a high poverty rate if the welfare spending is not there. Social Spending and Final Poverty When I compare social spending levels to final poverty, I get a strong, direct relationship. We see in the graph that it’s quite possible to have unemployment in the double digits, and poverty in the single digits, provided there is adequate social spending. Likewise, even a very low unemployment rate will produce a high poverty rate if the welfare spending is not there. When I compare social spending levels to final poverty, I get a strong, direct relationship. We see from the graph that, with adequate social spending, the poverty rate can drop to the low single digits. The regression estimates that for less than 3 percent of consumption redirected towards social welfare, countries can expect to reduce the final poverty rate by a percentage point. This finding essentially confirms what I wrote in my prior piece on cross-country social spending. What we see across countries is that low inequality and poverty is overwhelmingly about social spending. None of this is to diminish the importance of full employment or job programs. But when we are talking about poverty in particular, it pays to get the facts straight: developed countries achieve low levels of poverty through large welfare states.Crowd OutPublic sector employment causes crowd outBourne 18 [Ryan Bourne, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato. "A Jobs Guaranteed Economic Disaster." Cato Institute on April 24, 2018. ] /Triumph DebateIn reality, the fiscal costs are likely to be much, much higher, and the economic welfare losses even more significant, because in the labor market and broader economy, a public jobs guarantee program would significantly crowd out productive private sector activity. This type of policy will radically alter behavior of both workers and businesses, and so the supply and demand for labor. The Census shows that, among those who worked in 2016, 70+ million Americans earned under $32,500 (the full‐?time job guarantee salary would be $31,200). Yes, not all of these would seek out positions on the jobs guarantee program. But a large proportion would, especially those employed in uncertain roles with low levels of job security. In fact, some even paid more than $31,200 might consider leaving their jobs to pursue guaranteed roles if they perceive better working conditions or an easier worklife (asked under what conditions someone would be fired from such a role, the Levy Institute paper suggests that you would be sacked for failing to go to work, but that your performance would not be judged by “private sector ‘efficiency criteria’”, for example.) It’s not inconceivable then that over 25 percent of the labor force could find itself part of the scheme. This crowd‐?out is likely to be particularly acute in low productivity regions, and (ironically) after economic downturns. A nationwide jobs guarantee program paying $15 an hour will be particularly attractive to workers in low wage regions, and by setting a de facto wage floor the program will prevent private investment in regions on the basis of cheap labor. Though no doubt there would be some demand spillovers from well‐?paid jobs, the net consequence is highly likely to be weaker private sector job creation in poor regions, which has been the experience of countries such as Britain with a nationwide minimum wages and public sector national pay bargaining. Proponents of the scheme see “higher labor standards” as a good thing, but absent productivity improvements, policies which raise labor costs significantly will reduce the quantity of workers demanded. There’s good reason to expect the policy will reduce the efficiency and productive potential of the economy too. Taxes will eventually need to be raised to cover the net cost of the program. In infrastructure and care giving provision, costs will rise – because nobody would now work in these directly substitutable sectors for less than the wage and conditions offered in the job guarantee program. This will waste resources, and there’s highly likely to be overinvestment in lots of relatively low value ventures and programs to ensure workers are employed, especially given the explicit aim is to provide employment rather than deliver projects at low cost. Throwing resources at regions with higher levels of unemployment and after recessions too will work directly against market signals and deter the mobility of labor (in geographic and industrial terms) and capital to its most productive uses given prevailing market conditions. This is important: yes, employment is highly likely to have some positive externalities; but the real driver of better living standards over time are productivity improvements, discovered by market‐?based activity.?Proponents of this policy seem to put an enormous weight on the idea that time out of the labor market has huge scarring consequences which could be ameliorated by any type of temporary employment. But the literature on this shows that temporary jobs do not provide the workers with skills to improve longer‐?term labor market outcomes.Explanation: how a federal jobs program crowds out the private sectorEstlund 19 [Cynthia Estlund, Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, 2019, “Three Big Ideas for a Future of Less Work and a Three-Dimensional Alternative”, Duke Law, ] /Triumph DebateThe main point of the FJG lies in the creation of decent jobs for those who are now unemployed, underemployed, or discouraged by the lack of job opportunities. No less important, however, would be the dramatic effects— intended and unintended—on jobs outside the FJG program. Because any eligible individual could get a job with the prescribed FJG package of pay and benefits, that package would effectively become the floor on wages and benefits in the private sector. Employers wishing to hire or retain workers would have to meet the new higher floor, which would be enforced—far more effectively than any system of official sanctions or litigation—by workers’ exit from lower-wage jobs into FJG jobs. In other words, the FJG would effectively raise the federal minimum wage to the FJG floor. That would amount to more than a doubling of the minimum wage in the large parts of the country currently governed by the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, and a very large increase in all but a handful of high-wage, high-cost cities.? For FJG proponents, the dramatic improvement in wages and benefits at the bottom of the labor market—both within and outside the program—is one of its most appealing features. Unfortunately, some lower-wage private-sector jobs, instead of being upgraded, would disappear because employers were not willing or able to meet the new floor—or because the much higher cost of labor tipped the scales toward automation. And the growing capabilities and falling cost of technology vis-a-vis labor will almost certainly increase the magnitude of non-FJG job losses. In the case of the FJG, private sector job losses would not yield unemployment; the FJG program would simply expand to absorb displaced individuals. But it would yield a large-scale displacement of private sector jobs by federally guaranteed jobs that might raise other concerns. It also raises questions about the expected size of the program. ?It is inherent in the concept of a FJG that the size of the program would be determined not ex ante, based on policymakers’ willingness to appropriate some particular level of funds, but by how many eligible individuals chose to take up the FJG option. That is the point of a public job guarantee versus a public job creation policy. It is also the program’s greatest source of vulnerability.? Obviously and by design, an FJG would draw in a large share of the unemployed, of “discouraged workers” who have given up looking for a job, and of part-time workers who would prefer full-time work but cannot get it on the existing market. The LEI estimates that this would include 12.6 million to 17.4 million individuals as of 2018.83? The FJG would also draw in some workers who are currently employed full time but whose wages and benefits fell short of the new FJG floor. The question is how many of those lower-wage jobs would be upgraded and how many would instead disappear in the face of what amounts to a very large minimum wage hike.84 The LEI, for its part, takes a polar position in the vigorous debate among labor economists over the extent to which minimum wage hikes destroy jobs: It assumes that virtually no jobs—and none of those paying more than the current federal minimum wage—would disappear in response to more than a doubling of the effective minimum wage. On that assumption, virtually no current full-time employees would enter the FJG program because nearly all of those jobs would be raised to the FJG threshold.85 That seems like a heroic assumption, and a very consequential one. If, say, ten percent (or twenty-five percent) of jobs currently paying below the FJG threshold disappeared through offshoring, automation, or otherwise, instead of being upgraded, then another seven million (or seventeen million) more workers would be expected to enter the FJG program from among the currently employed.86 All told, a FJG program along the lines outlined here might draw in twenty to thirty million participants in today’s labor market, at an annual cost far in excess of the LEI’s estimate of $409 to $543 billion.87 And that is at a time of historically low unemployment; both participation levels and budgetary outlays would balloon (by design) in a recession—or in the event of escalating job losses due to automation.88 The sheer magnitude of a FJG program also raises doubts— from the labor-friendly Economic Policy Institute, no less—as to whether there is enough “public sector managerial capacity” to administer such a program.The conflict between public and private sector work makes an FJG unsustainable Seekings 06, [Jeremy Seekings, Professor of Political Studies and Sociology, Director of the Centre for Social Science, “Employment guarantee or minimum income? Workfare and welfare in developing countries”, February 2006, University of Cape Town, ] /Triumph DebateThis paper examines aspects of this choice. It does not discuss the normative or theoretical aspects of the debate around workfare and welfare, between guaranteed employment or minimum (or basic) income. It concentrates rather on a counter-intuitive paradox: In some of the societies in which the need for one or other programme is most pressing, there appears to be a tension between the preference for job creation, among both elites and citizens in general, and the political environment, which impedes or prevents a sustainable and effective job creation programme. This paradox is rooted in the co-existence of high wages and high unemployment in some economies. In countries like South Africa, unemployment is very high in part because high wages result in a restricted demand for unskilled labour. But, if wages on public job creation programmes are linked to existing ‘market’ wages, then the programmes are unsustainable. Markets are socially constructed, and the practices and policies underpinning high wages are strongly defended by vested interests. In this paper I argue that there are political obstacles to the introduction of significant non-cyclical public works programmes or employment guarantees in countries where labour market policies underpin high wages. In these circumstances, the expansion of social assistance might be more viable, even if benefits are set at a very low level and there is a general preference in principle for job creation. This paper focuses on the South African case. South Africa is in important respects an unusual Southern case-study, but it serves to illuminate general themes and issues. South Africa experienced deagrarianisation unusually early and fully, as apartheid completed a process of undermining agricultural livelihoods and agrarian society. This was the primary reason for South Africa’s exceptional introduction of a range of social assistance programmes, notably in the 1940s. In the later apartheid period, state policies resulted in very high unemployment, exposing the loose weave of the social safety net (Seekings and Nattrass, 2005). In the post-apartheid period, i.e. since the country’s first democratic elections in 1994, there have been calls for both public works programmes and the expansion of welfare through some kind of basic income grant or minimum income scheme. But there has been curiously little research on the relative merits, constraints and sustainability of these alternatives, nor does it seem that the comparative literature on employment guarantee or public works programmes has informed thinking about the choice facing South Africa.160,000 workers would move from the private sector?Wray et. al 18 [ L. Randall Wray, ?Professor of Economics at Bard College with a Ph.D. from Washington University, Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute, April 2018, “Public Service Employment: a Path To Full Employment” Levy Economics Institute of Bard College,] /Triumph DebateTable 2.2 presents the assumptions we make regarding part-time workers. Our higher bound includes all those working part time for economic reasons, and all those working part time due to childcare problems.18 Our lower bound includes 50 percent of those employed part time for economic reasons who usually work full time or part time,19 and 50 percent of those working part-time due to childcare problems.In 2017, around 510,000 full-time workers were paid hourly rates below the prevailing federal minimum wage, while 130,000 worked for hourly rates at the federal minimum wage. We assume that 25 percent of these private sector jobs would disappear because private employers would not raise wages in order to compete with the program wage of $15 per hour, while the remainder would continue to be employed outside the program, with their employers presumed to be able to raise wages and benefits. This means an addition of 160,000 program workers. As can be seen in Table 2.2, 25 percent of low-wage, hourly paid, full-time workers are included in our higher-bound estimates, and 12.5 percent are included in the lower bound. Impact on those out of the labor force We expect the program to draw from among those who are currently out of the labor force but who report “wanting a job now”—some 5.7 million people in 2017Q3. Of those, around 2.2 million searched for work in the previous year, and 1.6 million were available to work. Our higher bound includes all those who report wanting a job now, except for those who were not available. In our lower bound, we assume that all of those who want a job now would join the program, except those not readily available or readily available but ill, disabled, or in school/training.21 According to our estimates in Table 2.3, between 4.75 million and 5.1 million of those currently out of the labor force would have enrolled in the program if it had been available in 2017Q3—this represents about 5 percent of the out-ofthe-labor-force population. According to our calculations, were these people to join the labor force, the labor force participation rate would have been almost 2 percentage points higher in 2017Q3: 65.1 percent instead of 63.2 percent.For every 100 public jobs created, 150 private jobs are lostAlgan et al. 02 [Yann Algan, Pierre Cahuc, André Zylberberg, J?rn-Steffen Pischke and Thierry Verdier, All authors are with the University of France and the University of Paris. April, 2002. “Public employment and labour market performance,” Centre for Economic Policy Research, ] /Triumph Debate?We explore the consequences of public employment for labour market performance. Theory suggests that public employment may not only crowd out private employment, but also increase overall unemployment if, by offering attractive working conditions, it draws additional individuals into the labour force. Empirical evidence from a sample of OECD countries in the 1960–2000 period suggests that, on average, creation of 100 public jobs may have eliminated about 150 private sector jobs, slightly decreased labour market participation, and increased by about 33 the number of unemployed workers. Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, however, suggest that the crowding out effect of public jobs on private jobs is only significant in countries where public production is highly substitutable to private activities and the public sector offers more attractive wages and/or other benefits than the private labour market.For every 100 new public jobs, 98 are crowded out in the private sectorBehar and Mok 13 [Alberto Behar and Junghwan Mok, Alberto Behar works for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Junghwan Mok works for the Bank of Korea, June 2013, “Does Public-Sector Employment Fully Crowd Out Private-Sector Employment?”International Monetary Fund, ] /Triumph Debate?Consistent with the two scatter plots of public and private employment rates in Figure 7, all coefficients indicate a very strong negative relationship between public- and private-sector employment rates. For example, 100 new public jobs crowd out 98 private jobs (column (2)). Generally, the coefficients are close to -1 and are not significantly different from that value despite being precisely estimated. Any deviations from this value are not systematic. Crowding out is estimated to be lower when public administration is endogenous than when it is exogenous—as was the case in Table 2—but crowding out is estimated to be higher when the broadly defined public sector is endogenous than when it is exogenous. The coefficient estimates in Appendix II mostly have an absolute value that is slightly but insignificantly less than 1. Taken together with the unemployment results, public employment just about fully crowds out private-sector employment regardless of the definition, such that a rise in government hiring would be offset by decreases in private employment, resulting in no change in overall unemployment. Of course, these results apply symmetrically to decreases in government hiring, so that reduced government hiring would be almost completely offset by additional private-sector jobsPrivate sector job programs have better impacts long termCard et al. 17 [David Card, Jochen Kluve, and Andrea Weber. David Card, Department of Economics at University of California, Berkeley. Jochen Kluve of Humboldt-University and RWI. Andrea weber, Economics Department at Vienna University of Economics and Business. April, 2017. “WHAT WORKS? A META ANALYSIS OF RECENT ACTIVE LABOR MARKET PROGRAM EVALUATIONS” National Bureau of Economic Research, ] /Triumph Debate?Second, the time profile of average impacts in the post-program period varies with the type of ALMP. Job search assistance programs that emphasize "work first" tend to have similar impacts in the short and long run, whereas training and private sector employment programs have larger average effects in the medium and longer runs. Public sector employment subsidies tend to have small or even negative average impacts at all horizons. Third, we find that the average impacts of ALMPs vary across groups, with larger average effects for females and participants drawn from the pool of long term unemployed, and smaller average effects for older workers and youths. We also find suggestive evidence that certain programs work better for specific subgroups of participants. Job search assistance programs appear to be relatively more successful for disadvantaged participants, whereas training and private sector employment subsidies tend to have larger average effects for the long term unemployed. Finally, comparing the relative efficacy of ALMPs offered at different points in the business cycle, we find that programs in recessionary periods tend to have larger average impacts, particularly if the downturn is relatively short-lived. ................
................

Online Preview   Download