Perhaps our nation will experience a moral renewal that will prompt businesses that are already highly profitable to pay higher wages. Perhaps the wealthy will decide to donate 10% of their wealth to non-profit organizations to hire public-service workers. Perhaps the economy will grow to the point that anyone can find a living-wage job.
But until some miracle like that happens, the federal government has a moral obligation to step up and provide the necessary funds. We need to focus on that moral issue like a laser beam, and not get distracted by side issues. If the government can figure out how to rescue Wall Street, they can figure out how to rescue Main Street.
BUILD THE BASE
Those of us who are committed to this goal already have a great deal of support. In March 2013, based on a study funded by the highly reputable Russell Sage Foundation, three respected political scientists, Benjamin I. Page, Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright, reported that two-thirds of the American people believe "the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job."
The wording in that survey is important. It did not ask people if they support a guaranteed job, as have other surveys. Rather, it used the phrase "can find a job." As discussed above, that formulation implies assuring a job opportunity. It does not assume that people who find a job can keep it regardless of their effort. It does not guarantee a job unconditionally.
Polls indicate the importance of the distinction. The Page/Bartels/Seawright study found lower support for "the federal government should provide jobs for everyone able and willing to work who cannot find a job in private employment." Barely more than half supported that position.
And a 2014 YouGov/Huffington Post poll asked, "Would you favor or oppose a law guaranteeing a job to every American adult, with the government providing jobs for people who can't find employment in the private sector?" In that poll, more people supported that proposition, 47%, than opposed it, 41%. But support for each of these positions was weaker than with the "job opportunity" option.
Various methods are available to create jobs, including providing more support for the private economy. But according to most Americans, the ultimate responsibility rests in DC: "the government in Washington."
Other polls have shown strong support for federal job creation programs. A March 2013 Gallup poll, for example, found that three-fourths supported "a federal jobs creation law that would spend government money for a program designed to create more than 1 million new jobs."
The Page/Bartels/Seawright study also found that three-fourths of the general public believe the minimum wage should be "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below [the] official poverty line." That response indicates that an overwhelming majority of Americans believes that full-time workers should earn a "living wage" that enables them to avoid poverty.
Different elements of a full employment movement could back various proposals for increasing the minimum wage. One option is to raise the minimum wage to a level that will enable single workers to avoid poverty and increase the Earned Income Tax credit for families to achieve the same goal. A recent poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found 80 percent of the respondents agreed that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10 an hour. A national meeting in Washington on April 28 will be pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage.
(If you want to form your own opinion about what a single childless worker in your state needs to make ends meet, experiment with the New York Times interactive calculator, which allows you to construct a line-item living-wage budget.)
Through vigorous public debate, we can trust the "wisdom of crowds" and develop a consensus about how to concretely ensure living-wage incomes, while at the same time building support for the proposition that as a society, one way or the other, we must assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity.
We would not need total agreement within a full employment movement on all specific methods. Rather, we can respect our differences and focus on building broad support for our basic goal: guaranteeing all Americans a living-wage job opportunity.
PROMOTE TRUE FULL EMPLOYMENT
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
