Search the archive.

First, it is necessary to describe exactly how the Green Job Guarantee is intended to work, at least in a general sense. To do so, it may be most helpful to first understand the intent of a general Jobs Guarantee/ELR proposal. In general, a Federal Jobs Guarantee program could be defined as: “…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 (Tcherneva, 2018).”

A federal jobs guarantee is a simple idea with transformational potential: it’s the idea that the government would provide a job for anyone that wanted one, because there are people who need jobs, and there is work to be done. Proponents of a federal jobs guarantee say that the federal government, in partnership with local job boards, could bridge the gap between willing labor and necessary work. Most interestingly, proponents argue that a federal jobs guarantee could address the failure of the private labor market to provide decent paying jobs by offering $15 minimum hourly pay, health care, and other benefits, forcing the private sector to offer more to compete.

A federal jobs guarantee is a pretty simple idea: if you want a job, you get one, at a living wage and with full benefits that we associate with full-time labor, like healthcare. Granular specifics such as the level of wages offered or the specific level of non-wage benefits can vary, but all job guarantee proposals share those basic attributes.

Harry Hopkins, the administrator of the New Deal work programs, proposed making permanent job assurance part of the American welfare-state, as a counterpart to unemployment insurance, though this did not eventuate due to political opposition (Hopkins, 1999). Public debate during the Lyndon Johnson administration included discussion of the government as “employer of last resort” as an anti-poverty program (Time, 1967) and Martin Luther King, Jr. endorsed an “Economic Bill of Rights” that would “guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work” (King, 2003: 103). This led to legislation like the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Bill (1974), which, if enacted, would have created a legally enforceable right to a job, and used the term “Job Guarantee” to describe the program on offer (Hawkins, 1975: 15). Another program described as a “job guarantee” was extended to teenage high school dropouts in a demonstration project in the late 1970s, which Gueron (1984: 5) described as working by “eliminat[ing] any shortage of minimum wage jobs” through direct public jobs and subsidised private employment. By this time, political opinion was turning against the prioritisation of full employment over price stability, but as late as 1978, the US Congress debated and passed the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, which directs the US Government to achieve full employment (defined as below 3%) via “reservoirs” of public employment (Ginsburg, 2012). However, one of the bill’s authors, Hawkins (1979), lamented that its directions were being violated within a year of enactment.

Two clear theoretical antecedents of the JG are Pierson (1979) and Minsky (1986). Pierson’s Economic Performance Insurance (EPI) proposed “guaranteeing” specific levels of employment and consumer spending by creating jobs through a permanent “reserve shelf” of public services and works and more traditional pump-priming policies (Pierson, 1979: 86; 89). The “reserve shelf” would comprise public works and services of “intrinsic value”, which could be started and suspended quickly. As with later JG proposals, Pierson (ibid.: 93-94) argued that the EPI would allow full employment (minus “necessary frictional” unemployment of workers moving between jobs) with price stability, as the target levels for jobs and spending would have upper bands as well as lower, encouraging swift government action to curb excess demand and creating expectations of the foregoing. Minsky (1986: 308) proposed “an infinitely elastic demand for labour […] that does not depend upon long- and short-run profit expectations”, and was included in an economic plan to stabilise the fluctuations of the labour market. Minsky (ibid.: 310-312) recommended the resurrection of large government employment programs from the New Deal to employ a total of 9 million workers, but Minsky explicitly did not envisage employing all jobless workers. Nevertheless, so great is the obvious debt the JG owes these proposals, Pierson (1979) and Minsky (1986) should be recognised as the creators of the JG.

It’s called a federal jobs guarantee, and it has some heavyweight support. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) backs the idea and has said he will release a detailed plan in the fall. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) has introduced legislation that would see a three-year pilot project set up to guarantee jobs in 15 regions of high unemployment. Among the bill’s co-sponsors is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who tweeted in support of the policy in April.

And when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez swept to victory over Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a powerful establishment Democrat, in a congressional primary last month, a jobs guarantee featured high on her list of policies.

The climate crisis offers a new angle from which to evaluate US dollar hegemony, since carbon emissions are tied to economic activity.

Dollar hegemony constrains the rest of the world’s ability to finance the green transition because other countries have less control over their own monetary policy.2 My research3 suggests that dollar hegemony is an external constraint on US decarbonization, as well. This is because dollar hegemony:

There is, however, widespread belief that any monetary intervention stimulates hyper-inflation of the form found in 1920s Germany, 1990s Argentina and 2000s Zimbabwe. This is because people believe giving consumers more money to spend leads to businesses charging higher prices to take advantage of increased purchasing power, creating a cycle in which employees demand higher wages to buy commodities, increasing the cost of production, cancelling out any benefit from the monetary intervention and actually reducing the standard of living overall.

UBI is a redistributive economic policy that can be funded by taxing those resources that contribute little to society: wealth and passive income from shares as well as income at the very top end of society

#1: Centralized Financial Systems Can Fail In October 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published a 9-page white paper entitled, “.” Although the white paper was released in October 2008, he probably started formalizing the concept of Bitcoin in late 2006 and began coding the Bitcoin software around May 2007[1]. So although Nakamoto conceived of Bitcoin prior to the , the release of his white paper was fortuitous and serendipitous. During the 2008 financial crisis, multiple large banks went bankrupt and some banks were even acquired by governments to prevent a total collapse of the world’s financial systems. The 2008 financial crisis cost the global economy trillions of dollars and destroyed trust between large financial institutions and the public, who were left to pay the price, while the large banks were bailed out. In such a crisis, the danger of centralized intermediaries became clear to all. These centralized intermediaries formed a single point of failure: if the banks fail, financial transactions fail and all money held at failed banks is lost forever (apart from ). #2: Centralized Financial Systems Can Inflate the Money Supply Since the 2008 financial crisis, the world’s monetary institutions have become addicted to (QE). QE is a monetary policy where central banks increase the money supply in order to stimulate a weak economy. QE is not technically just “printing money.”[2] Central banks are buying assets (usually bonds) from the private sector and/or the government. This infusion of money helps the private sector stay afloat in times of economic crisis and enables more government spending. Up until 2021, there were no clear signs of inflation in the U.S. economy, but that has changed. The COVID-19 pandemic led the U.S. Federal Reserve to buy in assets starting in March 2020. And the U.S. government responded by spending roughly on various relief measures with varying levels of effectiveness. In the summer and fall of 2021, the Democrats have proposed $4.5 trillion in additional spending in two separate bills: a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion social welfare and climate change bill. So far, neither of these bills have passed, but the serious consideration of more spending has led to inflation and the search for alternative investments. "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust." (Satoshi Nakamoto, "") In world history, it was usually heavy wartime expenditures, lavish social welfare, or both, that contributed to the economic decline of wealthy nations. In the 1960s, it was the combination of expansive social welfare under President Lyndon Johnson's and a war of attrition in Vietnam that led President Richard Nixon to in 1971. This decision has slowly, but surely debased the U.S. dollar. Without the gold standard, increasing the money supply became too easy, since the money supply was no longer required to be backed by gold reserves. The United States has enjoyed a long period of economic prosperity as the world’s strongest economy since the end of World War II. But only arrogance would lead us to believe that such economic strength will continue on forever. It is nearly guaranteed that at some point in the next century, the U.S. dollar will collapse. No nation and no national currency endures forever. The extending back to ancient times tells us that governments cannot not sustain massive levels of spending without their money eventually becoming debased, devalued, and eventually worthless. #3: Centralized Financial Systems Can Confiscate or Exclude In the modern-day West, we are not accustomed to government confiscation of assets, except in the case of criminal activity (e.g., the FBI seizing assets of drug dealers). But bankrupt governments turn to desperate measures. In 2016, when the Greek government was in a debt crisis, containing $1.6 billion euros. In 2018, when the Venezuelan economy was on the brink of collapse, banks limited withdrawals to (about $0.06 USD at the time). People would wait in lines for hours and ATMs would be empty. In 2016, the Venezuelan government , its largest and most commonly used bill. Immediately, all 100-bolivar bills become worthless pieces of paper. One third of Venezuelans don’t even have bank accounts, so cash transactions are critical to their economy. In the West, we also take banking services for granted. However, about defined as a person “not having access to the services of a bank or similar financial organization.” Many countries simply do not have the financial infrastructure to provide banking services. But in other cases, government and financial authorities intentionally exclude certain people from access to banking services. In the Arab world, only about in 2018. In some places like Iraq, only in 2014. Much of this discrimination against women in the Arab world is based on patriarchal cultural norms that exclude women from gaining financial independence. Even in the United States, there is evidence of discrimination against LGBTQ individuals by financial institutions: “Same-sex couples were 73% more likely to be turned down for a mortgage than similarly qualified different-sex couples, and same-sex couples who were approved for mortgages paid about 0.02% to 0.2% more, on average, in interest and fees” (Hua Sun and Lei Gao, “”)

The dollar dominance has been steadily shrinking since 1990 and today, as per the IMF’s Currency Composition of Official Foreign Reserves data, the US dollar holds the of the world’s reserve currency assets. It has become increasingly problematic for economies worldwide. Therefore, de-dollarization, or moving away from the US dollar as the dominant global reserve currency can potentially have numerous advantages for global capitalism. To begin with, this advancement could help in diminishing the centralization of economic power in the hands of one nation i.e., the United States of America. Moreover, by decentralizing the currency and financial systems, utilized in international trade and finance, nations could reduce their susceptibility to the economic and political risks conjoined with the US dollar, such as US sanctions and market capriciousness, that could easily be discerned in the form of sanctions on Russia. Additionally, de-dollarization could foster financial stability and potency by diminishing the impact of the US dollar and other associated risks on the international financial system. As shown during the financial crisis of 2008, the global financial system’s interconnectivity can cause financial contagion and instability. Therefore, De-dollarization and currency diversification could lessen the probability and severity of future financial crises by promoting a more diverse and decentralized financial system. Moreover, de-dollarization can foster greater economic and financial inclusivity by reducing barriers to entry for countries and businesses that may have been excluded from the US-dominated financial system which would result in ameliorating the competitiveness, leading to better products and services, and lower prices for consumers. This can potentially result in increased economic growth and development, particularly in emerging markets. No doubt, past endeavors to dethrone the dollar ended in whimper and even today, this de-dollarization “will not happen overnight,” as French columnist Le Figaro Girard has rightly argued, but the current trend to dump the greenback is “obviously irreversible”. Therefore, the process of de-dollarization is complex and protracted however, this time, there might exist multiple reasons for a country to move away from using the US dollar as a reserve currency. From the latest developments and factors, it suggests that the US dollar’s hegemony might be under threat and burgeoning challenges to its status could lead to a gradual shift towards a multipolar global financial system or some other alternatives like shifting to multi-currency global economy. Also, while the threat to the dollar’s hegemony is imminent, this won’t afflict global capitalism; rather it would bolster the growth of global capitalism with far-reaching implications. Therefore, as the US continues to grapple with these challenges posed by the contenders, it will be intriguing to see how these developments unfold and shape the future of global capitalism.

Opinion: We live in an age of crisis. The Global Financial Crisis, austerity measures, climate change, Covid-19 and war have all reduced people’s standard of living, wellbeing and predicted lifespan. It’s a dire outlook, made worse by a fast-evolving cost-of-living crisis. One way to ease the burden on people would be a Universal Basic Income (UBI). In our last age of crisis, during World War Two, Western governments took the momentous decision to tackle even more serious crises through massive state intervention. Governments rapidly committed themselves to costs with few precedents in creating social security and healthcare systems, nationalised industry and a range of other equality-promoting measures. At a time when countries could, apparently, least afford those policies, policymakers saw no alternative than to spend big. The consequence was three decades of growth, increased standards of living, increased life expectancy and unprecedented technological development, ended only by war-induced increases in energy prices that sent inflation spiralling. As the Financial Times recently noted, the policies adopted over the past four decades have left countries such as Britain poor, but with some very rich people. Universal Basic Income has been presented as a means of addressing this crisis. Giving people largely unconditional, predictable forms of income to satisfy their basic needs has been identified as a means of restoring social security, increasing equality and supporting growth in areas of countries that have been left behind by development and promoting public health overall. There is, however, widespread belief that any monetary intervention stimulates hyper-inflation of the form found in 1920s Germany, 1990s Argentina and 2000s Zimbabwe. This is because people believe giving consumers more money to spend leads to businesses charging higher prices to take advantage of increased purchasing power, creating a cycle in which employees demand higher wages to buy commodities, increasing the cost of production, cancelling out any benefit from the monetary intervention and actually reducing the standard of living overall. UBI is a redistributive economic policy that can be funded by taxing those resources that contribute little to society: wealth and passive income from shares as well as income at the very top end of society There is little evidence to support this view. UBI is no more or less inflationary than anything else that raises incomes – its impact would depend on whether the economy is at full employment, whether taxes are raised to pay for the scheme and various other factors. Where hyperinflation has occurred, it has been because essential goods are scarce, raising their value overall, and debt has been held in foreign currencies and paid in currencies declining in value by virtue of countries’ domestic production being disrupted or declining. Our current levels of inflation are caused by similar pressures as those in the 1970s: war leading to an increase in the cost of fossil fuels. If the logic behind objecting to a UBI on the basis of inflation were correct, then there ought to be absolutely no attempt to introduce new jobs or increase wages, as both increase purchasing power. If inflation is our sole concern, governments ought to slash wages and massively increase taxes. The point is that nobody wants either of those options because, even if they did reduce inflation, people would not want to have their wages reduced. UBI is a redistributive economic policy that can be funded by taxing those resources that contribute little to society: wealth and passive income from shares as well as income at the very top end of society. The resources of the rich are generally off-shored and contribute little to a country’s financial wellbeing. Analysis of the distributive impacts of UBI in the UK suggest its introduction would shift resources to those people and areas that need the investment most. That may increase the cost of housing and other goods in parts of countries that have been left behind, but this is a central means of enhancing community wealth and ‘Levelling Up’. It is also a means of developing entrepreneurship and production within areas that have been deindustrialised. This support for production is, again, an essential means of supporting a bulwark against hyperinflation. Given that we live in market societies, the fear this will lead to unchecked inflation is counterintuitive, as competition is supported by rising purchasing power and serves to check price increases. The alternative is simply to leave all but the metropolitan centres to wither away and to be dependent on the whims of finance. As our recent RSA report indicated, if governments are committed to resolving our age of crisis, they need to do as their predecessors did after World War Two: invest in transformative policies with expensive up-front costs to achieve the most significant social outcomes. Nothing is more expensive than undoing climate change, dealing with pandemics and repairing the damage of social decay. In that context, there is evidence a UBI is economically feasible and voters regard UBI as a necessary means of promoting social security.

The idea that a Universal Basic Income fuels inflation makes no economic sense.

We live in an age of crisis. The Global Financial Crisis, austerity measures, climate change, Covid-19 and war have all reduced people's standard of living, wellbeing and even predicted lifespan. It's a dire outlook, made worse by a fast-evolving cost of living crisis.

The most important studies done in the realm of measuring the price effects of universal basic income have been two general equilibrium studies, one looking at transfers from the NGO GiveDirectly in Kenya25 and the other studying the Mexican food assistance program “Programa de Apoyo Alimentario”.26 Both studies evaluated transfer programs to very impoverished places and the latter to a relatively closed economy, so obviously we can expect discrepancies between the evidence and what would happen in reality given a universal basic income in North America. Egger et al. find that there was less than 1% price inflation on average as a result of the transfers. The greatest price effect is to housing, which the authors do not find statistically significant. There is a strong increase in consumption and firm profits, akin to an aggregate demand increase, with spillover effects, and little-to-positive labour hours change. The authors believe they found a transfer multiplier effect of over 2. Additionally, there was a formation of a strong potential growth effect in terms of permanent consumption and income as estimated by the authors. This overall aligns with my model; that is that is, cash transfers caused growth in both permanent output and output level and almost-nonexistent price change. This checks out intuitively: an increase in income resulted in more consumption and more output in an economy that has room to grow, so there will not be additional money-per-unit-of-output that ultimately underlies the Quantity Theory of Money. The Cunha, Georgi, and Jayachandra study finds again a neglible price inflation effect. However, they do find that in-kind transfers provide deflation compared to cash transfers in isolated villages. Isolated villages likely suffer from imperfect competion and aren’t factored in to the monetary partial equilibrium. In the more-developed world with stronger market institutions, we would likely see different. Unfortunately, data for programs like these in the developed world is scarce.

How exactly, though, does a jobs guarantee combat the issues Americans face in the wake of Covid-19? Common of such a program include its price tag, a reduction in free-market competition, increased inflation, and the logistical challenges for administration and training. However, the very criticisms a jobs guarantee receives largely reflect the current realities such a program would combat. Worries of inflation due to full employment can be assuaged as the Fed can then manage inflation without increasing unemployment. Furthermore, take the predicted price tag of the program. At face value, the program could 2.3 percent of GDP – about $450 billion to employ and provide benefits to reach full employment in 2018. However, the reduction in demand for unemployment payments and related welfare programs mitigates this high net cost, as new workers rise above the poverty line. A study conducted by the predicts the actual cost could be as low as 1 percent of GDP. Not only that, but every dollar spent on government workers is a dollar infused into the economy to multiply and is exchanged for the product of the workers’ labor. A jobs guarantee does not work like most social programs in that the economic benefit is based on hand-out spending; the very nature of the program ensures increased production for otherwise idle workers experiencing financial stagnation or hemorrhage. Furthermore, contrary to the beliefs of some critics, a government-guaranteed job can actually provide increased competition to the labor market. By providing employment at a minimum wage of $15, the government can effectively set a for the labor-wage market, transferring power to workers and pressuring businesses to provide greater wages, benefits, and working conditions to attract employees. A labor-supply surplus is attenuated in that the demand for labor becomes nearly completely elastic – if there are not enough jobs, the government will then create more. Unemployment without a jobs guarantee is an issue less because there is not work to be done and moreso because the work is not profitable. When providing additional jobs is not profitable as it relates to product demand, fewer jobs are offered. This does not mean there is not work to be done. Many projects, such as re-outfitting buildings to be more environmentally friendly or rebuilding bridges and public transportation, are yet to be done. When the government – the agency of the people – becomes an employer, the scope of productive motivation expands to social benefit. By engaging workers in public works projects, the American economy unlocks a collective demand that bolsters the economy further by the multiplier effect.

DURHAM, N.C. (WNCN) – When the world shut down, Americans did an extraordinary thing. They saved money at a rate of around 20 percent. People typically save less than 5 percent. Now, many are ready to spend it, but there aren’t enough goods and services out there for everyone. That means pent-up demand is driving prices higher, contributing to higher inflation. Costs have risen 5.4 percent, marking the highest rate in 13 years. “They’re returning to spending activities in a climate which these same level of goods and services that we’re accustomed to having out there are not available,” said William Darity, Professor of Public Policy at Duke University. People are also going places, so gas prices are up. In central North Carolina, the competition and cost of buying a home are also part of the problem. “The home purchase market is definitely one of those where we’re experiencing the most dramatic increases in prices,” Darity said. The good news is that inflation is nowhere near historic levels. The Federal Reserve sees the bump as temporary, but much depends on the unknown. Who would have thought so many people would not get vaccinated or that a new variant would again shut down manufacturing in parts of Southeast Asia, increasing fears of going backward? What can the government do? Darity said a federal job guarantee, like an infrastructure plan, would help. “When you support people’s incomes, you are also having them engage in employed work that would permit them to produce directly the goods and services that would put downward pressure on inflation,” he said. In a nutshell, everyone needs to pay attention to the pieces of the inflation puzzle. “In the present moment, it’s not something that is dangerous, but we want to make sure that it’s something that doesn’t become so,” Darity said.

In the face of wage-price pressures, the Job Guarantee maintains inflation control with the assistance of traditional aggregate demand management policies, which will choke aggregate demand and induce slack in the private sector. The difference between this approach and the NAIRU approach is that the slack does not reveal itself as unemployment, and in that sense the Job Guarantee may be referred to as a "loose" full employment. The Job Guarantee policy generates inflation stability because the suppression of private demand asserts the numeraire price -- the Job Guarantee wage. This leads to the definition of a new concept, the Non-Accelerating Inflation Buffer Employment Ratio (NAIBER), which, in the Job Guarantee economy, replaces the NAIRU as an inflation control mechanism. The Buffer Employment Ratio (BER) is the ratio of Job Guarantee employment to total employment. The reference to the buffer employment is that the Job Guarantee functions as a buffer stock to absorb the workers who are currently not demanded by the private sector. As the BER rises, due to an increase in interest rates and/or a fiscal tightening, resources are transferred from the inflating private sector into the Job Guarantee at a price set by the government; this price provides the inflation discipline. The disciplinary role of the NAIRU, which forces the inflation adjustment onto the unemployed, is replaced by the compositional shift in sectoral employment, with the major costs of unemployment being avoided. That is a major advantage of the Job Guarantee approach.

The budget proposes $4.7 trillion in tax increases on businesses and individuals, raising U.S. tax rates to some of the highest in the developed world. The budget’s projected revenues rise to 20.1 percent of GDP by 2033, 2.7 percentage points above the 50‐​year average. All that tax revenue is still not enough to stabilize government debt as a share of the economy.

The administration plans to release additional details on each of the proposed tax increases next week. Based on summary documents, current reporting, and past proposals, we have a good sense of how the White House would like to increase taxes.

From January to March, The increase in real GDP reflected increases in consumer spending, exports, federal government spending, state and local government spending, and non-residential fixed investment that were partly offset by decreases in private inventory investment and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased, said the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Interest rates are mostly holding back the construction sector, which is very sensitive to the price of money. Other sectors are seeing their activity slow down amid more restrictive financial conditions as well as inflation that is eroding consumers’ purchasing power. The labor market, however, remains very strong, with the unemployment rate at 3.4%, its lowest in more than half a century.

From banks to burger joints, the U.S. economy is showing signs of stress as nervous shoppers watch their spending and anxious lenders keep a tight grip on credit.

A report from the Commerce Department Thursday shows the nation's gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of just 1.1% in the first three months of the year, compared to a 2.6% pace in the previous quarter. Growth was weighed down by declining inventories and housing investment.

The World Bank just slashed its forecast for U.S. economic growth for 2024.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) in the country is now projected to grow by 0.8% in 2024, according to the international lending institution’s latest Global Economic Prospects report. Previously, its forecast was 1.6%.

July 11 (Reuters) - U.S. small business confidence climbed to a seven-month high in June as pessimism about the economic outlook diminished sharply and sales expectations improved, but a still-tight labor market continued to drive concerns about inflation, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said its Small Business Optimism Index rose 1.6 points to 91 last month, the greatest month-to-month improvement since August 2022.