A highly decentralized JG works best.
Wray et al. 18 — L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at Bard College, Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute, Flavia Dantas, Associate Professor of Economics at the State University of New York at Cortland, Scott Fullwiler, Assistant Professor of Economics and James A. Leach chair in banking and monetary economics at Wartburg College in Iowa, Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Associate Professor of economics at Bard College, Research Associate at the Levy Economics Institute, Expert at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Stephanie A. Kelton, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Stony Brook University Served as an advisor to Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign, worked for the Senate Budget Committee during Bernie Sanders’ time as chairman, 2018 (“PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT A PATH TO FULL EMPLOYMENT,” Levy Economics Institute, April, Available Online at https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/public-service-employment-a-path-to-full-employment, Accessed 07-12-23)
While we recognize some advantages to designs that feature a federally administered program like the WPA, we prefer a highly decentralized program. Today, the federal government directly employs only 2.8 million workers (less than 2 percent of US employment). Advocates of a universal job guarantee recognize that the program might employ five times that number of workers. We worry about the political feasibility of expanding federal employment on such a scale. We also see the advantages of decentralizing administration to the community level. Since the goal is to create jobs in every community, and to projects that are beneficial to every community, it makes sense to involve the local communities in these projects, from the proposal stage through to implementation, administration, and evaluation. Hence, while we would have the federal government provide the funding for the program, we would allow state and local governments as well as registered nongovernmental not-for-profits to put forth proposals. (To retain a level playing field within the private sector, we would not allow for-profit firms to participate—as they might try to replace part of their workforce with federally paid or subsidized workers.) Since federal monies would be spent, we envision that project assessment and evaluation would take place at multiple levels: community, state, regional, and federal. We expect that most of the jobs created will provide public services in nonprofit community organizations, public schools, and state and local governments. We recommend that the federal government’s role be largely confined to providing administrative service (through local employment offices), project evaluation, and funding of wages, benefits, and some materials costs. However, if state and local efforts prove to be insufficient, the federal government will need to create supplemental projects to ensure a sufficient number of jobs are made available to all seeking work. These should be targeted to underserved groups. While some advocates of job guarantee programs would follow the New Deal in undertaking large-scale public works projects, we would limit the use of PSE workers on infrastructure projects to small-scale projects or for approved apprenticeship or other trainee positions. We do this to avoid conflicts with the Davis-Bacon Act and prevailing wage laws that require wages higher than $15 per hour. As discussed above we do not favor a tiered wage structure within the PSE Levy Economics Institute of Bard College 5 program. Further, we do not want the program to compete with private sector employment. Virtually all public works projects today involve government contracts that are awarded to private construction firms. We would not use the PSE program to compete with private contractors or subvert prevailing wage laws. However, PSE workers could be used for very small projects (installing playground equipment), simple maintenance of infrastructure (planting vegetation as screening), and environmental retrofitting (adding insulation to housing in lowincome neighborhoods or to community buildings), where such projects do not conflict with applicable prevailing wage laws or the Davis-Bacon Act. The types of projects undertaken will vary across the country, consistent with variations in state and local labor laws and needs. We also envision experimentation with alternative approaches to employment and the provision of community services. For example, a number of proposals for the creation of workers’ co-ops could be solicited. These might be supported by the PSE program for a limited time, with the federal government paying wages until the co-ops become self-supporting. Additionally, proposals can be solicited for apprenticeship programs that would train PSE workers for skilled employment outside the program after a specified term of PSE. While we want to avoid funding of programs that train workers for jobs that do not exist, training should be a part of every PSE job and some room should be made in the program for approved apprenticeship programs. Again, state and local rules will determine what kinds projects will be allowed.