4---Their degrowth plan through a job guarantee fails dramatically---AND this is their own evidence.
1AC Parrique ’18 [Timothee; PhD in economics from the Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Développement (University of Clermont Auvergne, France) and the Stockholm Resilience Centre (Stockholm University, Sweden).French economist and researcher at the University of Lund in Sweden; “Community Allowance for Resilient Economies (CARE) A job guarantee for degrowth”; CERDI University Clermont Auvergne, SRC Stockholm University; Pg. 8; ror]/ISJD
Controversies Detractors of the proposal point to a number of potential risks having to do with the cost of the programme and its governance, the types of jobs it would create, its interaction with the private labour market, its influence on productivity, and the risk of inflation. o Inflationary: Without the risk of unemployment, workers would bargain up their wages leading to inflation. o Unaffordable: the government could not afford it. o Unmanageable: the size of the programme would require a problematic government bureaucracy. o Inefficient: being guaranteed a job whatever happens, participants would have no incentives to work hard. o Polarising: participants would be stigmatised as lesser workers. 7 o Nationalising: it is a hidden government takeover. o Crowding out: it would displace workers from the private to the public sector. o Skill problem: the community work that is most needed requires skills that unemployed people do not currently have. o Job fluctuations: its cyclical nature (expand in recessions and shrink in expansions) restrains the type of jobs that can be offered. o Make-work: participants are being paid to perform useless work.