Causes a massive increase in workers---magnifies the link to the DA.

The plan’s authors estimate an annual price tag of about $543 billion. Defense is the only discretionary federal expense comparable in size, at about $639 billion last year. Some funding for the job program would be offset by cuts to other government programs. But there’s good reason to believe the authors significantly underestimate the number of participants it would draw, a major component of its cost.

The proposal estimates that about 11 million people would opt into the job guarantee. That would already be several times as large as the world’s next largest employers, such as Walmart and the U.S. and Chinese militaries. But it could get a lot bigger. The authors assume virtually nobody currently employed would leave his job and join the program. That seems unlikely, given that 41 million workers currently earn less than the program’s $11.83 minimum wage. They also base their projections on today’s historically low unemployment rate. A future recession would send displaced workers fleeing to government jobs for relief.

Beyond its cost, the job guarantee would turn the fundamental logic of work on its head. Generally, people work for employers, whether private organizations or government agencies, because employees add enough value to sustain their wages and still benefit the employer. Under a job guarantee, creating value is an afterthought. The program’s potential is limited further by additional rules the authors propose, such as barring competition with existing private or public jobs and requiring that the positions be low-skilled.

Finding enough work for more than 10 million people would be a herculean task. The authors have a kind imagination: Among their ideas are caring for children and the elderly, clearing vacant lots and building community theaters. But they make no attempt to show how or even if the work could be assigned. The proposal suggests that these decisions should be made at the local level, which begs the question.