Only a job guarantee attacks the economic malaise at the root of inequality---building social solidarity is key

Yet many of its advocates refuse to see its shortcomings. Economically unsustainable, politically unviable, and socially corrosive, the BI, at best, fails to solve the root problems of existing social programs and, at worst, amplifies them. True welfare reform would not only consider economics and liberty, but also solidarity and human development in building a program that actualizes the community it serves. Fortunately, there is another option. A universal job guarantee, or JG, can transform the safety net, substituting traditional “means-tested” models in favor of a program that not only helps the needy, but also provides opportunities to build human capital and further strengthen social solidarity. A social program that is both macro- and micro-minded, and cognizant of the demand and supply side, it offers a better approach for tackling the ills of the twenty-first-century economy. Current Context The impulse toward a better, more effective welfare state is understandable given the state of the American economy. Faith that growth alone can improve people’s livelihoods was broken by the Great Recession. The new malaise has taken many forms: greater inequality, stagnant wages, a declining middle class, and diminished labor-force participation among young adults. This decline in labor-force participation is of particular concern because of its destabilizing political effects. For the first time in recent history, parents doubt that their children will enjoy a higher standard of living than their own.1 This is not sustainable. A thriving democratic polity requires a robust network of property owners who have a stake in the system. As seen in recent events such as the Arab Spring, this cannot exist where economic conditions diminish the workforce and the middle class. As globalization increasingly encourages the outsourcing of low-wage labor to foreign countries, so too the malaise grows deeper and more entrenched. The longer the country waits to solve this crisis, the worse it becomes: the short-term unemployed eventually become the long-term unemployed, whose productivity, earnings, and well-being are affected even into retirement age. These trends are not uniform. Because the barriers to foreign exchange apply more to labor than to capital, globalization disproportionately harms working-class Americans. Yes, free trade has raised the overall level of income in the country, but a nation is not an aggregate statistic; it is the individuals that make it up who should be the focal point of any socioeconomic policy. It is through these long-term trends that the share of income to capital—rather than income to labor—has hit an all-time high.2 These problems become more politically malignant as they manifest themselves across time and space, creating regional and intergenerational inequalities through low social mobility.3 While no one denies that the private sector is still the engine of economic growth in America, additional resources must be mobilized to provide for the needs of the broader nation.