IMF solves FJG

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations (UN) have produced two publications that bring these issues of pervasive poverty in America to light. In June 2016, the IMF cautioned Americans about the high poverty rate and urgent need to raise the minimum wage, and the need for improving labor market conditions by promoting jobs with fringe (health and vacation) benefits. In December 2017, the UN reported on extreme poverty in the United States, and strongly condemned the unprecedented growth of private wealth and the propagation of homelessness and pervasive poverty. The report when as far as declaring the state of Alabama to have the "worst poverty in the developed world" and depict similar characteristics to the poverty levels experienced in developing nations. The UN report highlights that over 40 million people in the US live in poverty and over five million live "in ‘Third World’ conditions." All these poverty indicators are growing while the growing income disparity and technology gaps keep widening (Chuang,1998) and adding to wage gaps by gender and race. Given this assortment of additional information, policymakers should not rush to claim victory and assume that the economy has already reached full employment and a well-balanced growth pathway. It is not until all Americans enjoy a prosperous future and poverty is eradicated that we can be satisfied. Rather, policymakers should pursue policies that attempt to push for tighter labor markets until wage growth picks up, the working poor disappears, and poverty and income inequality are eradicated. In the past, poverty reduction strategies rely heavily on policies that pivot around progressive tax rates, workforce development programs, and welfare programs, but have been mildly successful in terms of assisting the population that needs the most and breaking away from the poverty cycles. All these policies in conjunction had not significantly increased the labor force participation rate which has remained at a historical two-decade low of about 63 percent (Bullard, 2014). Page 4/24 Our proposal demonstrates that when conducting a well-orchestrated FJG, the cost of implementation could be as low as 27-28 percent depending on the scenario. More importantly, the gains in terms of tangible and intangible benefits to the most vulnerable members of our communities are significantly higher in the long run. The FJG has the potential of breaking the poverty cycle definitively.