Military Jobs - DDI 2023 TT

TT – Military Jobs Neg
Notes
2NR Options
To Do
Terminal impact to democracy
Fem ir AT: pdb
Uq – court wont do Lochner rn
1NC
T – FJG Must be Universal – 1NC
Interp: a “federal jobs guarantee” must be universal.
Paddiston 18 [Laura, editor based in London, She won a Gold Lovie Award for reporting on the palm oil industry and was a 2019 fellow on the CUNY Resilience Journalism Fellowship program, “What Is A Federal Jobs Guarantee?” 6 July 2018, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-job-guarantee-explained_n_5b363f4ae4b007aa2f7f59fc, Huffington Post. Accessed 17 July 2023]
It’s called a federal jobs guarantee, and it has some heavyweight support. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) backs the idea and has said he will release a detailed plan in the fall. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) has introduced legislation that would see a three-year pilot project set up to guarantee jobs in 15 regions of high unemployment. Among the bill’s co-sponsors is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who tweeted in support of the policy in April.
And when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez swept to victory over Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a powerful establishment Democrat, in a congressional primary last month, a jobs guarantee featured high on her list of policies.
So the idea is gaining momentum. But what exactly is a jobs guarantee, and how could it work?
The idea
The premise is that everyone should be entitled to a good job, one that pays at least $15 an hour and comes with benefits such as health care, family leave policies and child care.
The program would be administered at a local level, with federal funding, and jobs would be fitted to people, not the other way around. The aim “is not to change the worker in some fundamental way,” said Stephanie Kelton, a professor of public policy and economics at Stony Brook University and formerly a senior advisor to Sanders. “You take the worker the way they are and you fit the job to the worker.”
“It’s pretty simple at its core level,” Kelton said. “You don’t have to prove anything, you don’t have to meet certain requirements. It’s just an open-ended offer of employment for anyone seeking work, and that’s the end of it.”
Violation: the aff only guarantees to certain military officers.
That’s a voter for predictable limits and ground---their interp allows affs to grant jobs to any tiny group---that kills clash and allows them to spec jobs that evade core generics
T – JG = Right to Employment – 1NC
Interp – Job Guarantee means creating an infinitely elastic demand for labor via a legally enforceable right to employment.
Sturgess 16 [Hugh Sturgess, University of Sydney; “Would a Job Guarantee Guarantee Jobs? An Analysis of the Employer of Last Resort Proposal”; October 12, 2016; https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/16650/Hugh%20Sturgess%20Honours%20Thesis.pdf;jsessionid=D699E22B1A683CFCB48554C3BD41CFA1?sequence=2]//eleanor
Harry Hopkins, the administrator of the New Deal work programs, proposed making permanent job assurance part of the American welfare-state, as a counterpart to unemployment insurance, though this did not eventuate due to political opposition (Hopkins, 1999). Public debate during the Lyndon Johnson administration included discussion of the government as “employer of last resort” as an anti-poverty program (Time, 1967) and Martin Luther King, Jr. endorsed an “Economic Bill of Rights” that would “guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work” (King, 2003: 103). This led to legislation like the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Bill (1974), which, if enacted, would have created a legally enforceable right to a job, and used the term “Job Guarantee” to describe the program on offer (Hawkins, 1975: 15). Another program described as a “job guarantee” was extended to teenage high school dropouts in a demonstration project in the late 1970s, which Gueron (1984: 5) described as working by “eliminat[ing] any shortage of minimum wage jobs” through direct public jobs and subsidised private employment. By this time, political opinion was turning against the prioritisation of full employment over price stability, but as late as 1978, the US Congress debated and passed the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, which directs the US Government to achieve full employment (defined as below 3%) via “reservoirs” of public employment (Ginsburg, 2012). However, one of the bill’s authors, Hawkins (1979), lamented that its directions were being violated within a year of enactment.
Two clear theoretical antecedents of the JG are Pierson (1979) and Minsky (1986). Pierson’s Economic Performance Insurance (EPI) proposed “guaranteeing” specific levels of employment and consumer spending by creating jobs through a permanent “reserve shelf” of public services and works and more traditional pump-priming policies (Pierson, 1979: 86; 89). The “reserve shelf” would comprise public works and services of “intrinsic value”, which could be started and suspended quickly. As with later JG proposals, Pierson (ibid.: 93-94) argued that the EPI would allow full employment (minus “necessary frictional” unemployment of workers moving between jobs) with price stability, as the target levels for jobs and spending would have upper bands as well as lower, encouraging swift government action to curb excess demand and creating expectations of the foregoing. Minsky (1986: 308) proposed “an infinitely elastic demand for labour […] that does not depend upon long- and short-run profit expectations”, and was included in an economic plan to stabilise the fluctuations of the labour market. Minsky (ibid.: 310-312) recommended the resurrection of large government employment programs from the New Deal to employ a total of 9 million workers, but Minsky explicitly did not envisage employing all jobless workers. Nevertheless, so great is the obvious debt the JG owes these proposals, Pierson (1979) and Minsky (1986) should be recognised as the creators of the JG.
The Job Guarantee
The development of the JG can be dated to the late 1990s with the publication of Gordon (1997), Mitchell (1998), Mosler (1997-1998), Forstater (1998) and Wray (1998), regarded by JG advocates as seminal contributions (Juniper, Sharpe and Watts, 2014-2015: 298). All envisaged a state-guaranteed “employer of last resort” as the only effective solution to unemployment, and describe it in similar ways. The government should “offer[…] a public-service job to anyone who wants one” (Mosler, 1997-1998: 167), to “continuously absorb[…] workers displaced from the private sector” (Mitchell, 1998: 549). Such a program would not be discretionary, but would be “bound to hire the […] workers that no other employer is willing to hire” (Gordon, 1997: 828). As with Pierson (1979) and Minsky (1986), these authors see the JG as a force for both full employment and price stability. Mitchell (1998: 548) calls it “the only rational strategy for a government that [issues] a fiat currency and wishes to maximise macroeconomic benefits and price stability”.
Violation – the aff only hires military officers – it doesn’t create a justiciable right to a job.
That’s a voter for limits and ground – allows for affs about hiring someone to any government position – those are tiny affs that avoid core neg arguments.
2NC
NOTES
Mention that they allow for hiring a bunch of people ONCE instead of multiple times
Their evidence is about 6 applicants and they have one card that theres a 100 something potential ones – you are so correct you don’t need to keep reminding the jdge
Confused about wray heads of household – status
Seems easy to give an
Make an arg about what “an so on” – what would this include
You can establish that the case list is enormous in cx and save yourself so much time
Could’ve been 3 minutes combined w cx references would be better – that would make sense
You say “hiring random officiasl” many times – making fun of it once accomplishes this
Additions
Very good at explaining why its hard to produce case negs to the possible affs
More interesting arguments is that the case negs you would produce would suck – theres NO scope for a link argument in any of the topic literature
The only thing you could research is process or really bad PIC debates that end up being about textual competition – whether you can pic out of once person in the sentat
Eif you tink about the process of writing a case neg and how garbage it is – its garbage pile v garbage pile
Predictability less about quantity and more quality
You could put together a neg for any idea if you had enough time – going for not enough time is broing – to say the quality of debates under their interp would be bad – thers enormous incentive to continue breaking new ones
Don’t just reference that previous topics had good debates
Not enveryone has context
Answer to overlimits hsouldnt be overlimit good, BUT feature that you get to talk about the type of jobs
Their explanation of one aff only is wrong
Your interp means there is one end result but many mechansism and having a topic where aff innovation occurs through improving mechanism research instead of finding more and more niche qulaifications is an arg that would be good because then you could link turn aff innovation because eyou can say having to guarantee everyone a job means that 2as will be incentivized to find nuanced ways of doing so – forces people to read new mechansims
No one will read the new j gaff fromm season to end of season
Having topic where your eencouraged to cut new mech rather than types of qualifications is better bc theres universal neg ground
Those mechansism fall under unified neg ground so the debates that occur when those affs are broken are better -having debates about diff mechaanisms could occur
That is a more interesting approach to explaining that offense
Ghill ex and beginning of topic is same thing
Beginning of year = cringe
T Universal
2NC – OV
Topical job guarantee affirmatives must create a universal job guarantee – that means anyone seeking work can access a job – the plan doesn’t create a job guarantee because it’s limited in scope to a handful of people.
AT: WM
The plan doesn’t meet – they create a job guarantee for several individuals, but that’s NOT universal because it doesn’t guarantee it for every person, EVEN IF it is universal for those people.
AT: CI [Wray 09]
They don’t meet the counter-interp – Wray says job guarantee offers a job to ANY qualifying individuals, and says that qualifications can be age, gender, FAMILY status, family income, educational attainment, and residency. They don’t use any of these qualifications, but rather hire a couple of military individuals which is distinct from creating qualifications. NO 1AR shiftiness – Wray says “family status, i.e. heads of households” – they have highlighted the word STATUS, but that’s not the same as FAMILY STATUS which means limiting hiring to people with a military status isn’t T.
AT: CI – Non-universal
The counter interp explodes limits – allowing “job guarantee” to mean ANY example of hiring turns the fiscal redistribution topic into the “create and fill government positions” topic – it opens the floodgates to hundreds of random hiring affs – teams can break affs that hire people any branch of the military, Cybercomm, the national parks service, the department of agriculture, EPA, or intelligence agencies might need new people to work better – all of those affs are impossible to cut case negs against and teams will constantly break new. AND, those case negs would produce bad debates because those affs don’t link to anything – debates would be about narrow disputes about how federal agencies should function and who should work in them – that makes debates aff garbage pile vs neg garbage pile.
Those affs destroy neg ground – small affs that only hire a couple of people have ZERO interaction with core negative arguments about the economy, inflation, spending, rates, and taxes
Limits OW
AND, LIMITS OUTWEIGH –
Limits are key to access all of debate’s merits – unlimiting the topic DESTORYS aff specific research and clash – their interp untethers the topic from debates about fiscal redistribution which causes neg teams to go for stale reps Ks, process CPs, and impact turns to keep up. Smaller topics produce the best education –
Limits turn predictability – EVEN IF we could predict their interpretation, its impossible to predict all the possible affs allowed under their interpretation – that means their interp is just predictably bad.
Community-norms generate predictability – voting for interpretations increase their predictability over time – proven by how no one read oceans affs past Greenhill on the water topic because they lost to T. That also proves the beginning of the topic is key for our offense.
AT: CI [Hasdenteufel 21]
They don’t meet this interp – this says job guarantees can have eligibility requirements like duration of employment and age BUT its still targeted as a sociopolitical instrument to the unemployed. There’s no intent to exclude narrow hiring like the plan.
AT: Arbitrariness
Our interp isn’t arbitrary – it has an intent to define and exclude, AND cites common ussages of the term federal job’s guarantee to explain the requirements of the program. Links to their interp which is also just someone explaining what the program could likely entail.
Read more cards.
AT Functional limits
Their interp eliminates functional limits – functional limits on the topic are all about the affs interactions with the economy
[AT: States CP]
States counterplan doesn’t solve our offense – only the federal government can hire people to federal agencies – states wouldn’t be able to access advantages about that.
[AT: Cap K]
No unifying link ground for the cap K – we don’t get links about fiscal redistribution because affs that hire random people aren’t redistributive.
[AT: Politics DA] Most hiring affs could be done by the executive agencies and wouldn’t need to go through congress because the funding for these affs comes from agencies budgets and doesn’t require fiscal policy.
AT: Specification Inevitable
Specification isn’t inevitable – we constrain the types of specification are allowed.
They’re worse for vagueness – their interp allows 1ACs to put “job guarantee” in the plan then specify a subset in the 2AC – our interp requires universality so they can’t do that.
It’s not what they do it’s what they justify – even if they were specific, the model they create doesn’t require that.
AT: Predictability
Their interps aren’t predictable – its an intentional misextrapolation of what their authors are intending to includei n the job guarantee – their evidence says their can be broader eligibility requirements like age or unemployment, NOT hiring people.
XT Predictability
Anyone can participate.
Pearkes, ’20 [George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, “The latest progressive economic policy is designed to stabilize the US labor market — and it looks a lot like the military,” published February 13, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/job-guarantee-economic-idea-progressives-us-military-similarities-2020-2 //jwc]
A federal jobs guarantee is a pretty simple idea: if you want a job, you get one, at a living wage and with full benefits that we associate with full-time labor, like healthcare. Granular specifics such as the level of wages offered or the specific level of non-wage benefits can vary, but all job guarantee proposals share those basic attributes.
FJG has no restrictions.
Novello, ’18 [Amanda Novello, senior policy associate at The Century Foundation, “Universal Basic Income versus Jobs Guarantee—Which Serves Workers Better?,” published December 17, 2018, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income-versus-jobs-guarantee-serves-workers-better/ //jwc]
A federal jobs guarantee is a simple idea with transformational potential: it’s the idea that the government would provide a job for anyone that wanted one, because there are people who need jobs, and there is work to be done. Proponents of a federal jobs guarantee say that the federal government, in partnership with local job boards, could bridge the gap between willing labor and necessary work. Most interestingly, proponents argue that a federal jobs guarantee could address the failure of the private labor market to provide decent paying jobs by offering $15 minimum hourly pay, health care, and other benefits, forcing the private sector to offer more to compete.
It's voluntary, permanent, and on-demand.
Olderham, ’20 [James Olderham, Professor of Law and Legal History Emeritus at Georgetown Law, “Green Jobs Guarantee, Coronavirus, and Public Sanitation,” published Spring 2020, https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=econ_student_papers_economies //jwc]
First, it is necessary to describe exactly how the Green Job Guarantee is intended to work, at least in a general sense. To do so, it may be most helpful to first understand the intent of a general Jobs Guarantee/ELR proposal. In general, a Federal Jobs Guarantee program could be defined as: “…a public option for jobs. It is a permanent, federally funded, and locally administered program that supplies voluntary employment opportunities on demand for all who are ready and willing to work at a living wage. While it is first and foremost a jobs program, it has the potential to be transformative by advancing the public purpose and improving working conditions, people’s everyday lives, and the economy as a whole (Tcherneva, 2018).”
Job guarantee is universal and permanent.
Tcherneva, Pavlina R., 2018 "The job guarantee: design, jobs, and implementation." Levy Economics Institute, Working Papers Series 902 (2018)., panav
As discussed above, the JG is a permanent, universal program that provides jobs to all, in good times or bad. The program in India comes close to such a program. The NREGA guarantees at least 100 days of wage work to each household per year. The program enshrines the right to paid work into law—a right that has been written into the constitutions of many countries, inspired by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, though signatory countries have yet to meet that mandate. India’s program guarantees work by household only, not per individual—as in this JG proposal.
JG is universal without “significant restrictions”
Johnson 22, Securing the Right to Work: The History and Future of Job Guarantees Alex Hoffman, Sanford School of Public Policy Advisor: Matthew Johnson Duke University December 9, 2022. Thesis PhD, https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/27398/Hoffman_final%20thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, HK
While both developing and developed capitalist economies have overseen dozens of local and national public direct job creation programs targeting specific communities, industries, or seasons over the last century, no country has ever implemented a universal federal guarantee. For the purposes of this thesis, a job guarantee is universal when it provides permanent employment without significant restrictions. Among the list of implemented public job programs, three stand out. India, Argentina, and the United States have enacted the three largest and most comprehensive job programs, and the only federal job guarantees, in history. No other country has attempted programs as demographically or geographically comprehensive. Contemporarily, many theorists have explored the possibility of a job guarantee, but only Paul et al. and Tcherneva have provided specific proposals that describe the structure of a guarantee within the context of the American labor market. These two plans form the fourth and fifth case studies.
A Federal Jobs Guarantee is universal and unconditional.
Ryan Bhandari 19 {former senior policy advisor, economic program} - ("Third Way," No Publication, published 4-25-201, accessed 7-11-2023, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.