Neg - FJG Supplement - Michigan 7 2023 BFHGR

NEG---FJG---General
Solvency---Administration---2NC
Administration of the FJG fails – implementation, oversight, politics, and contradictions
Bhandari ’19 [Ryan Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, 3-25-2019, "Third Way," Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-about-it, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
#5: It would be an administrative nightmare. Finally, matching millions of workers to the jobs envisioned under a jobs guarantee would be an administrative nightmare to implement. State and local governments will be tasked with finding the productive work to do, but how do we train millions of people to do these jobs? How does the Department of Labor oversee the millions of new jobs to make sure they’re legitimate? What are the qualifiers for the kind of work that’s eligible? What if a right-leaning state wants jobs done that a left-leaning federal government deems unproductive or socially unacceptable like building an oil pipeline or opening up a coal mine?
Finally, how does the federal government fire workers who are guaranteed a job? Tcherneva argues that workers can be fired for not showing up or threatening the safety of others, but what about extremely poor performance?
Inflation---Links---2NC
The plan shoots up inflation---creates a wage-price spiral
Bhandari ’19 [Ryan Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, 3-25-2019, "Third Way," Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-about-it, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
#4: Inflation would rise. A sudden increase in the cost of labor for businesses will lead to inflation throughout the economy because of higher business costs that will need to be passed on to consumers. In addition, when only those at the bottom of the income distribution get a defacto raise to $15, there are upstream consequences. Workers who were making $15 an hour may demand $20 an hour now. Workers making $20 an hour might want $25 an hour and so on. This may seem like a benefit, but “this is a story of serious wage-price spiral, unless we introduce other measures,” warns progressive economist Dean Baker.5 We have been very fortunate that inflation has been well under control for the last few decades. A federal jobs guarantee could change that pretty quickly.
BizCon---Links---2NC
A FJG would crowd out private sector jobs – collapses the private sector
Bhandari ’19 [Ryan Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, 3-25-2019, "Third Way," Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-about-it, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
#3: It could crowd out tens of millions of private sector jobs. There are currently 54 million people who earn $15 an hour or less. When they find out the federal government is offering $15 an hour plus benefits and permanent job security, many of those workers would quit their current job and join the federal workforce.3 Companies that could afford to would raise wages to keep some of these workers; other companies would simply go out of business. The labor markets would be controlled by the government in ways never seen before in America. And even if just half of low-wage private sector workers quit, the number of federal employees would rise by between 35 and 40 million.4 Costs to the government would then rise to anywhere from $1.6 trillion to $2.24 trillion per year, and the private sector would see massive repercussions.
The FJG stagnates the economy and crushes small businesses
Patel ’20 [Prateek Patel, Masters in Public Administration from American University, November 2020, "The Federal Job Guarantee: A Hopeful Plan That’s Too Expensive to Deliver," Public Purpose | The Graduate Journal of American University's School of Public Affairs, Volume 18, https://thepublicpurpose.com/article/patel-federal-job-guarantee/, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
According to Vincenzo Caponi’s “The Effects of Public Sector Employment on the Economy,” he examines the impact on public sector employment on the economy as a whole. Whenever the public sector creates jobs by hiring citizens to provide goods and services, it has both positive and negative effects on the labor market (Caponi, 2017). His research showed that the unemployment rate decreased in the short-term, creating more stabilizing effect in economy. Along with this, certain demands in inequity were met in places that had higher levels of poverty in comparison to others. Plus, with the higher levels of public sector jobs, many employers were encouraged to employ disadvantaged and marginalized Americans (Caponi, 2017). At the same time, the reduction of short-term unemployment by expanding public sector jobs were not efficient, because wages in the public sector are flexible and not fixed. This expansion of public sector jobs created a crowding-out effect of private sector, where many people left their low-paying private sector jobs to work for the public sector that provided higher levels of stability. To add to this, wages are unresponsive to productivity differences, so if workers are less or more productive in the public sector, they do not see salary increases or decreases (Caponi, 2017). With the crowding-out effect leading to labor shortage and lack of overall productivity in public-sector jobs, Caponi’s research suggests that there is a reduction in the overall productivity of the economy, coupled with the negative effects of the resource reallocation from the private to the public sector.
When it comes to the Federal Job Guarantee plan, Caponi’s discussed impacts show how a massive public sector work project can have many drawbacks to the private sector. In Greg Ip’s Wall Street Journal article titled The Problem with a Federal Jobs Guarantee (Hint: It's Not the Price Tag), Ip discusses the challenges that the private sector will face with wages, inflation, and technology after the implementation of the Federal Job Guarantee plan. First in order to keep many of the workers that make less than $15/hour, the private sector will see massive salary increases. Employers will be forced to raise the salaries of their workers, because they do not want to lose their labor, similar to a $15 minimum wage effect (Ip, 2018). This will lead the companies to potentially raise the private sector causing rise in customer costs to offset their short-term losses in revenue. This raised cost on customers will negatively impact certain businesses more than others (Ip, 2018). Policies such as this will positively impact labor in big firms like Wal-Mart that can afford offering health benefits or wage increases (Ip, 2018). But these policies will hurt smaller firms to a mega scale, that cannot offer the same benefits as the public sector would with Job Guarantee. Overall this may intensify the oligopoly market that we have in the country, because many small businesses or start-ups, will be unable to meet labor or revenue demands to stay afloat (Edwards, 2016). This would make many argue that the Job Guarantee plan will not be very positive for the private sector as a whole. It may force labor or employment changes against the market need, that may help some, but forced changes have mixed effects from unequal benefits.
Politics---Links---2NC
The plan is unpopular with both parties – costs, gets tied to socialism, and addresses the wrong problem
Tankersley ’18 [Jim Tankersley, 5-22-2018, "Democrats’ Next Big Thing: Government-Guaranteed Jobs (Published 2018)," U.S. Economy Today, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/us/politics/democrats-guaranteed-jobs.html, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
The “job guarantee” plans, many of them pressed by Democratic White House hopefuls, vary in scope and cost, but they all center on government-sponsored employment that pays well above the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage — a New Deal for a new age, absent the bread lines and unemployment rates of the Great Depression. The most aggressive plans seek to all but eradicate unemployment and to set a new wage floor for all working Americans, pressuring private employers to raise wages if they want to compete for workers.
How such guarantees would be paid for is still largely unresolved. And criticism of the idea has emerged not only from conservatives who detect a whiff of socialism but also from liberals who say guaranteed employment is the wrong way to attack the central issue facing workers in this low-unemployment economy: stagnant wages.
But Democratic leaders hope the push will help their party bridge the growing political divide between white and minority workers, and silence the naysayers who accuse the party of being devoid of new, big ideas.
The employment plans, along with single-payer “Medicare for all” health care, free college, legalized marijuana and ever less restrictive immigration rules, are parts of a broader trend toward a more liberal Democratic Party in the Trump era.
“It’s going to create a more competitive labor market where people are going to start getting living wages, not just minimum wage,” said Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, who unveiled a job-guarantee plan in April. “Giving people the dignity of work, of being able to stand on their own two feet, there’s such a strengthening element of that.”
Many conservative economists, and some liberals, fret over the plans’ often large costs, which some Democrats would cover by repealing pieces of President Trump’s signature tax cuts. The plans could force private companies to compete with the government for workers, distort an already tight job market and push some firms out of business, they warn.
The FJG is politically contentious across the aisle – only 9% support it
Bhandari ’19 [Ryan Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, 3-25-2019, "Third Way," Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-about-it, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
Ensuring people have the opportunity to work and earn a good life is a shared value across the country. But, the federal jobs guarantee approach raises a number of concerns. And voters seem to be wary of it. In our polling, only 9% support a new program that guarantees a full-time government job—36 points less than those who support a new program where government works with business to create more good-paying jobs in the private sector. Among just Democrats, the divide was starker: 14% support a federal jobs guarantee while 59% want government to work with business to create private sector jobs.
NEG---FGJ---States CP
Funding---AT: Gamage---2NC
Concedes state reforms solve.
David Gamage 17, Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, Darien Shanske, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law, 2017, “Tax Cannibalization And Fiscal Federalism In The United States,” Northwestern University Law Review, 111 Nw. U.L. Rev. 295, lexis
Because this tax cannibalization primarily harms the federal government, rather than state governments, state policymakers have little incentive to reform their tax systems to alleviate this tax cannibalization. There is great potential for state-level tax reforms that could patch some of the holes in the federal and state corporate and personal income tax bases. We yearn for state governments to operate as laboratories of democracy by devising improved approaches to taxation. But none of this is likely to happen unless the federal government acts to better coordinate the tax policy incentives of state and federal governments. Under the current structure of federal tax law, state governments lack motivation to implement reforms that would alleviate the tax cannibalization problem.
Two decades ago, Professor Daniel Shaviro concluded that “the interaction between taxation and federalism is more important than ever,”14 and we argue that this conclusion holds even more so today. As economic transactions become increasingly global, the harm from misaligned tax policy grows ever greater. We argue that tax cannibalization is a major cause of dysfunctional fiscal federalism in the United States, and that the federal government can and should act to alleviate this problem.
Funding---AT: Gamage---Enterprise Tax Plank---1NC/2NC
Enterprise Tax solves.
David Gamage 17, Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, Darien Shanske, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law, 2017, “Tax Cannibalization And Fiscal Federalism In The United States,” Northwestern University Law Review, 111 Nw. U.L. Rev. 295, lexis
Although we cannot further elaborate the specifics here, imagine (hypothetically) a proposal for a state to reduce its corporate income tax rate and to then make up for the lost revenue by levying something similar to New Hampshire’s Business Enterprise Tax. As we discussed previously,228 a proposal of this sort could lessen tax cannibalization to the extent that the proposal would successfully reduce the ways in which the state’s taxes previously piled on to the flaws in the federally defined corporate income tax base that invite vertical distortions. But, again, the revenue benefits from this would largely end up with the federal government rather than with the acting state.
New Hampshire proves---avoids offshoring and partnership form avoidance
David Gamage 17, Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, Darien Shanske, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law, 2017, “Tax Cannibalization And Fiscal Federalism In The United States,” Northwestern University Law Review, 111 Nw. U.L. Rev. 295, lexis
Nevertheless, there are numerous potential alternative ways in which state governments might implement what could be thought of as variations or hybrids on corporate or personal income taxes or on indirect taxes. To consider one example: in addition to its more traditional corporate income tax that mostly piggybacks on the federal government’s tax-base-definition rules (called the “Business Profits Tax”), New Hampshire also levies another business-entity-level tax (called the “Business Enterprise Tax”).172 This Business Enterprise Tax is levied on all business entities conducting substantial activity in New Hampshire—including both corporations and partnerships—on a base consisting of “the total amount of interest paid, dividends paid or accrued, and wages paid or accrued” within New Hampshire.173
For the purposes of assessing tax cannibalization, the key question in considering alternative forms of taxation is the extent to which these alternatives do or do not replicate the flaws in the federally defined corporate and personal income tax bases that result in vertical distortions. New Hampshire’s Business Enterprise Tax bears some resemblance to both more traditional corporate174 and personal175 income taxes. But New Hampshire’s Business Enterprise Tax most likely does not replicate at least some of the flaws in the federally defined corporate and personal income tax bases that result in vertical distortions.
For a relatively simple example as to why, consider that the Business Enterprise Tax applies to partnerships as well as to corporations, and so— in contrast to state corporate income taxes that piggyback on the federal government’s base-definition rules176—the Business Enterprise Tax presumably does not induce the distortionary response of taxpayers shifting from corporate to partnership organizational forms. Similarly, because the Business Enterprise Tax is not based on measuring either business profits or corporate income, it presumably does not induce the sort of profit shifting responses that shrink the federally defined corporate income tax base.177
Neg---FJG---Topicality
Topicality---Universal---2NC
Jobs guarantees gives all individuals a job.
Wray 09 (L. Randal Wray, PhD, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Research Director with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability and Senior Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute; "Job Guarantee", 8-23-2009, New Economic Perspectives, http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2009/08/job-guarantee.html, DOA: 4-3-2023)//ATJ
A job guarantee program is one in which government promises to make a job available to any qualifying individual who is ready and willing to work. Qualifications required of participants could include age range (i.e. teens), gender, family status (i.e. heads of households), family income (i.e. below poverty line), educational attainment (i.e. high school dropouts), residency (i.e. rural), and so on. The most general program would provide a universal job guarantee, sometimes also called an employer of last resort (ELR) program in which government promises to provide a job to anyone legally entitled to work.
“Job guarantees” require hiring ALL workers at a fixed wage.
Hendrickson 18 [Joshua R. Hendrickson, holds a BA, MA, and PhD in economics, from the University of Toledo (BA, MA) and Wayne State University, associate professor and chair of the department of economics at the University of Mississippi, primary area of expertise is monetary theory, history, and policy; "Monetary Policy as a Jobs Guarantee", July 2018, Mercatus Center, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/hendrickson_-_policy_brief_-_monetary_policy_as_a_jobs_guarantee_-_v1.pdf, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
One recent fiscal policy proposal to address unemployment is a “job guarantee.” This proposal would essentially require that the government be willing to hire workers at a fixed real wage at all times.1 Thus, the government would provide a safety net for workers in the form of a job should the worker be willing to work for the wage offered by the federal government. This proposal would therefore provide workers with employment opportunities when workers have difficulty finding a job, which might especially be true during recessions.
Everyone is guaranteed a job and it requires a minimum wage of at least $11.80
Bhandari ’19 [Ryan Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, 3-25-2019, "Third Way," Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-about-it, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
What is the federal jobs guarantee?
A federal jobs guarantee is as simple as it sounds on the surface: everyone in the country will be guaranteed a job by the US government should they desire one. There are two versions right now gaining attention. One plan is written by academics Mark Paul, Sandy Darity, and Darrick Hamilton. The other was written by Pavlina Tcherneva. In general, these plans promise:
Guaranteed jobs in infrastructure repair, ecological restoration, caregiving, and community development projects.
Benefits like health insurance, paid sick leave/vacation, and retirement plans.
Control for state and local governments that will decide which kinds of jobs to create.
A reduced uptake of welfare programs and unemployment insurance as well as decreased criminal justice costs.
The key difference between the two plans is the minimum wage for the new jobs. The Tcherneva plan establishes a $15 minimum wage and the Paul et al. plan calls for an $11.80 minimum wage for all federally guaranteed jobs. Yet, both have the same underlying goal: Permanently solve the problem of involuntary unemployment by making the federal government the employer of last resort.