Neg - FJG GND - Michigan 7 2023 STARTER

Neg Case
1NC Inequality
1. FJG is counterproductive – it kills motivation to work and efficiency
Standing, PhD Econ, 19
(Guy, British professor of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London,[2] and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), PhD Econ@Cambridge, “Basic Income as Common Dividends: Piloting a Transformative Policy,” http://www.revistaprimerapiedra.cl/PDF/documentos/PEF_Piloting_Basic_Income_Guy_Standing2019.pdf//jum)
**bracketed for problematic language
Another failing of the job guarantee route is the mapping of a path to ‘workfare’. What would happen to somebody who declined to accept the guaranteed job? They would be labelled ‘lazy’ or ‘choosy’ and thus ‘ungrateful’ and ‘socially irresponsible’. Yet there are many reasons for refusing a job. Studies show that accepting a job below a person’s qualifications can lower their income and social status for the long term. As what is happening in the current UK benefit system attests, those not taking jobs allocated to them would face benefit sanctions, and be directed into jobs, whether they liked them or not. Jobs done in resentment or under duress are unlikely to be done well. A job guarantee would be a recipe for perpetuating low productivity. What would happen if a person in a guaranteed job performed poorly, perhaps because of limited ability or simply because they knew it was ‘guaranteed’? If you are guaranteed a job, why bother to work hard? If you are an employer and are given a subsidy to pay employees guaranteed a job, why bother to try to use labour efficiently? If subsidised through tax credits or a wage subsidy, a worker would need to produce only a little more value than the cost to the employer to make it profitable to retain [them] him or her. This would cheapen low-productivity jobs relative to others and inhibit the higher productivity arising from labour-displacing technological change. If a job of a certain type is guaranteed, what happens if an employer wishes to invest in technology that would remove the need for such jobs? Those calling for a job guarantee also ignore the fact that any market economy requires some unemployment, as people need time to search for jobs they are prepared to accept, and firms must sift applicants for jobs they want to have done. To adopt a job guarantee policy would risk putting the economy in gridlock. Job guarantee advocates, such as Larry Summers, President Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, argue that people without jobs ‘are much more likely to be dissatisfied with their lives’ and are more likely to be drug addicts and abusive than those with even low-wage jobs.135 This is bogus. I suggest there would be no correlation between life satisfaction and having a job if the comparison was made between those in lousy jobs and those with no job but an adequate income on which to live. Somebody facing a choice between penury and a lousy job will prefer the job. But that does not mean they like or want it for itself. The polling company Gallup conducts regular State of the Global Workplace surveys in over 150 countries. In 2017, it found that globally only 15% of workers were engaged by their job, and in no country did the figure exceed 40%. One recent UK survey found that 37% of jobholders did not think their job made any significant contribution. Summers ends his article by equivocating – ‘the idea of a jobs guarantee should be taken seriously but not literally’. He seems to mean government should try to promote more employment, through ‘wage subsidies, targeted government spending, support for workers with dependants, and more training and job-matching programmes’. In other words, he reverts to the standard social democratic package that has not done very well in the past three decades. Besides being a recipe for labour inefficiency and labour market distortions, tending to displace workers employed in the ‘free’ labour market and to depress their wages, the job guarantee proposal fails to recognise that today’s crisis is structural and requires transformative policies. Tax credits, job guarantees and statutory minimum wages would barely touch the precariat’s existential insecurity that is at the heart of the social and economic crisis, let alone address the aspirations of the progressive and growing part of the precariat for an ecologically grounded Good Society.136
2. Turn- Energy Poverty
A. GND Causes it
Loris, MA, 19
(Nicolas, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-green-new-deal-raw-deal-american-taxpayers-energy-consumers-and-the-economy, 2-25)
Direct Taxpayer Costs. Regardless, the Green New Deal proposes that the federal government largely pay for the transition, and this would come at significant cost to the taxpayer. Moreover, switching over to a 100 percent renewable electricity grid is only a fraction of the plan. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors would substantially increase economic harm. Americans will pay as taxpayers for the government borrowing and taxing to finance the Green New Deal but will also devote more money to their energy bills. The reality is that the costs to families, businesses, and the economy would be considerably greater than any direct cost to taxpayers. An essential reason coal, natural gas, and nuclear power provide 83 percent of America’s electricity generation is because these resources are abundant, reliable, and affordable. A government-forced transition to 100 percent renewables or politically determined clean energy sources would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. In fact, 29 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories have a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which mandates that a certain percentage of a given state’s electricity generation come from politically determined renewable sources. While a number of variables impact the price of electricity, RPSs are a factor in driving electricity bills higher.21 Research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in November 2018 has perhaps the most detailed model estimating the costs of deep decarbonization in the electricity sector.22 The authors run 912 scenarios looking at a wide range of uncertainties that take into account geographical differences in renewable potential, different technology cost assumptions, and different carbon-dioxide-emission-reduction targets. In some scenarios they include “firm” low-carbon power sources, such as nuclear power, natural gas, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration and high-capacity reservoirs for hydroelectric power. In the scenario that achieves zero carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector by using 100 percent renewable power, the study projects that average electricity prices would increase to $150 to $300 per megawatt hour.23 (In 2017, the average was $105 per megawatt hour.24) As calculated by Philip Rossetti at the American Action Forum, families would face electricity costs that are between 43 percent and 286 percent higher, resulting in households paying hundreds of dollars more in their monthly electricity bill.25 Regardless of what Green New Deal proponents ultimately accept as clean energy sources, the reality is that 63 percent of America’s electricity needs are met by coal and natural gas. Petroleum products account for 92 percent of the country’s transportation sector use. They make up such high percentages because they are abundant, reliable, and affordable. Significantly restricting their use would, in turn, significantly raise the costs of electricity bills and the price at the pump. Importantly, the policies proposed in the Green New Deal are highly regressive. More expensive energy adversely affects low-income households disproportionately because they spend a higher percentage of their budget on energy costs. Americans with after-tax incomes of less than $30,000 spend 23 percent of their budgets on energy, compared to just 7 percent for those earning more than $50,000, according to a report by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.26 According to the 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey, a poll of low-income families, 24 percent went without food for a day, and 37 percent decided to forego medical and dental coverage, in order to pay higher energy bills. Nearly one in five had a family member who became sick due to the home being too cold.27
B. It turns and outweighs the case
Loris, MA, 19
(Nicolas, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/its-not-just-about-cost-the-green-new-deal-bad-environmental-policy-too, 11-15)
Two recent National Bureau of Economic Research papers underscore the unintended consequences of energy policy on human well-being. One found that cheaper home heating because of America's fracking revolution is averting more than 10,000 winter deaths per year. The Green New Deal would wipe all of that away, and reverse course by mandating pricier energy on families. Another paper found that the Japanese government's decision to close safely operating nuclear power plants after Fukashima increased energy prices and reduced consumption, which consequently, increased mortalities from colder temperatures. In fact, the authors estimate that "the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself." Unintended consequences.
3. GND collapses into cronyism-government won’t protect the poor/most vulnerable because they have no political influence
Loris, MA, 19
(Nicolas, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/the-great-hypocrisy-the-green-new-deal, 3-5)
Green New Dealers are trying to sell their policies in the name of economic security and justice. However, policies that take away affordable, reliable power from American families are highly regressive. Higher energy costs hit low-income households hardest, because they spend a higher percentage of their budget on energy. The higher these costs climb, the more they are forced to make difficult choices between keeping the heat on or providing food for their family or perhaps going to the doctor. Higher energy prices mean more than just having less money available for other necessities. It means having to spend more for all of the goods and services you purchase. That’s because energy is a critical component of manufacturing, communications and transportation—all of which are involved in getting goods and services to your household. The Green New Deal doesn’t lead to more economic security and justice. It leads to greater economic strain, with low-income families being stressed the most. And where’s the justice in cronyism and corporate welfare. The Green New Deal would open the floodgates of both. Ocasio-Cortez rightly blasted New York’s special tax breaks for Amazon’s proposed HQ2. Offering up billions in state and city special tax breaks left a sour taste in many peoples’ mouths. Cronyism works for big companies because they can offer a lot: investment, jobs and prosperity. But it is not a strategy for long-term economic success because it comes at the expense of other investments and opportunities. The investments will come when there’s an attractive, level-playing field for all companies to compete. The Green New Deal would introduce significantly higher level of cronyism because Ocasio-Cortez wants the federal government (i.e., American taxpayers) to pay for the whole thing. Remember Solyndra, the half-billion dollar solar boondoggle that went belly up? That’s just a small taste of things to come under a Green New Deal that puts potentially trillions of dollars up for grabs. As was the case with Solyndra, when the feds start picking energy technologies and companies to fund, they are essentially gambling with other peoples’ money. And there is never a guarantee the bet will pay off. Solyndra is merely one example of a failed company that could not survive even with the federal government’s help. And there are many other examples of green cronyism that even more closely parallel New York’s erstwhile deal with Amazon, which Ocasio-Cortez found so distasteful. Taxpayers gave money or government-backed loans to companies that already enjoyed large market capitalization and/or substantial private investors. Federal “investment” wasn’t needed. But, hey, who’s gonna turn down free money? The economic pain of green cronyism cuts deeper than wasted taxpayer money. When Washington steers money to — or away from — “favored” businesses or technologies, private-sector investment follow. This not only stifles competition and innovation, it also centralizes control in the hands of politicians, elites and lobbyists.
4. AI won’t cause mass job loss- empirics prove
Ling, PhD, 5-22-23
(Erin, lecturer in artificial intelligence and the future of work at the University of Surrey https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/22/ai-jobs-policies)
However, despite the predictions of doom, history offers reasons to be optimistic about AI and its impact on work and employment. Jobs have changed and evolved throughout history, which has resulted in the creation of new professions that were previously inconceivable. For most of the 20th century, typing was seen as a desired and decent job, and typists were in high demand. Illustration of humanoid robot and a person chatting together over a water cooler ‘Why would we employ people?’ Experts on five ways AI will change work Read more As computers grew in popularity and typing got easier, the demand fell away, and the profession nearly became extinct. But, thanks to the same trends, the demand for web designers, graphic designers and copy editors increased. The advent of the computer gave birth to countless sectors and transformed our way of life (mostly) for the better. I believe that AI can repeat this very trick, if we get it right. What does that look like? For a start, it means understanding which jobs and industries are actually at risk, and how AI will become part of them. AI can automate tasks such as data entry and administrative operations, which puts jobs that involve repetitive data input and basic decision-making at risk. Interestingly, the banking and financial industries, which are generally seen as white-collar jobs, may see a decrease in demand for data analysts and risk assessors as AI systems become more efficient at handling large amounts of data. Manufacturing and logistics jobs seem an obvious target for AI, as automation is used more and more to save on costs. Jobs in transportation, assembly-line activities and repetitive manual work can be automated to some extent. However, the technology still has limitations which require regular maintenance and a balance between AI/robots and human workers. If jobs are poorly designed or if there is an imbalance between AI and human workers, it could result in dissatisfied customers, decreased revenue (especially in the current cost of living crisis), and even business closures. Two months ago, a restaurant named Robotazia in Milton Keynes that had robotic waiters closed down due to rising costs and recruitment issues. We need to bear in mind that while automation and robotics can bring novelty and efficiency to certain industries, the overall impact on jobs can be complex and multifaceted, with problems including maintenance costs, recruitment challenges and the need to adapt to changing economic situations. Another area we need to watch is customer service. Chatbots are already being implemented in this area, but their inability to understand complex scenarios can result in service failures and unhappy customers. Human support should be maintained alongside these chatbots, especially in industries such as hospitality, where human interaction, empathy and emotional/social intelligence are vital to customer loyalty. In the healthcare industry, AI has been used to aid medical diagnostics, radiology interpretation and patient monitoring. However, while AI can help healthcare professionals with data analysis, imaging and decision-making, current AI is limited in performing difficult tasks that require fine hand-eye coordination, and the physical execution of such tasks is still reliant on human capabilities.
The plan permanently devastates the private sector generating make work and inflation – turns case
Ip, 18 (Greg, "The Problem With a Federal Jobs Guarantee (Hint: It’s Not the Price Tag) " WSJ, 5-2-2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-problem-with-a-federal-jobs-guarantee-hint-its-not-the-price-tag-1525267192)//usc-br/
Why now? Unemployment was 20% or more when Roosevelt put millions to work through the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration. Nowadays, full employment is part of the Federal Reserve’s mandate, and while its record has blemishes, today it can claim mission accomplished. With the unemployment rate now at 4.1%, mainstream economists consider the U.S. effectively at or beyond full employment; Letting unemployment go lower risks shortages and inflation. But the big thinkers behind the federal jobs guarantee have their eyes on a bigger prize. That 4.1% only represents the 6.6 million who are unemployed under the Labor Department’s official definition. Another 5.1 million don’t meet it but want a job, and 5 million work part time because they can’t find full-time work. Eradicating these last vestiges of un- or underemployment “would fundamentally transform the current labor market,” write Mark Paul, William Darity and Darrick Hamilton in a paper for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-of-center think tank. Their proposal, which forms the basis of Mr. Sanders’s bill, would “significantly alter the current power dynamics between labor and capital” by forcing all employers to match the federal standards for pay and benefits. Yes, a job guarantee would cost a fortune, but ignoring the obvious political impediments, the price tag isn’t the catastrophe some critics claim. To hire all the official and unofficial unemployed and half the involuntary part timers at $15 an hour plus $3 an hour for benefits would cost around $450 billion, or 2.3% of gross domestic product. The actual cost could be much lower: Many of the unemployed won’t take up the federal offer because they expect to get something better, don’t like what’s being offered, or face some sort of obstacle (family, disability, etc.). Also, some of what gets spent on salaries will be saved in reduced Medicaid, tax credits, unemployment insurance and other safety net outlays. Five scholars at the Levy Institute, a think tank, have advanced a plan they say will cost just 1% to 1.5% of gross domestic product. The federal government spends three times that on Social Security and twice that on defense. The price tag would jump in recessions as laid-off people flock to the program. That’s a feature, not a bug: By automatically injecting public money into the economy, it would prop up spending, private employment and tax revenue, lessening the recession’s severity. And unlike universal basic income, another fashionable idea for reducing inequality in which everyone gets a check regardless of whether they work, a jobs guarantee gets the taxpayer something in return: workers. That, however, is also the problem. Here’s why. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 39% of the workforce, some 54 million people, now earn $15 an hour or less. All would have an incentive to quit and join the federal program. Of course, most wouldn’t because their employers would, grudging

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.