Forum Thread

Mapping the loss of "Full Employment" from the Dem Party Platform


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 34 1 2 3 Next
  • Carlitos
    2016-12-06 12:46:33 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Mapping the loss of "Full Employment" from the Democratic Party Platform

    Control F search has never yielded more disturbing results. We all know full employment policy was abandoned, but I didn't realize the extent at which not even lip service was paid to the term. Putting real Full Employment front and center back in the Party Platform should be the main agenda for progressive Democrats in 2020.

    In 1980 the Democratic Party Platform there was this: "Full Employment—We specifically reaffirm our commitment to achieve all the goals of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act within the currently prescribed dates in the Act, especially those relating to a joint reduction in unemployment and inflation. Full employment is important to the achievement of a rising standard of living, to the pursuit of sound justice, and to the strength and vitality of America." And this: "We will adopt a full employment policy, with increased possibilities for part-time work." And finally: "We will continue to work toward full employment in recognition of the importance of self-support."
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29607

    By 1984, this was reduced to "job skills development programs":
    "—a commitment to full employment. We believe the federal government must develop a major, comprehensive national job skills development policy targeted on the chronically unemployed and underemployed." They also said this: "—We need a vigorous, open and fair trade policy 'that builds America's competitive strength, and that allows our nation to remain an advanced, diversified economy while promoting full employment and raising living standards in the United States and other countries of the world; opens overseas markets for American products; strengthens the international economic system; assists adjustment to foreign competition; and recognizes the legitimate interests of American workers, farmers and businesses."
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29608

    In 1988, it's "training and development programs": "We believe that, as a first-rate world power moving into the 21st century, we can have a first-rate full employment economy, with an indexed minimum wage that can help lift and keep families out of poverty, with training and employment programs—including child care and health care—that can help people move from welfare to work...."
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29609

    In 1992 there was no usage of the phrase "full employment" whatsoever. Remember, 1992 was the "It's the Economy, Stupid" election and the Democrats weren't even talking about "full employment".
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29610

    The term does not reappear in any Democratic Party Platform until 2016, and only in reference to protecting the Fed's "independence": "We will protect and defend the Federal Reserve’s independence to carry out the dual mandate assigned to it by Congress—for both full employment and low inflation—against threats from new legislation." (see last link below).

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29611
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29612
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29613
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/101962.pdf
    https://www.demconvention.com/…/Democratic-Party-Platform-7…

  • Carlitos
    2016-12-06 02:05:09 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I don't know how else to tell Democrats how critically important it is to include the progressive agenda for full employment.

    We are looking at a President Trump.

    I offer this song by the blues-metal band Down: "Learn From this Mistake":

    youtube.com/watch?v=zFT6TFw7e_w

  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-06 10:33:20 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The stock market has to be legalized and slowed down. All stock trades on and off the market must be required to have a retention requirement and futures especially should be illegal to trade at all. Futures should be held by the original purchasers until the maturity of the contract. Bait and switch laws should be applied across the table and especially to IPO's. The use of electronic signatures should be restricted and reduced. False accounts like the millions of fake Wells Fargo accounts would then be impossible. The market and financial industry is running virtually unregulated at a daily cost to working people's lives and retirement accounts. Predatory trading on funds should be criminalized. And more.
  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-06 01:47:36 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Plain and simple, there is no awareness of the financial catastrophe ahead for the middle class. On a daily basis there retirement savings are whittled away and on a longer time frame their standard of living is being whittled away. But just like safety laws a calamity has to take place before anything is done.
  • Carlitos
    2016-12-08 01:23:59 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Even if we were to get the financial system fair and just, the problem of unemployment would remain without a government committed to a "transitional" job guarantee for all. Theory and evidence lead me to that conclusion

    I also know mathematically and algebraically that the government's deficit is equal to the non-government's surplus.

    Government Budget Balance (Taxes - Government Spending) = Investment Spending(I) + Net Exports (NX) - Private Savings (S).

    Government deficit =Non government surplus.

  • Schmidt
    2016-12-08 07:36:47 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- While the federal Job Guarantee (employer of last resort) has not been a part of the Democratic Party platform, there have been advocates for a Basic Minimum Income (or Universal Basic Income) by some in the liberal media. Dylan Matthews of Vox for one has outlined his reasoning:

    Dylan Matthews, Vox, April 25, 2016: Basic income: the world’s simplest plan to end poverty, explained

    On the other hand, I certainly understand arguments for a Job Guarantee as proposed by Randall Wray and others in the MMT community. It seems to me that the two camps are arguing past each other at times, perhaps amplifying points of concern to help sell their particular case. However, perhaps we can do both. In my browsing I came across this website which kind of mimics my thinking.

    Basic Income vs Job Guarantee: A Few Thoughts

    Comments?

  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-08 11:35:23 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Isn't private savings a part of investment spending. What is the justification for adding private savings to investment spending. If private savings is a part of investment spending does that not artificially inflate the total?

  • Schmidt
    2016-12-08 11:44:16 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet -- You are off topic. The subject is Job Guarantee and Basic Income.
  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-08 11:52:10 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Basic Income vs Job Guarantee: A Few Thoughts
    Comments?
    I don't think there is a comparison for discussion. Both are needed to address the shortcomings of society. Picking one or the other still leaves problems. There are groups of people that can't work or will not work. This group would be served by a basic income and are a subset of people needing money. Basic income should be universal and supply Laslo's definition of need. Then guaranteed employment would be available for the rest of the people wanting, needing or enjoying work for additional benefits.
  • jaredsxtn
    2016-12-08 12:26:24 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Carlitos -- While the federal Job Guarantee (employer of last resort) has not been a part of the Democratic Party platform, there have been advocates for a Basic Minimum Income (or Universal Basic Income) by some in the liberal media. Dylan Matthews of Vox for one has outlined his reasoning:

    Dylan Matthews, Vox, April 25, 2016: Basic income: the world’s simplest plan to end poverty, explained

    On the other hand, I certainly understand arguments for a Job Guarantee as proposed by Randall Wray and others in the MMT community. It seems to me that the two camps are arguing past each other at times, perhaps amplifying points of concern to help sell their particular case. However, perhaps we can do both. In my browsing I came across this website which kind of mimics my thinking.

    Basic Income vs Job Guarantee: A Few Thoughts

    Comments?

    I'm more a fan of the universal basic income rather than a job guarantee for various reasons, but mainly because of technology and how it will replace more and more jobs that humans are used to doing. A job guarantee is only as good as the demand for a specific job, but a universal basic income will ensure that food will be on the table regardless.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-08 12:35:17 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I was asking for information to understand Carlitos' post where savings and investment spending were in the equation.
  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-08 12:39:12 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "a job guarantee for various reasons, but mainly because of technology and how it will replace more and more jobs that humans are used to doing"

    Wouldn't public service jobs like the CCC & WPA be used to provide jobs if there were a shortfall of available jobs?

  • jaredsxtn
    2016-12-08 01:42:30 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Wouldn't public service jobs like the CCC & WPA be used to provide jobs if there were a shortfall of available jobs?

    These two programs were used years before the first computer was invented. Projects that once needed hundreds or thousands of humans now only need dozens. That number will continue to get lower as technology advances and machines do more of the work.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-08 03:07:38 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Those were made up work jobs. The concept is still available to employ people. The object is to get money to people. Jobs could be created for in parks and recreation. Pilot and experimental programs involving new methods and processes. Every piece of infrastructure needs work. Multiple areas are available offering work that have been excised due to spending cuts.
  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-12-08 03:20:18 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "Projects that once needed hundreds or thousands of humans now only need dozens. That number will continue to get lower as technology advances and machines do more of the work."

    The realization that technology is a net job loss is becoming apparent. The argument used to be for more jobs through technology and robotics.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 34 1 2 3 Next