Let's End Unemployment Once and for All
Buried in discouraging unemployment numbers recently released was proof that a straightforward way to end unemployment (and not just reduce it) actually exists.
The private sector of the economy created 83,000 additional jobs in June, but total employment fell because 225,000 temporary census workers were let go.
The census workers had real jobs and these were additional jobs that reduced unemployment. They demonstrate that there are two possible ways to reduce unemployment, not just one.
The government has been trying to reduce unemployment by "stimulating" the economy so that private employers would become willing and able to put more people to work. But it is unclear how well this strategy has worked.
The alternative is for government itself to hire the unemployed and put them to doing useful things. This is what the Census Bureau did, and back during the Great Depression this is what the WPA and other government programs did. In Oregon many public improvements, including Timberline Lodge at Mt. Hood, were produced by these "make-work" programs. The only public swimming pool in Redmond, where I lived during my grade-school years, was constructed by one of these programs.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt that it was better to pay people to do something than to pay them to do nothing. They could be doing something constructive, and there was more dignity in working than in just receiving a dole.
There is plenty of work that needs doing. It would seem, therefore, that we shouldn't be repeatedly extending eligibility for unemployment compensation payments. Instead, the government should offer to hire everyone who is willing and able to work but cannot find another job and pay them the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for 40 hours a week.
People could receive unemployment compensation while their eligibility remains, and then take one of the new jobs, or they could forgo unemployment compensation and go directly into a job.
As soon as they can find better private sector jobs of course people will do so. But in the meantime even minimum wage employment will be better than nothing.
If all 14.6 million currently unemployed took such government jobs, and if on top of minimum wages the government paid $400 per month towards medical insurance for each employee, it would cost about $24 billion per month, or $289 billion per year, not including administrative costs.
We have certainly been paying at least this much for the current "stimulus" programs whose results are debatable and which at best have only slightly reduced unemployment rather than eliminating it.
If we have a pool we want to fill with water, does it make more sense to turn on a faucet and fill it up, or to hire pilots to seed the clouds and try to make it rain? Cloud-seeding, like our current approach to dealing with unemployment, would be discredited "trickle down" theory with a vengeance!
Why not go with a straightforward approach whose costs and results are measurable, which has worked in the past, and which could put a total end to unemployment rather than just reducing it?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Buried in discouraging unemployment numbers recently released was proof that a straightforward way to end unemployment (and not just reduce it) actually exists.
The private sector of the economy created 83,000 additional jobs in June, but total employment fell because 225,000 temporary census workers were let go.
The census workers had real jobs and these were additional jobs that reduced unemployment. They demonstrate that there are two possible ways to reduce unemployment, not just one.
The government has been trying to reduce unemployment by "stimulating" the economy so that private employers would become willing and able to put more people to work. But it is unclear how well this strategy has worked.
The alternative is for government itself to hire the unemployed and put them to doing useful things. This is what the Census Bureau did, and back during the Great Depression this is what the WPA and other government programs did. In Oregon many public improvements, including Timberline Lodge at Mt. Hood, were produced by these "make-work" programs. The only public swimming pool in Redmond, where I lived during my grade-school years, was constructed by one of these programs.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt that it was better to pay people to do something than to pay them to do nothing. They could be doing something constructive, and there was more dignity in working than in just receiving a dole.
There is plenty of work that needs doing. It would seem, therefore, that we shouldn't be repeatedly extending eligibility for unemployment compensation payments. Instead, the government should offer to hire everyone who is willing and able to work but cannot find another job and pay them the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for 40 hours a week.
People could receive unemployment compensation while their eligibility remains, and then take one of the new jobs, or they could forgo unemployment compensation and go directly into a job.
As soon as they can find better private sector jobs of course people will do so. But in the meantime even minimum wage employment will be better than nothing.
If all 14.6 million currently unemployed took such government jobs, and if on top of minimum wages the government paid $400 per month towards medical insurance for each employee, it would cost about $24 billion per month, or $289 billion per year, not including administrative costs.
We have certainly been paying at least this much for the current "stimulus" programs whose results are debatable and which at best have only slightly reduced unemployment rather than eliminating it.
If we have a pool we want to fill with water, does it make more sense to turn on a faucet and fill it up, or to hire pilots to seed the clouds and try to make it rain? Cloud-seeding, like our current approach to dealing with unemployment, would be discredited "trickle down" theory with a vengeance!
Why not go with a straightforward approach whose costs and results are measurable, which has worked in the past, and which could put a total end to unemployment rather than just reducing it?
Buried in discouraging unemployment numbers recently released was proof that a straightforward way to end unemployment (and not just reduce it) actually exists.
The private sector of the economy created 83,000 additional jobs in June, but total employment fell because 225,000 temporary census workers were let go.
The census workers had real jobs and these were additional jobs that reduced unemployment. They demonstrate that there are two possible ways to reduce unemployment, not just one.
The government has been trying to reduce unemployment by "stimulating" the economy so that private employers would become willing and able to put more people to work. But it is unclear how well this strategy has worked.
The alternative is for government itself to hire the unemployed and put them to doing useful things. This is what the Census Bureau did, and back during the Great Depression this is what the WPA and other government programs did. In Oregon many public improvements, including Timberline Lodge at Mt. Hood, were produced by these "make-work" programs. The only public swimming pool in Redmond, where I lived during my grade-school years, was constructed by one of these programs.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt that it was better to pay people to do something than to pay them to do nothing. They could be doing something constructive, and there was more dignity in working than in just receiving a dole.
There is plenty of work that needs doing. It would seem, therefore, that we shouldn't be repeatedly extending eligibility for unemployment compensation payments. Instead, the government should offer to hire everyone who is willing and able to work but cannot find another job and pay them the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for 40 hours a week.
People could receive unemployment compensation while their eligibility remains, and then take one of the new jobs, or they could forgo unemployment compensation and go directly into a job.
As soon as they can find better private sector jobs of course people will do so. But in the meantime even minimum wage employment will be better than nothing.
If all 14.6 million currently unemployed took such government jobs, and if on top of minimum wages the government paid $400 per month towards medical insurance for each employee, it would cost about $24 billion per month, or $289 billion per year, not including administrative costs.
We have certainly been paying at least this much for the current "stimulus" programs whose results are debatable and which at best have only slightly reduced unemployment rather than eliminating it.
If we have a pool we want to fill with water, does it make more sense to turn on a faucet and fill it up, or to hire pilots to seed the clouds and try to make it rain? Cloud-seeding, like our current approach to dealing with unemployment, would be discredited "trickle down" theory with a vengeance!
Why not go with a straightforward approach whose costs and results are measurable, which has worked in the past, and which could put a total end to unemployment rather than just reducing it?