New Jobs Report Shows We Need to Re-work "Work"

The new jobs report is disappointing. Well, what else is new? Here's a reality check: There's not enough jobs for everyone. There never was, and there never will be. The problem is exacerbated now during this deep recession, but there have always been millions of people who can't find work.

We need to re-think the whole concept of having a job, and we need to re-work "work" if we are to win real economic justice in America.

Job losses will only get worse as the 21st Century really gets going. Global capital will continue to move jobs to places on the planet that have the lowest labor costs. Technology will continue to improve, eliminating countless jobs.

The trend toward part time work will continue, as well as treating workers as independent contractors. The days of having one job with one company for the majority of your life are long gone.

Service sector jobs, which account for 77% of all American jobs and 96% of all the jobs that will be created in the next ten years, are mostly bad jobs that don't pay enough to raise a family on, don't provide affordable benefits--and don't even think about retiring.

The real problem seems to be that the nature of jobs and work has been changing over the past 30 years, but we are still stuck in a 20th Century system of work where the vast majority of people are reliant on their jobs for all of their income and most of their benefits.

We desperately need jobs, but they don't need us. Or the corporations that create jobs don't need us. We need to adjust to this fact if we are going to have any semblance of economic justice and equality.

Jobs and work still dominate American life. We need to bring "work" down a notch or two, from an institution that takes up most of our waking hours and our energy, to something that we do less of and need less but still do a lot and still get a lot of satisfaction from.

We need to change work from an all or nothing operation. Right now either you have a job (or two) that provides you with all of your income, or you are on unemployment, where you get a check from the government for not working, and that check stops coming if you get a job.

Instead of that all or nothing, 20th Century system of work, we should establish a basic income--enough to at least get by on, just above the poverty level--for all working people. This basic income would establish an income floor, and we would work for whatever amount of income we want on top of that.

A basic income would provide economic freedom and income security to working people. We'd have to freedom to work less if we wanted to, or work the same amount and save or spend that money.

It would provide a direct stimulus to the economy, which would help create more jobs. More jobs + less of a desperate need for jobs = a reasonable adaptation to our changing global economy.

We could pay for this by eliminating all of the old all or nothing, 20th Century programs like unemployment, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc., and by making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, taxing carbon pollution, closing loopholes that allow hedge fund managers to be taxed less than their secretaries, etc.

Think of it as the opposite of trickle down economics, where we gave huge tax breaks to the rich and corporations, and cut programs for the rest of us. Rise Up Economics makes the rich pay their fair share, and provides income directly to the rest of us.

Or you could think of it as a trust fund for working people. There could be some requirement to pay into it for 5 years before you're eligible. Or you could do it through the tax system, everyone who has worked and paid taxes for the previous 5 years would be eligible.

Or it could be through Social Security. Instead of paying into it all of your life and only getting some of that money when you're 65, you could start getting that money back after 5 years by lifting the cap on the amount of income that's taxed, and all the aforementioned program cuts and tax increases.

There are plenty of ways to set it up. The bottom line is that we need to change the way our economy is organized to adjust to the changing nature of work and jobs. We can't remain reliant on jobs that either suck or aren't there or won't be there in 20 years.

They don't need all of us to work. We need an economic system where we don't so desperately need their jobs.

Robin Hood was Right

Robin Hood had its world premier last night at the Cannes Film Festival and could be a major summer blockbuster. As this timeless story comes back into our cultural consciousness, I'd like to take a moment to propose that the progressive community embrace this character as one of our own and think about how we can develop the Robin Hood ethos into a coherent progressive economic philosophy. Let's take this opportunity to shout it from the rooftops: Robin Hood was Right!


I saw Elizabeth Warren speak today at an event at SEIU, and she repeated this statistic several times: 200,000 Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure each month. Yes, 200,000 a month. The big Wall St. banks are getting richer at the direct expense of working people who are losing their homes and life savings. It's Robin Hood in Reverse, and just another example of how our economy is set up to enrich the few at the expense of the many.


The sad truth is that we haven't done much to reverse the Trickle Down Economics of Reagan and Bush. The Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans will probably expire, but that seems to be about it. While the Tea Party taps into the public's anger at the banks and the government that bailed them out, where is the progressive movement? Where are the calls for making the rich Wall St. bankers pay their fair share? Where's the bailout for working people?


We need a simple, repeatable economic message, program, and worldview that taps into the anger that people feel about the state of our economy. Keep It Simple, Stupid: Let's KISS it up here with a message that everyone will understand and a program that will provide real economic justice. We need Robin Hood Economics.


Robin Hood Economics would make the rich pay their fair share in taxes and provide a basic income to working people. Yes, tax the rich and give to the poor. And not just to the very poor in a way that separates them from working people, like welfare did. Everyone should receive a basic income, enough to provide for the basic needs we all share: food, clothing, and shelter. Then our jobs would be all about earning money for what we want and need above and beyond the very basic costs of living.


Robin Hood Economics would provide a permanent stimulus directly to the American people, helping small businesses create jobs and ensuring a robust economy that works for everyone, not just the few at the top. It would greatly reduce poverty for the poorest Americans, and allow millions to work less hours (and less second and third jobs) and spend more time with family and friends.


While Fox News will cry socialism, the reality is that this would keep all of the best things about capitalism--a free market, the entrepreneurial spirit, competition--without the unfairness, poverty, and unbridled greed we face today.


I think President Obama's heart is in the right place when he says things like "I do think that at a certain point you've made enough money," and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." The problem is that we currently don't have any policies that actually do that, and we don't have a movement of people calling for that.


Part of the reason that we don't have people calling for taxing the rich and giving the money to the rest of us is that nobody wants to be called a socialist and nobody wants to be considered too far left and too far away from the mainstream that they aren't taken seriously. But then we are left with half-hearted and half-assed policies that people don't understand (the complexities of health care reform and financial reform come to mind) and aren't inspired to do anything about.


The billions that investment bankers bet with every day, that they swap and sell and chop and slice up into the derivatives that wrecked our economy--that money should instead be invested directly in the American people.


What would your life be like if we had Robin Hood Economics? What if you received a full basic income of $1,000 a month that you could count on, that would always be there for you through thick and thin? What would your life be like if your friends and family members also received $1,000 a month. What if all of your neighbors in your community got $1,000 a month? How would things change?


Would we have a stronger economy? Safer neighborhoods? Better communities? Would America be a better place to live?


Would you be able to work less and live more? Could you change jobs if you needed to? Could you stand up to your boss, knowing that you'd have at least some money coming in each month? Could you go back to school? Would students be able to study the subjects that they are really interested in instead of the ones that will result in a higher-paying career? Would people be better able to follow their bliss?


Does Robin Hood Economics sound too good to be true? Maybe. We'd probably have to start out with a small basic income and give to those most in need. But I think it's important to provide an alternative vision of how the world could be. As John Lennon said, imagine all the people, sharing all the world. We need to imagine a new America where we share the wealth and have an economy that works for everyone.


How would we pay for all of this? First of all, we should do as Robin Hood did, and hold the rich and powerful accountable. We should reverse all of the tax cuts for the rich, going back to Reagan. We should end the tax loopholes and all the corporate welfare that the big corporations get. We should tax carbon pollution and the profits of the big oil companies.


The state of Alaska has had a successful experience for 26 years providing an equal dividend from its oil revenues to all residents living there for a year or more. It has helped make Alaska the state with the most economic equality in the nation. There they have applied a key idea of one of the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine: the right of everyone to participate in the wealth of the nation.


In addition to making the rich pay their fair share, we should get rid of a lot of twentieth century government programs, the one size fits all, all or nothing programs like welfare and unemployment that pay people not to work. We can replace all those programs with a basic income and save lots of money on bureaucracy and paperwork.


I'm confident that we can work out the details of the policy. What we need is to build a movement around a new kind of economics that puts working people first instead of enriching the few at our expense. We need to tax the rich and give to the rest of us. We need Robin Hood Economics.

A New Economic Philosophy for the Left: Rise Up Economics

I believe that what's missing from the Democratic Party and the left in general is a cohesive economic philosophy that could guide our policies and present a compelling vision of the future to the general public, allowing us to build a real movement for change.

While President Obama's election was an important victory, he doesn't provide us with much of a vision beyond vague promises of hope and change. He himself comes from an organizer's perspective: it doesn't matter what the issue is, just find out what people care about and bring them together to do something about it. This has shown as he has backed away from some of his key policy proposals such as the public option in health care reform.

We need both a world-class messenger like Obama, and a message that's worthy of his skills. Now that there's some semblance of an effective political operation based on the Obama campaign, the netroots, and a united (on the issues at least) labor movement, what we need now is something to rally around that's not just a specific issue or policy goal, but a simple, compelling view of the world, an overarching political and economic philosophy.

I propose Rise Up Economics.

Rise Up Economics is a new philosophy that says the economy should be set up to benefit the vast majority of middle and lower income Americans, not the people at the top. The money that in the past has gone to tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, bailouts for the banks, and massive bonuses for CEOs should now go directly or indirectly into the hands of working people.

It is demand-side economics: when working people have more money to spend, it increases demand and helps the whole economy rise up.

It's the opposite of Trickle Down Economics. You've got to hand it to the Republicans: they just came out and said that what's good for big corporations and the wealthy is good for all of America, and they set out to cut taxes on the rich and corporations and paid for it by cutting programs for the poor and running up the national debt, alleging that the wealth would trickle down to the rest of us.

Now that we're in power, it's time to set out an audacious plan to provide real economic assistance to the vast majority of working people in the middle or below. We need to make the wealthy and the corporations pay their fair share of taxes again and tax carbon pollution, the financial industry, and the oil and gas industry, and distribute those funds directly to working people in the form of tax credits and indirectly through important government programs like health care and education.

Many current issues are key to Rise Up Economics: we need to strengthen the right to join together with our co-workers in a union and get a contract with wage increases by passing the Employee Free Choice Act. Uniting in unions is the traditional way to get more of our economy's wealth to flow to working people, and even though only less than 12% of workers in America belong to a union, getting that number up to 15 or 20 percent would have a profound effect on raising wages for everyone.

We also need affordable health care coverage for all, more education funding, job creation projects in infrastructure and green technologies. I think it helps to take what are now separate and independent campaigns and unite them in a simple, repeatable package that the public can easily understand: Rise Up Economics.

The key new idea is providing income directly to working people through new tax credits. I think the public is incredulous that we spent trillions bailing out the banks, which are now making record profits again, and we didn't get a damn thing. The tax cut that was passed was minuscule, and hidden within paychecks so nobody really noticed it. And the stimulus funding will be helpful but it doesn't touch most people directly.

We can start out with modest tax credits that provide a few hundred dollars that folks can count on every month. Eventually, we should establish a serious Income Security Tax Credit that provides enough income so that everyone is starting out above the poverty level, about $10,000 a year.

We need to truly stimulate the economy on a permanent basis by providing a level of income security that most people just don't have now. With unemployment pushing 10%, people with jobs facing cuts in hours, businesses moving to an employment model where employees are independent contractors with no benefits of any kind, it has become apparent that our economy is set up in a way where we are totally reliant for income on jobs that we really can't rely on much at all.

As corporations figure out ways to eliminate jobs and pay as little as possible and move operations all across the globe to find the lowest labor costs, and new technology makes some human work obsolete, it's time to face facts: we have an economy where we desperately need good jobs, but it's not in the corporations' best financial interest to provide them. We need them, but they don't need us.

We will never have true economic security if we are reliant on corporations to provide us with enough good jobs. We should try to get the government to create as many good jobs as possible, but even that would probably fall short. At some point, to ensure economic security for all, we need to establish a level of income security that is independent from our jobs.

Basic income security as a human right: that's what Martin Luther King and many others in the progressive community advocated for in the '60s as the guaranteed annual income. It's time to revisit this as a key issue for the 21st Century. A movement for a basic income for all has already begun across the globe, and it's building here in the US as well.

With all the talk about socialism from Fox News and the rest of the right, how about a modest proposal that keeps the best of capitalism--free enterprise, individual ownership, the marketplace--and mixes it with a strong dose of social programs. The best of both worlds: filing down the rough edges of capitalism.

There may be many ways to accomplish this: instead of providing income directly to people, we could expand existing programs for the poor and make them strong middle class programs like Social Security and Medicare. We could make middle class working people eligible for food stamps, housing vouchers, Pell Grants, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

There are also many ways to pay for what would be a massive outlay of money to millions of people. We could start by reversing trickle-down economics: make the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes again. How is it that the highest tax bracket is $250,000? How about new ones at $1 million, $5 million, $20 million etc.?

Cap and trade or a carbon tax could raise billions in revenue; we should make sure it goes to working families. Henry George and his followers have proposed land use taxes that would be much more fair and equitable than current taxes. And the state of Alaska gets revenue from the oil industry that it puts into a permanent funds and pays out a dividend to all residents. We should capture profits from the oil and gas industry and others to spread out amongst everyone.

We could pay for it by eliminating billions in corporate welfare that supposedly goes to help create jobs. We could also pay for it by eliminating the many government programs that would be made obsolete over time: food stamps, welfare, unemployment.

And then there's the deficit. Reagan never paid for his trickle-down economics; Bush never paid for his tax cuts or for the invasions of Iraq and Afganistan. We can budget for a reasonable deficit, especially if it means a stable and productive economy.

We are many, many years away from providing a basic income for all. Yet I think it is important to project a vision of how the world could be: a world where everyone has enough income to at least get by, people work for what they need on top of that, and workers have more power than they do now because they won't need the jobs as desperately as they do now.

As John Lennon said, Imagine all the people, sharing all the world. Imagine a world where we share the wealth so that everyone has at least enough to get by, where there's no poverty except among the most downtrodden drunks and addicts. Imagine work and jobs taking more of a secondary role in our lives instead of dominating most of our waking hours. Imagine working less and living more. Imagine less crime because of less desperate need. Imagine a better life and a better society where we're all in it together. Imagine Rise Up Economics.

What's your vision for the future?

It's Time for a Permanent Stimulus Package

As the Obama transition team prepares a serious stimulus package for passage in January, it's time to consider whether this should be a one-time only deal, or a consistent, long-term tool for stimulating the economy, rebuilding the middle class, and addressing the vast economic inequality in America.

Many pundits are now warning the incoming Obama Administration not to make the stimulus too small. I agree with them. We should also not make it too fleeting.

After years of trickle down economics, the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward demand-side, rise up economics. But how far will it go? The initial stimulus package will only go so far to get our economy going again. The infrastructure spending will get some projects going, but it's not a comprehensive solution for increasing consumption and stopping the contraction of the economy that is beginning to snowball.

Tax cuts for the middle class will help a little, especially if they are reflected immediately in workers' paychecks. But they are too small to make much of a difference. Other policy solutions will also help, such as health care for all and making it easier for workers to form unions through the Employee Free Choice Act. But all of these solutions will take time to have an effect--time we may not have.

After spending $700 billion to bail out financial institutions, $13 billion for Detroit, another $700 billion or so for the next stimulus, what will we really have achieved? Will people start spending again? Will banks start lending? Will the economy stop contracting?

It's only by getting money directly into the hands of working people who will spend it that we will turn this economy around.

What we need is regularly scheduled stimulus payments directly to working people, which will increase consumption and fuel the economy, while also providing a level of economic security that is unheard of in American society.

Every American making less than $100,000 a year should get a $12,000 refundable tax credit, paid out in $1,000 monthly installments, tax-free.

Providing this basic, independent income to working people is the most effective way to jump-start consumption. Having a stable source of income that can always be relied upon will give consumers the confidence to spend again. Increased spending will revive American businesses and encourage banks to lend once again, allowing us to finally put the brakes on our rapidly contracting economy.

This full-blown program of Rise Up Economics will not just lead to economic recovery. It will provide economic security for all at a time where wages have declined over the past eight years (after remaining stagnant for 30 years). It will help rebuild the middle class by giving a boost up to low-wage workers and by supplementing the declining wages of families in danger of dropping out of the middle class.

There is a rich history of support for a guaranteed annual income, from Tom Paine and Henry George, to Huey Long, to Francis Fox Piven and Martin Luther King, Jr. But only now, during the most frightening economic disaster since the Great Depression, does it seem possible to provide a basic income to all.

The biggest obstacle to establishing a basic income has always been: how will we pay for it? Well, we're already spending over a trillion dollars on the bank bailout, small tax rebates (what can anyone do with $600 anyway?), loans to Detroit, and the upcoming January stimulus, and there's no guarantee that it will lift us out of the recession.

Where did we come up with the $10 billion a month that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost? In times of need, we find the money.

Now, in our biggest time of need, why not spend a trillion dollars annually to provide economic security for all and lead us on the road to permanent economic recovery?

Once we are on the road to recovery, we can look at helping to pay for it all by increasing taxes on the very wealthy (how is it that the top tax bracket is only at $250,000?) taxing carbon and stock transactions, and eliminating corporate tax loopholes.

But for now, if we're going to go into massive debt to stave off another depression, shouldn't we do it in a way that gets money directly to the people who need it, instead of putting it in the hands of corporate CEOs and failing financial institutions? Shouldn't we establish a stable, consistent stimulus policy that gets the money directly where it needs to be?

It's too early to tell if President-elect Obama will replace the tired trickle down economics of the Republican past with a coherent policy of rise up economics, or if he will stay in the middle of the road with relatively minor spending increases. Our nation's economic future could depend upon the answer.

We Need an MLK Memorial Stimulus Package

As the 40th anniversary of the assasination of Martin Luther King grows near, it's ironic that our nation's leaders have moved forward with a stimulus package that puts money directly in the hands of everyday Americans.

Forty years ago, MLK was calling for just that--but not a one-time influx of cash to jumpstart an economy on the brink of recession. He championed regular, monthly payments to help the non-wealthy make ends meet and address the savage economic inequality in America.

These days it has fallen out of fashion to suggest taxing the rich and giving to the rest of us. But as the gap between the rich and poor grows dramatically and the middle class continues to shrink, it may be time to give King's idea another look.

In the 60's, the rallying cry of King and others was JOBS OR INCOME NOW!, as the signs read at the March on Washington. In addition to pushing for the creation of good jobs, they called for a guaranteed annual income that would eliminate poverty once and for all.

Today, not only don't we push for guaranteed income, we don't even have a movement for good jobs anymore. Each of the Democratic candidates for president have mentioned the need for "green collar" jobs, but it hasn't been a major plank in anyone's platform, and the amount of money they've earmarked for it is so small that those jobs would be but a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. After 28 years of Republican propaganda, privatization, and budget cuts, it just isn't expected that government should play a role in providing good jobs anymore. So, we're at the mercy of "the market," i.e. the major corporations and small businesses that have it in their self-interest to keep labor costs as low as possible.

Big corporations have made it very clear that they no longer feel responsible for providing economic security to American workers. They have reaped enormous profits by doing everything in their power to lower labor costs: moving factories and jobs to impoverished nations, downsizing, outsourcing, offshoring, mergers, buyouts, automation and robotics. Even once-safe sectors such as Information Technology have been ravaged. They don't need us as American workers, but we're stuck with an economic system where we desperately need them.

Since Dr. King's time we've made major strides toward realizing his Dream of racial equality (though we still have a long way to go), but the sad fact is that the economic equality that he fought for is truly a dream deferred. A one-time influx of cash to stimulate the economy might work for a moment, but it won't fix the underlying problems of our economy. Thus, we are back to Jobs or Income NOW.

A serious jobs program on the federal level is truly needed at a much more serious level than the candidates are proposing. There is much work that needs to be done for the environment, education, transportation, and infrastructure. But creating federal jobs is not the most efficient way to address economic inequality. The huge bureaucracies needed to support this work will cost much more than the amount of money that will make it into workers' paychecks.

And we also need to face the economic realities of the 21st century: our economy is evolving to the point where there will be many more people who need jobs than there will be jobs that support a middle class lifestyle. Technology is advancing rapidly, and we are just a few years into this new century; who knows what kind of job-killing advances are coming.

To steal from SEIU president Andy Stern, "our country and the rest of the world is going through the most profound, transformative leap of significant, economic revolution in the history of the world....There’s only been three economic revolutions in history: agricultural took 3,000 years; industrial took 300 years; this revolution, as we move from a national to an international economy, and in our country from manufacturing or muscle-work to mind-work, is only going to take thirty years....We know that the one-job-in-a-lifetime economy of me and my parents and grandparents is ending, that workers and employers are separating and on their way to getting a divorce."

So, while providing as many good government jobs as we can will help, it's not the whole answer. Which brings us to....INCOME NOW!

A partial version of the guaranteed annual income (or basic income as it is known now) is already in place in Alaska, where residents receive almost $2,000 a year from the state's oil revenues. We could do the same thing nationwide.

We've suffered through decades of Reagan/Bush/Cheney trickle down economics--tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, cuts in programs for the poor, nothing for the middle class. Why not create a Rise Up Economics that provides income to working people by requiring corporations and CEOs to pay their fair share in taxes?

A $10,000 annual tax credit for example would provide a basic, poverty-level income that all working people could count on, independent from their jobs. It would provide a much stronger stimulus to the economy than the weak package Bush and Congress put together. A stimulated economy means more jobs, more customers for businesses, and more opportunities to get ahead. It would eliminate poverty as Dr. King proposed, while also ensuring economic security for all, allowing more Americans to "rise up" to the middle class and keeping many middle class Americans from sliding down.

A big enough basic income would also change the way we think about jobs and work. If we started out with enough money to cover many of our basic needs ($20,000?) then we would just be working for what we wanted on top of that, allowing us to work part-time and still have a decent standard of living. Instead of the all-or-nothing work world we have now that produces so many "overworked Americans," we could work less and spend more time with family and friends and non-work activities.

There are many ways to pay for a basic income: a new millionaire's tax, higher corporate taxes, a carbon tax and other taxes on polluters, taxes on land use and other geonomic ideas, a tax on advertising, eliminating corporate welfare. How are we paying for the Iraq war? How did we pay for the Gulf War and the savings and loan bailout? When there's political will, there's a way to find the money.

A movement for basic income has sprouted up in Europe and around the globe, but we lag far behind here in the US.

Perhaps the best way to honor Martin Luther King on the 40th anniversary of his assasination is by building a movement for a basic income, so that his dream of economic equality for all can become a reality someday.