Here’s a Rooseveltian way to address unemployment now at 1930s levels: Let’s create a National Infrastructure Corps to make urgently-needed repairs to roads and bridges, and put to work the disproportionately blue-collar army of unemployed. According to Shadow Government Statistics, a website that constructs alternate data measures, 22 percent of the workforce is under- or unemployed, right up there with the worst of the Great Depression.
Instead of sending out unemployment checks forever, offer people the option of working for, say, minimum-wage-and-a-half, or about $12 an hour. That’s not great, but it beats the dole, and it’s better than sitting at home. A voluntary program, I venture, would attract millions.
Before I get my expulsion notice from the conservative movement for proposing a government employment program, I should emphasize that the key to economic recovery is not government spending but supply-side tax cuts, especially cuts on taxation of capital income. But the unemployed are not a homogeneous mass of people ready to go to work in the sort of jobs that the private sector, even one invigorated by tax cuts, is likely to create.
In an earlier column, Americans Who’ll Never Work Again, I parsed the unemployment data, which show that unemployment falls overwhelmingly on the less-educated, and on minorities. The global economy has changed and less-skilled American labor has been priced out of the world market. That doesn’t mean we can leave people on the scrap-heap.
Of course, the Democrats will never propose something like this, because the purpose of the Obama administration’s deficit is to keep public employee unions happy, along with their overly generous and underfunded pension plans. Most of the $700 billion “stimulus” plan simply bailed out state and local governments. Unionized labor building public infrastructure earns well over $40 an hour, and doesn’t want competition from the modern version of a Civilian Conservation Corps.
It seems ironic that the first African-American president is pursuing an economic policy that keeps about a third of African-American out of economic life. No government program can correct the social pathologies that keep many people out of the economy, but that is no excuse for not doing what we can.
Propping up the state and local employment monopoly is a hopeless cause in any case. Too much of state and local government spending depended on the property bubble. During the 1990s, the Census Bureau reports, property tax collection barely changed. State and local governments took in $55 billion in the fourth quarter of 1990 and $61 billion in the fourth quarter of 2000. But between that and the last quarter of 2009, property tax revenues nearly tripled, to $170 billion. As assessments reflect the property market crash, these will shrink, perhaps by half.
But that is only half the story. The other half is that public employees’ pension funds face a $3 trillion funding gap, according to a recent study, because the income they are earning at the prevailing low interest rates are much lower than the ones they (unrealistically and unwisely) expected to earn. Taxpayers are supposed to make up the difference, but taxpayers are tapped out.
The only difference between a public employee expecting to receive a pension paid by property taxes that won’t be collected and a homeowner who expected to retire on the sale of a home whose price has now collapsed, is that the public employee has a legal claim on the pension. But where is the money to come from?
In short, the core of the Democratic Party’s political base, the public employee unions, turns out to be the most endangered debtor class in the United States. President Obama got Congress to put up another $26 billion for an emergency patch for state and local governments. That is a trivial amount compared to their coming requirements.
In order to maintain the privileged position of a small number of public employees, the Obama administration has put the rest of the economy at risk, and left a fifth of the workforce in danger of permanent unemployment. The best way to create jobs is to let business startups create jobs, and the best way to encourage that is to eliminate taxes on capital income and cut back regulatory requirements, but the hard-to-employ, less-educated workers need something more drastic, like the National Infrastructure Corps I’ve proposed.
Such a program would also provide a needed counterweight to the public employee unions who are going to have to face reality sooner or later. Getting them to that point might take the bankruptcy of a major state, and that is now a growing possibility—which is why credit protection on Obama’s home state of Illinois costs twice as much as protection on Russia.
The political market for public goods works reasonably well some of the time, but the public employees’ unions have gamed the system particularly well. They managed to take their cut from the real estate bubble in the form of long-term state obligations. But the political system should be able to correct this: the trick is to find the right wedge to drive between union-supported politicians like President Obama and ordinary people who, one way or another, are stuck with the tab.
David P. Goldman is a senior editor of First Things.
Comments:
That said, I do not understand your (and others') fixation with government - especially unionized - employees. First, it's not at all clear that they are overpaid. Second, they are Even if you eliminated government payrolls entirely (cut salaries and benefits to zero), you would not make a dent in the federal deficit, and only account for a modest fraction of state budget gaps. It just seems you're looking for a way to screw union workers out of spite.
One could just as easily conclude that non-union employees are just getting the short straw. Corporate profits have rebounded very well, despite the recession. Corporate profits climb even as wages stagnate or fall and productivity per unit labor increases. This implies that private industry is sucking up all the additional productivity and holding down wages remarkably well.
To make my point clear, consider John Stossel's analysis here (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/08/10/public-sector-gets-even-fatter/). He wants to show that public sector employees are overcompensated. Being a conservo-libertarian, he already "knows" they are, and just wants to prove it to us. So he shows that the turnover rate in government is 10x lower than in the private sector, ergo, those jobs are just too good and ought to suck a lot more. Perhaps it is the private-sector employees that are undercompensated? He does not even consider this for the sake of argument, for it just does not occur to him. This is what ideology looks like, and it is worthless to anyone who seeks genuine understanding.
Thanks,
Jerome
More critically, how much more infrastructure do we need. This is really the key question. Simple rule: If the newly rebuilt infrastructure costs more than it is worth -- in terms of travel facilitated and the like -- the result will not be less unemployment, it will be more unemployment. Those are the findings of Prof Robert Barro, based on historical evidence, including the Geat Depression I believe.
A simpler solution. Stop paying people to do useless things, and instead let them be rewarded for doing the most productive things. Then let the economy utilize the value created to make a living for all its citizens. Everyone has something to contribute, but we have to let them individually define what that is rather than shoehorning them into the infrastructure corps.
I would like to enjoy the irony that Obama, as a non-white president, is doing more to hurt minorities in this country than (seemingly) any white president has ever done (please excuse the hyperbole). Even as his economic policies fail the less-educated and minorities, so do his social policies (e.g., abortion).
As to bankrupt states (whether all the pigeons have already come home or not), name one that isn’t (hint: Indiana). Sadly, the state of Washington (the “other Washington”), where I live, is one of the most liberal, and one of those most in trouble.
May I propose that, instead of looking for new ways of spending tax dollars, our elected officials really ought to be – at the very least – freezing their spending.
No doubt you are a knowledgeable and intelligent man but your wife should rein you in on some things.
In August of 2007, we began receiving revelations that capitalism is a fraud of a much higher magnitude than communism. Over the past 3 years those revelations of fraud have only intensified. You seem to want the sass pool to forget that. That’s akin to a judge instructing the jury to disregard the defendant’s admission of guilt. It ain’t gonna happen. The entire scam was built on confidence. Tax cuts are not going to return confidence to the scam. Maybe time will. Not enough time has passed to forget. We have to wait.
Newt Gingrich and Lou Dobbs were screaming for a slow hand in saving Wall Street. Instead, Washington rushed with lifesavers so they could take credit and ask for grateful donations. We missed an opportunity for something new and grand. Not sure how much time it will take for the opportunity to come around again. Time and time again, with time we forget.
James Bond does not ride around on horse with a six shooter because we are done with that form of entertainment. Tax cuts entertain those who want their country back while refusing to admit that they previously sold it on the black market. Corporate America has plenty of resources and incentives to reduce unemployment but it ain't time yet.
Comparing the cost of Russian sovereign debt to the cost of socialism in Illinois doesn’t make much sense. Furthermore, Putin put Khodorkovsky in jail. Obama will let Blago walk. So we have justice. ‘We’ is intentionally ambiguous.
But I could be wrong...
Why go to all the trouble of setting up a new bureaucracy? All that has to be done to get new infrastructure built is to issue the contracts for the thousands of "shovel ready" projects already lined up. We could also issue ITB's for the thousands more that are in the pipeline, but wait, where is the money needed to pay for this to come from? Unfortunately already spent on propping up over compensated unionised positions amongst "public servants".
To Chris Burns:
When an advertisement for one position attracts hundreds of applicants you can be sure that the position is over compensated, such is the case with police, firefighters and teachers. Services currently provided by "public servants" should be privatised and the costs (to all of us) would be reduced.
What we have now as an economic policy across the nation is a variation of the old idea: "Give everybody a million dollars and we will all be rich".
Sir does this statement not also bring to mind the fact that infrastructure jobs also will not be applicable to all who are unemployed?



http://www.americorps.gov/about/programs/nccc.asp
No sense in letting the facts get inthe way of a good argument.
While I agree with you that the certain public unions do need to dismantled, there's a different and eaiser remedy for that. Chronically unemployed blue collar workers are no threat to public unions that protect mainly white collar administrators, teachers and prison guards.
Infrastructure construction requries a different skill set than that posessed by the typical government worker. Your suggestion would only make sense if public workers had cornerd the market on construction projects, which they have not.