Note: This is a cross-post from my group blog, The Realignnment Project.

This is a more thorough examination of the job insurance concept, done on a national level, but you can easily scale it to California or any other state. 

 Introduction:

In my previous posts about unemployment insurance reform and 50-state Keynesianism, I made brief reference to something called “job insurance.” Several people requested a fuller explanation, which is only fair considering that I had rather tacked on the idea without fully developing what I meant.

So here is a blueprint for how job insurance is supposed to work, as a major solution to the problem of declining job growth and increasing economic insecurity. To start with, let me explain what job insurance is not – it is not the temporary “transition trade assistance” (inadequate and ill-conceived at the best of times) referred to by most workers as “burial insurance.” It’s not the “wage insurance” that semi-penitent neoliberals have dreamed up to compensate for the fact that the new jobs being created by their post-industrial economic order pay less than the blue collar factory jobs of the past.

What job insurance is, in reality, is the missing link in our Social Security system.

Background – The Committee on Economic Security, 1934

As I discussed previously, the idea that the current Social Security system was handed down on granite tablets from on high is quite wrong. As with any piece of legislation, the Social Security system emerged as a compromise measure from a series of competing alternatives, one of which was an idea for job insurance, developed by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) staffers who were alumni from the Civil Works Administration (which had employed 4.27 million men for the previous six months) and who would go on to lead the Works Progress Administration (WPA). They proposed “three different systems of “job insurance:” option one “involves the use of contributions for protections against unemployment for a work program — employment not restricted to those making the payments. This conception regards the funds collected as an additional source of revenue collected and is based on the belief that employees will willingly make payments in return for the protection offered them by a large work program when unemployed,” essentially replacing unemployment insurance altogether, while combining contributions from a payroll tax with general Federal funding. Option two contemplated “wages on a work program as a means of paying all unemployment benefits,” in which a public job would be “a matter of contractual right to…wages paid for work performed.” Option three envisioned a combination of UI with job insurance, in which workers who exhausted their limited UI benefits would then become eligible for a public job, dividing responsibilities between short-term and long-term insurance.”

At the heart of their arguments for why Job Insurance would be superior to Unemployment Insurance was an understanding of the social meaning of work. It’s not something we think of very much, but work is a central part of our modern identities – the first question you’re likely to ask someone when you meet them (after their name) is the ubiquitous “so what do you?” Our social status is highly determined by the kind of work we do – do we do manual work or work in an office? Are we classified as unskilled worker or professionals? Do our wages allow us to afford a “middle class” lifestyle? Beyond this, even in our politics, we associate being a good worker as being a good citizen, productive, taxpaying, self-providing, and those who do not work are labeled implicitly as bad citizens. The welfare cheat, the malingerer who fakes injury to get on worker’s comp, the deadbeat debtor – these are the stock characters of our modern morality plays.

And as social investigators like E. White Bakke in the United States or William Beveridge in the U.K demonstrated, and as the FERA administrators as former social workers turned welfare bureaucrats knew intimately, there is a social disconnection and degradation that comes from unemployment, even if you have unemployment insurance.  Think about how your work structures your life – you wake up in the morning at a time designated by your commute, you read the morning paper to learn about things going on that might be relevant to your life, you make your commute and engage in a mass experience, surrounded by thousands of other people doing the exact thing whether you’re walking down the sidewalk, sitting on the train or the subway, or stuck in traffic on the freeway. And this is where our public is created, with the flash of the morning headline, with the chatter of pamphleteers and the railing of drive-time radio hosts, a sensation of being part of the world. Then you arrive at work, and you’re again part of a group. The workplace, with its office gossip and politics, with friends and enemies and acquaintances all jostling alongside , the idle chatter around the coffee machine or the water cooler, a shared smoke or lunch – this is where solidarity begins, where you develop an identity of yourself as a worker.

To be cut off from that is to be left behind as residential neighborhoods empty out. As Beveridge put it, “The worse thing we can do to an unemployed man is to heap indignity upon indignity, because the loss of work in itself is a bad thing. I have seen fine, brave men reduced by continuous, enforced unemployment to a state in which they feel they are forgotten, unwanted, thrown on the scrap heap.”

So in 1934, the expert-activists of FERA tried their level best to give the unemployed more than just a check. For eight years, until 1943, they were brilliantly successful. In 1945-6, they came within an inch of making their endeavor permanent.

A Proposed System of Job Insurance:

In 2009, we could finish the job.Here’s how.

The Concept In a Nutshell – to establish a permanent fiscal structure for public employment programs, provide workers with the genuine protection against economic crisis, and move towards the ultimate goal of the government serving as “employer of last resort” in times of crisis. How to Finance It – a $20 per month contribution, split 50-50 between employer and employee, from all 150 million people in the American workforce would generate $36 billion per year (roughly the equivalent needed to directly create 1 million jobs), which in good times could be saved in a Job Insurance Fund operated by the Federal Government (probably by the Social Security Administration, since they already know how and would avoid duplication). This $36 billion, if saved over five good years, would turn into $180 billion, which is enough to put 4.5 million unemployed back to work and probably a sufficient reserve level that could be spent in times of rising unemployment and cover all but the most extreme of job losses, even without additional Federal contribution (a Federal contribution of $18 billion a year, for example, would reduce the premiums to $10 a month, or provide for a full reserve in three years rather than five).

Scenario – Implementing It Now: Obviously, in our current recession, we lack the time necessary to build up a reserve at the same time as we have lost more than five million jobs. In order to reverse our current job losses and bring unemployment down from 9.5% (officially) to 6%, we’d need to spend $200 billion to put those five million newly unemployed to work for a year. However, with a job insurance system, you could pay that off in 10-11 years (if the fund payed back the government at $18 billion a year, allowing it to continue building up funds), making a potential Jobs Bill deficit-neutral. In this scenario, it would still be useful for the Federal government to kick in $18 billion a year to keep the Job Insurance Fund filling up on pace.

What Do You Get for $20: in return for $20 a month, you would get the right to a public job at any point in the future when you were laid off. This job would pay about $20-24k a year, with a six month contract (renewable if, after a job search at the end of  six months, you’re unable to find a new job). That’s not great, but it is enough to keep a family out of poverty, especially if there’s a second earner. Eligibility would be automatic the week after your last FICA payment, and application for a job should be convenient, consisting of no more than a questionnaire about your work experience and skills that could be done over a toll-free call, or over the Internet, or at any government office. In most recessions, you should be able to move directly from your previous job to your new job, but even in a very sudden and sharp recession, you could give people work in some fair fashion (order of date of unemployment, random lottery, order of application, etc.) and people would have UI to cover the temporary gap.

Economic Impact – Job Insurance would thus function as a new “automatic stabilizer,” kicking in at any time when when a recession pushes unemployment above some level determined by our democratically-elected government as acceptable – 4% has been considered a healthy rate for the last twenty years, but we could probably follow Beveridge’s suggestion of 3% or less as “full employment.” When this rise in unemployment occurred, the Job Insurance Reserve would begin to release funds to be spent employing workers on public projects, in step with the pace of layoffs to prevent a sudden surge of layoffs and the attendant drop-off in demand.  In most recessions, if it was able to act in a timely fashion and catch the economy in the early stage of a recession, you probably wouldn’t need to hire more than 2-3 million people. The resulting Keynesian stimulus from new wages as well as the strong market signal sent to retailers and their suppliers should be able to either avert an oncoming recession, or at least make it shallow and short enough for more traditional Keynesian methods to be applied in a less dire scenario than they were in January 2009.  As the economy improved, the six-month term and required job search could be used to gradually downshift the number of public employment project workers at less than the speed of job growth (an important point, you don’t want to see another 1937).

In essence, what job insurance would create is a new social contract, both between citizens and the government, and among citizens. The individual worker is assured of protection from unemployment as long as they contribute to the fund and are willing to work in return for their paycheck; the society is assured that the government will provide for full employment and full economic growth. And citizens, both the employed paying in their contributions and the unemployed working for their paycheck, will assure the other that their monthly contributions will serve, not only to protect them against job loss, but will also enlarge the commonwealth and beautify the public square.

Note: this a cross-post from my group blog, the Realignment Project.

“Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, — the balance-wheel of the social machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow-men. This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility towards the rich: it prevents being poor.”

– Horace Mann, 12th Annual Report to the Massachusetts State Board of Education (1848)

In my previous post about education, I mentioned that the education reform debate has largely skirted the problem of affordability of higher education, preferring to direct their attention more towards college preparation and the K-12 system. As I said at the time, one of the things that unsettles me about the “Educational Equality Project” type of education “reformer” is the extreme economistic trend of their thought – education is about getting jobs and making the workforce more production, hence the extreme emphasis on reading, writing, math, and science, as opposed to anything about art and music, or history. I may be overly broad here in my description, and if I am, I apologize, but it's to a point. The purpose of public education is not to meet the needs of the labor market – it is to meet the needs of democracy.

Obama's recent proposal to pump an additional $12 billion over the next ten years into community colleges speaks to something of this tension. On the one hand, he makes the economic argument that “We will not fill those jobs, or keep those jobs on our shores, without the training offered by community colleges;” on the other, he ties the public investment in education to the broader goal of democratizing the economy. “Time and again, when we placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result …that's what happened when President Lincoln signed into law legislation creating the land grant colleges, which not only transformed higher education, but also our entire economy.  That's what took place when President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped educate a generation, and ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity.  That was the foundation for the American middle class.”

Background:

Obama's invocation of the Morrill land grant colleges and the GI bill should remind us that one of the great American virtues, almost from the beginning, is a faith in the virtue of democratic education. George Washington was a lifetime proponent of a National University, the purpose of which, he said, was “the education of our Youth in the science of Government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty, more pressing on its Legislature, than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those, who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the Country?” In his repeated addresses to Congress on the topic, Washington linked the establishment of a national public institution of higher education with the future of the Union itself: “In the general, juvenile period of life, when friendships are formed and habits established that will stick by one, the youth from different parts of the United States would be assembled together and would, by degree, discover that there was not just cause for those jealousies and prejudices, which one part of the union imbided against one another.”

The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 was not merely about establishing agricultural programs. Co-written by a merchant's clerk who never attended college and a schoolteacher and signed into law by a President who had perhaps one year of formal education at a time when only the sons of gentlemen attended college, it was also an aspirational statement about the kind of society that the party of “free soil, free labor, and free men” wanted to build – one where higher education would be “accessible to all, but especially to the sons of toil.” In its own way, too, the City College of New York, the oldest free public institution of higher education, was a radical institution from the very beginning. Its founder called upon the state of New York to “Open the doors to all… Let the children of the rich and the poor take their seats together and know of no distinction save that of industry, good conduct and intellect;” its first president summarized CCNY's mission thusly – “The experiment is to be tried, whether the children of the people, the children of the whole people, can be educated; and whether an institution of the highest grade, can be successfully controlled by the popular will, not by the privileged few.”

And of course, in 1960, Governor Pat Brown's Master Plan for Higher Education in California grounded its call for a revolutionary three-stage system of the University of California, California State University, and Community Colleges on the principle that “state colleges and the University of California shall be tuition free to all residents of the state.”

The point of this extensive exegesis is that the purpose of public higher education has always been about, contrary to Obama's speech, more than even just democratizing the economy.  It has always been about making a more democratic society, whether it be forging a national identity, abolishing social distinctions, state provision of a universal public good, or providing a vehicle for the children of the poor to seek their education freely.

Current Situation:

So where does this noble legacy of democratic education stand today? Well, two weeks ago I received the following email from UC President Mark Yudof, effectively sending out a fiscal SOS to the UC community:

“In the past 20 years, the amount of money allotted to the University through the state budget has fallen dramatically: General Fund support for a UC student stood at $15,860 in 1990. If current budget projections hold, it will drop this year to $7,680.

Moreover, it now appears likely the UC system, in this current fiscal crisis, will be ordered by Sacramento to absorb yet another $800-plus million in additional cuts. Its 2009-10 core budget will be reduced by an estimated 20 percent. This will bring the amount of state investment in the University down to $2.4 billion – exactly where it was in real dollars a decade ago.”

This then is the bitter fruit of the compact signed between Governor Schwarzenegger and then-UC President Dynes, which supposedly at the time was going to “bring the promise of renewed fiscal stability for public universities in California.” The ultimate result, however, has been a near-perfect execution of Shock Doctrine, effectively destroying a decade's worth of efforts to improve and expand public funding for higher education – a slow-motion privatization, if you will. At the same time that the U.C has been struggling with one funding crisis after another, despite the promises of the compact, the result has been a massive shift of economic burdens from the state and the university onto the student body. As I noted previously, the cost of attending the U.C has now doubled, from the less than $4000 per year in 2003 to more than $8000 in 2009. At the current rate of progress (10% increase in tuition per year), the U.C's in-state tuition will be indistinguishable from the private university average in twelve years. In my eyes, this constitutes an enormous tax on the student body and their families.

And this is hardly just a California story. As this article points out, the University of Washington's 26% cut also drops its state funding back by a decade, the University of Illinois' fee increases are on-pace with the U.C's, and SUNY is even outpacing the U.C with a 14%. The larger problem is that the limited fiscal capacity of states to deal with recessions, the Federal inattention to the cost of higher education for the last eight years, and the broader anti-tax politics that have gripped this nation have meant tha public university is an easy target. State and federal legislators looking to make cuts-only budgets see institutions that can raise private funds and increase fees and hand down cuts that would be unthinkable in other areas, banking on fund raising and tuition hikes to keep the public universities running.

This crates two larger problems. The first is the privatization of the public university – a public university is a public trust, a place that is supposed to cultivate democratic citizenship, to create the expertise that governments can make use of in making public policy decisions, and a place which embodies the ideals of a better society. The second is ever-increasing inequality –  as the burden of education increases on students, the result is a generation whose future life choices are increasingly determined by the pressures of ever-mounting debt, and increasing class inequality between those whose families can pull the full freight and those who must support themselves. As research has shown, the children of the affluent go to college at a higher rate than the children of the poor – even when the children of the poor perform higher academically than the children of the rich. Compare, for example, the difference in attendance rates between the 4th quintile (highest-achieving) students from families making less than $20k a year and students from the 3rd or 2nd quintiles from families making more than $100k a year. Clearly, it is better to be born lucky than smart.

Solution:

While the gross disparities between the richest and the poorest ought to shock the conscience of any American who cherishes our national mythos of opportunity, egalitarianism, and meritocracy, it's also true that people everywhere often show a less sharp concern for the plights of others than their own misfortunes. But take a second look at that chart, and you see than class inequality goes all the way down the line, with the children of the merely affluent doing less well than the children of the rich, and the children of the middle class less well than the children of the affluent, and so on – even with children of roughly equal ability and achievement. Rarely have I seen a more clear case for a cross-class community of interest.

So how do we move, as it were, forward to the past?

Morrill 2.0 – Universal, Public Higher Education for All:

• Federal/State Endowment Assistance – given the many failures of the existing per-student assistance system and the way that it has bogged us down in a patchwork of student loans and aid, and the vulnerability of this system to economic shocks, instead we should establish a system whereby the Federal governments and the states collaborate to provide a one-time $5 billion addition to the endowment (to be held in long-term T-Bills, no investing the money in derivatives or other fashionable ventures) of each state university, gradually phasing it in university by university over the next ten years (yearly cost – $25 billion). This money should be based on a guarantee of tuition-free education based on in-state rates, with modest fees for out-of-state students.
• Independent Financing of State Universities – along the same lines,  moving the state universities from a miserly yearly appropriations to a steady source of public funds, one alternative that presents itself is A.B 656 in the California state legislature (or whatever version of A.B 656 might become a proposition), which proposes an oil excise tax to fund higher education in California, similar to the way that oil taxes fund the University of Texas. Obviously, not all states have major oil revenue, but most states do have some industry that is the center of the economy, and it is only fair for the industry in question to kick in some money to pay for the education of the college graduates it needs. Hence, I could see a small tax on stock transactions to fund SUNY, since Wall Street needs huge numbers of college grads, and so on and so forth. This industry excise tax should also be balanced with a guarantee to keep tuition low and enrollment expanding (as well as the number of campuses) to maintain access to public higher education.
• Exporting the Brown Model – the evolution of the Morrill land grant colleges has meant that, in a country supposedly dominated by federalism, we actually have a rather standard pattern of having a single state university that more often than not is a large, Research 1 institution. However, I would argue that we need to, over the long term, popularize the three-tier system of state universities, state colleges, and a unified system of community colleges across the 50 states, if we are to truly expand higher education to all students who are ready and interested in furthering their education.
• Higher Education Means Vocational Education Too – in my previous post, I talked in general terms abou the lack of attention paid to vocational training and technical education and the somewhat veiled contempt that some education reformers seem to have for non-academic higher education. Simply put, not everyone wants to go to college or will ever be happy in college, and while generally our economy is becoming more reliant on education, it would be a mistake to assume that we are going to move to 100% of the population with a college diploma and a white-collar job. To begin with, the current situation masks the extent to which problems with our K-12 education system has led employers to use bachelor's degrees to substitute for high school diplomas in straining their candidate pools for people who are literate, numerate, and know how to do basic tasks like use a computer, write a memo, operate a spreadsheet, read technical documents, give a presentation, etc. Secondly, as the American economy develops, we are going to need more and more skilled labor  that require some form of certification that is not college-oriented – as we develop a “green economy” based on “alternative energy,” we're going to need a lot of electricians to install new grids, new wiring systems, solar panels and wind farms, and so forth, and you don't go to a traditional 4-year college to learn to be an electrician. Hence, I would recommend extending our guarantee of higher education for all to be a guarantee to technical education, vocational education, and apprenticeship/job training programs, paying the way at, say, state college or community college rate for any student who agrees to stick through the program. But the point is that the choice to go into academic or technical education should be freely chosen, without the consideration of cost.

“Unemployment compensation, as we conceive it, is a front line of defense, especially valuable for those who are ordinarily steadily employed, but very beneficial also in maintaining purchasing power. While it will not directly benefit those now unemployed until they are reabsorbed in industry, it should be instituted at the earliest possible date to increase the security of all who are employed…”
– Report to the President, Committee on Economic Security (1935)

In a previous post, I discussed the need to improve the payroll tax, and noted that one of the reasons we need to do this is to fix the unemployment insurance (UI). Our current UI system is fundamentally broken. As I wrote on the 12th, “at a time when nearly one in ten American workers are unemployed, only half of them qualify for Unemployment Insurance, to the extent that the program no longer adequately functions either as a safety net or an “automatic stabilizer.””

If I didn't have the time and the space to say it at the time, let me say it now. The fact that a majority of workers are no longer protected, nearly seventy-five years after the passage of an act that was meant to protect every worker from” one of many misfortunes” of economic life, is a moral failure of the highest order. The idea that governors in America would reject stimulus funds in the middle of a recession because those funds would make it easier for temporary or part time workers to gain access to UI suggests the total moral bankruptcy of the American conservative movement. Not for nothing did FDR say:

“Governments can err, presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

Background:

Seventy-five years ago, UI was probably the most important, the most important, and legally and politically the most difficult piece of FDR's agenda that the Committee on Economic Security (CES) wrestled with. The sheer burden of the task was daunting – twenty million Americans were living on Federal relief, so demand for UI would be high, but unemployment was still at 14% and wages had been badly hammered so where would the funds come from to establish a reserve? Politically, the right thundered against creeping socialism and an un-American dole and the left visions of plenty if we “shared the wealth. Legally, the Supreme Court had set its face like thunder against the New Deal and all its works. And the progressive movement was split.

At the core of the CES's divisions over UI was a struggle between two halves of the progressive spirit -on one shoulder, its conservative, sober, evolutionary side, wary of government handouts, suspicious and somewhat fearful of an unruly working class, and confident in the ability of educated regulators to force the market into acting morally;  on the the other, its visionary, expansive, and radical side, impatient with the old nostrums of laissez faire and limited government, firm in their faith in the liberatory capacity of an activist state, and deeply hostile to all malefactors of great wealth. From each side came a plan:

• The Wisconsin Plan – the Wisconsin Plan was the result of one of the most creative and productive experiments in state-leel progressivism in American history, marked by the political and policy alliance between progressive economists at the University of Wisconsin lead by Professor John R. Commons and the LaFollete political dynasty, including the legendary “Fighting Bob” LaFollete and  his sons, Progressive governor Philip LaFollete, and  Senator Robert LaFollete Jr. In 1932, Wisconsin adopted the first unemployment insurance system in American history, drafted by John R. Commons. Under the Wisconsin Plan, each corporation was required to build up its own UI reserve, paid for out of a payroll tax. The rate of the payroll tax would vary company by company depending on how successful the company was in maintaining a stable level of employment and not resorting to layoffs – in this manner, the Commons school of economists hoped to tame the business cycle by re-shaping employer's incentives, making it good business to be a good employer.

• The Ohio Plan – the Ohio Plan was established the same year as the Wisconsin Plan, but differed from it in two regards. First, the Ohio plan instead of setting up individual factory plans established a single, statewide plan, which pooled contributions from all employers, thus allowing the strong and the big to subsidize the weak and the small. Second, the Ohio plan, unlike the Wisconsin Plan, required contributions from both employers and employees (the Wisconsin Plan only taxed employers). The kernel of the Ohio plan was picked up by several progressive economists, including Abraham Epstein of the American Association for Old Age Security, future Senator Paul Douglas of the University of Chicago, and I.M Rubinow of Columbia University.

In the political struggle within the CES, the Ohio plan was easily defeated. Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor and Chairwoman of the CES appointed a number of Commons-trained Wisconsin economists to staff positions, including Edwin E. Witte (later called “the father of Social Security”) and Arthur Altmeyer (the future first chairman of the Social Security Board. Under their leadership, and with the political support of many other New Dealers, the CES was persuaded to support a system whereby a re-funded Federal payroll tax could be used to push other states into establishing Unemployment Insurance systems on the lines of the Wisconsin Plan. The advocates of the Ohio Plan, shut out from direct participation by their Wisconsin rivals, lobbied the CES' Advisory Board on behalf of a single, national pool run by the Federal government.

In the end, neither side totally won out. The UI system would be state-run, in part merely to get around objections from the Supreme Court, but on the other hand, the insurance pools would be single, state-wide, and not the factory-level plans envisioned by John R. Commons. In this way, however, a deadly weakness was built into the system.

Situation:

The fact that only 46% of workers are eligible for UI is not an accident. The more workers are eligible for unemployment insurance, the higher a payroll tax must be levied to cover them, and thus states perversely compete to lower coverage to attract employers with their low cost of doing business. The fact that the majority of gubernatorial opponents to taking the stimulus and the attached strings of UI reform come from low-wage, low-tax, Republican/corporate dominated, Southern states shows the way in which the politics and economics of state-run unemployment insurance combine. If you've been paying attention to the news, not only would you see that some governors had to be bullied into doing what is not merely morally right but economically necessary in a recession, but you would also note that many states have drawn down their UI reserve funds to the point where they are a few months or a few quarters away from running out of money.

This is simply untenable. We have nearly 10% unemployment. Our recoveries are becoming increasingly long and jobless recoveries. We have to have a functioning unemployment insurance, and we need it now.

Solutions:

So how do we get this done?

1. Fixing UI Means Nationalizing UI – the National Employment Law Project's proposal for a “New National Economic Security Plan for the 21st Century” is a good start: it combines state level reforms (coverage expansion, 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, subsidized COBRA insurance, a home protection fund, and credits for education/training) with federal reforms (expanding trade assistance, a permanent Federal Extended Benefit system tied to national recessions, establishing disaster-related unemployment insurance, and creating “transitional jobs”). Ultimately, however, the state-run model of UI is simply outdated and ill-designed and needs to be replaced. From the beginning, the state-level program was created to get around Supreme Court doctrine against Federal economic intervention that is no longer good law. State-run systems create perverse incentives to deny coverage and underfund the system, and in general, states lack the counter-cyclical capacity to deficit spend in recessions that UI should enable. The current system, whereby supplementary Extended Benefits are passed by Congress during recessions, has shown itself to be too slow, too prone to political delays, and too limited in scope. Unemployment is a national problem, it requires a national solution. We already have the administrative structure in place to make the transition. There is no excuse for delay.
2. Wage Insurance Is NOT the Answer – there are some who counsel the creation of wage insurance as a means of dealing with the additional problem that, when the unemployed do find new work, often (especially in the case of older, skilled workers) their new jobs tend to pay much lower wages than the declining, industrial, and unionized jobs they once held. This is a fundamentally flawed and compromised idea, an undeclared recognition that the jobs being destroyed and created by free trade, globalization, and outsourcing are not of equal quality, and a surrender to the epidemic of wage stagnation that is the underlying cause of America's long-term economic weakness. Creating a system that pays 1/2 the difference of lost wages simply creates an incentive for employers to fire their workforce en masse, rehire them later at lower wage rates, let the Federal government pick up the tab, leaving workers to suffer continually if only gradually declining wages. We do not need Speenhamland for the 21st century.
   
3. Job Insurance IS – Luckily, we do have another way to deal with the shortcomings in UI, one that was designed within the Committee on Economic Security, present at the moment of creation. In addition to the Wisconsin and Ohio economists, there were also a group of policy advocates from  the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), who were busy designing what would become the WPA (of which I have often written). In a series of running bureaucratic battles, FERA staffers like Jacob Baker, Emerson Ross, Corrington Gill, Aubrey Williams, Alan Johnstone, Nels Anderson, Eveline Burns, and Josephine Brown argued for the establishment of a system of “job insurance” to replace the Wisconsin school's “unemployment insurance.” In a memo titled “A Public Work Program As a Means of Economic Security,” Emerson Ross proposed three different systems of “job insurance:” option one “involves the use of contributions for protections against unemployment for a work program — employment not restricted to those making the payments. This conception regards the funds collected as an additional source of revenue collected and is based on the belief that employees will willingly make payments in return for the protection offered them by a large work program when unemployed,” essentially replacing unemployment insurance altogether, while combining contributions from a payroll tax with general Federal funding. Option two contemplated “wages on a work program as a means of paying all unemployment benefits,” in which a public job would be “a matter of contractual right to…wages paid for work performed.” Option three envisioned a combination of UI with job insurance, in which workers who exhausted their limited UI benefits would then become eligible for a public job, dividing responsibilities between short-term and long-term insurance.

Either of the three proposals would be superior to our existing system of unemployment insurance. Critically, by establishing a separate and dedicated tax and reserve fund for job insurance, the Federal government could create a permanent fiscal structure for a jobs program, which would form the nucleus of a Federal commitment to full employment for all.

Pretty much all that needs to be said about the impact of deregulation has already been said. And quite a bit has been written about the government's refusal to regulate the new “shadow financial sector.” And if that were all there was to the story, it would be fairly easy to fix the financial sector.

The problem is regulatory capture and potential incapacity – regulatory capture seems to be nearly inevitable, as long as financial institutions can offer jobs to former regulators, contributions to electeds and party organizations, and financial experts to the regulatory agencies themselves; even if that weren't already a massive conflict of interest that allows financial institutions to game the system, you have the problem that even a completely honest regulatory watchdog might not have have the financial, personnel, legal, and expertise resources needed to actually regulate – and Congress certainly hasn't shown itself particularly interested in keeping the FDA up to scratch, let alone the SEC.

So what do you do if old regulations are gone, there aren't new regulations to deal with new problems, and the regulators either can't or don't want to regulate? This brings me to a point brought up by Matt Yglesias, when he pointed out that the failure of regulatory authorities to recognize and halt this crisis:

..leaves us with an appreciation of crude measures rather than hubristic efforts to get the regulations precisely right…The best you can hope from a regulatory regime is that it will be a satisficing [sic] solution wherein some fairly crude rule will improve on the outcomes generated by the unfettered market. When that’s not the case, we may as well let the market go unfettered even though that, too, will be somewhat sub-optimal.

What we don't need is to look to the newest fad in economics (behavioral economics, I'm looking at you) to give us a flawless model for predicting when market faiilures will happen. What we don't need is “regulation for the 21st century,” or for any new paradigm. What we need are regulations that work without regulators – automatic regulation.

Automatic regulation doesn't refer to some sort of sci-fi legislation that creates self-enforcing, self-aware regulatory cyborgs. Although a Wall Street Robocop would be a cool idea, I'm actually talking about regulation that establishes clear and transparent bright lines that any informed member of the public or the media can understand. The Glass-Steagall Act's separation between commercial and investment banking was virtually self-evident: if people could deposit their money in a bank, that bank wasn't allowed to underwrite securities (stocks and bonds); if a bank floated bond issues and acted as a broker in the securities market, it couldn't receive deposits. A reserve requirement, like the Fed's reserve requirement or the 1860s rules that required "national banks" to back their bank notes with T-Bills, is easy enough to check: you look at how much money the bank is circulating, and how much it's supposed to keep in reserve,  and if the two numbers don't balance out, there's a problem. Bob LaFollette, one of the forgotten heroes of American Progressivism, in his 1924 third party race for the presidency called for the breaking up or nationalization of all corporations with (either 9% ot 15%) of market share – a radical proposal, but one that would have been easy to administer.

Automatic Financial Regulation:

In thinking about how to create automatic regulation for the financial industry, three broad categories of regulation come to mind:

1. Bright Line Regulations – the proposed limitation of oil derivatives seems like a good place to start in terms of automatic regulation – extending these limits to other commodities such as electricity and waster might prevent a future Enron-like fraud-via-false-scarcity (such as befell California).  Another example of how one could establish an automatic regulation in finance would be to ban tranche-ing, preventing one step of the process by which uncertain assets can be repackaged into a more marketable form. Restoring transactions on margin, or establishing a small transactions tax would further reduce speculative bubbles, market “hurn,” and pump-and-dump schemes without restricting long-term investment. If these ideas seem a little scattered, and underdeveloped, I accede to that, but I would point out that all of them rely on relatively simple prohibitions or requirements, reducing the effort of oversight.
2. Competing Public Ratings Agencies – one major area of the financial sector whose inherent weakness has allowed bubbles to become more frequent in recent years is the fact that the major ratings agencies for stocks, bonds, derivatives, and so on are for-profit private institutions whose livelihood depends on a reputation for providing good ratings for their clients. In this, we see a parallel between virtually all of our recent financial scandals – in the Enron/WorldCom/etc. corporate scandals of 2003, it was accounting/consulting agencies who helped conceal the bookkeeping fraud that made most major American corporations seem more profitable than they really were; in the housing bubble, the subprime/securitization/tranching system wouldn't have functioned without housing evaluators whose conflict-of-interest-ridden valuations helped spiral real estate prices out of rational bounds. Hence, I would argue that one major systemic change that should be done is to create a number of public rating agencies for stocks, bonds, other securities, and real estate, who would be required to use common standards of valuation, and whose ratings would only be published as averages – complicating if not completely eliminating the process of agency capture.
3. Right of Private/State Suit to Enforce – arguably one of the most important elements in the civil rights bills of the 1960s were the provisions allowing private citizens to bring suit to protect their own rights (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Section V of the Voting Rights Act), allowing enforcement to continue even when the government was hostile to civil rights enforcement. In recent years when the regulatory agencies have been captured by conservative ideologues, the use of state suits to force the EPA or similar agencies to enforce the laws have been crucial in preventing the total undermining of environmental and other regulations. Hence, one crucial factor in creating automatic regulation must be a clear mechanism to allow private groups, state attorneys general, and the U.S Justice Department to bring lawsuits against both regulators and the subjects of regulation to require that bright lines be enforced.

January 11, 1944:

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944, the United States was engaged in the largest two-front war of its, or any nation's history. In the European theater, Allied forces were bogged down in Italy south of Monte Cassino and Operation Overlord was still in the planning stage. In the Pacific, Allied forces were advancing through New Guinea following the bloody Battle of Tarawa.

And yet, in the middle of a crucial address at a time when the successful outcome of the war was still very much in doubt, FDR spoke instead to what would come after, in what might have been the last New Deal speech he ever gave. The theme began with him pledging that:

We are united in determination that this war shall not be followed by another interim which leads to new disaster- that we shall not repeat the tragic errors of ostrich isolationism—that we shall not repeat the excesses of the wild twenties when this Nation went for a joy ride on a roller coaster which ended in a tragic crash.

Roosevelt continued by re-framing the objectives of the war as “not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security.” The invocation of Social Security, the seemingly jarring transition from foreign to domestic policy was the opening movement of a speech whose moral center was the home front. In the bridge of his speech, FDR decried the “uproar of demands for special favors for special groups,” and recognized that “we have not always forgotten individual and selfish and partisan interests in time of war,” a rather unusual tone for a period we prefer to remember in glowing, sepia tones.

Even more unusually, he went on to challenge an even more sacred cow than national unity – individualism. Far from being an expression of American rugged independence, Roosevelt argued that “In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon each other are all groups and sections of the population of America,” following the thread of prices and wages from farmers and workers and factory owners to “teachers, clergy, policemen, firemen, widows and minors on fixed incomes, wives and dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners.”

Shifting to explicitly addressing the issue of the post-war world, FDR explicitly returned to the theme of his 1936 Inaugural Address, the theme that more than any other idea than “security” defined the New Deal – “one third of a nation.” The first condition for a new America, the first war aim would be not merely the achievement of economic prosperity but rather the leveling upwards of the poorest of Americans towards a universal minimum standard of living. (Sadly, the first, more anodyne goal of GDP growth would become the standard for post-war liberalism, while the second and higher aim would be marginalized)

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

America could not be content with a return to prosperity because of the re-discovery of economic interdependence, he argued. This economic reality, once hidden behind the veil of the free market, was being made plain to Americans, and just as the recognition of political community had reshaped an America in 1776, he believed that the recognition of economic community in 1944 would engender similar results in the post-war America:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Linking the Depression to the rise of the Nazi ideology and movement that it empowered, FDR here linked the cause of economic security to the cause of the war, bringing the theme of the home front into unity with the reality of a world war against fascism.

And then he introduced the Second Bill of Rights:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

   The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

   The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

   The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

   The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

   The right of every family to a decent home;

   The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

  The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

   The right to a good education.

It has been argued in the past that America has been exceptional in defining rights solely as legal and political in nature, and avoiding the economic and social rights spelled out in later 20th century constitutions. FDR's speech stands as a powerful rebuttal to this argument, a momentary glimpse of another America. Because Roosevelt did not intend this Second Bill of Rights to be a mere legal letter; there was instead a legislative movement to enact them into law, through the combination of the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill (universal health care plus a national cradle-to-grave welfare state), the Full Employment Bill (establishing full employment and the right to a job through Keynesian planning and the government as employer of last resort), and what would later be the Housing Act of 1949. This political drive was blocked in Congress, but for a moment in 1944, the United States seemed to be moving to a new recognition of human rights.

And for Roosevelt, the Second Bill of Rights really were about the United States and the world at the same time. We often forget that American politics and public policy doesn't happen in a vacuum, that there is a conversation that goes on across oceans and national borders. And 1944 was a time when there was a Trans-Atlantic conversation about what the post-war world should look like. In the United Kingdom, John Meynard Keynes had established his economic theories into government practice and William Beveridge was in the process of writing his two famous reports, the 1942 Beveridge Plan for a National Health Service and a cradle-to-grave welfare state, and Full Employment in a Free Society (1944). In Sweden, Gunnar Myrdal and the Stockholm School were solidifying the intellectual foundations for the Swedish social-democratic model. Throughout every occupied country in Europe waiting for Operation Overlord, people imagined a new, better world to come. And here was FDR, speaking with the world.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

July 4, 2009:

In the sixty-five years since FDR's Second Bill of Rights, the larger historical mission of the progressive movement in America has really been the adoption of the Second Bill of Rights for all Americans, regardless of race, class, and gender. Truman's failed Fair Deal was built from the intellectual foundations of the Second Bill of Rights. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were incomplete attempts to establish health care, education, and protection from poverty; the Civil Rights Movement's call for “Jobs and Freedom” and the 1963 “Freedom Budget” echoed even more deeply the spirit of Roosevelt. And even in the darkest years of the left's nadir, when America seemed to be permanently the land of Reagan, the “dream that will never die” that kept people going ultimately is that same dream.

So where do we stand today?

   * The Right to a Job – here, we've made the least amount of progress at the time when we have a nigh-unprecedented need for it. Even in the wake of the first stimulus bill, 9.5% of the country is officially unemployed. Unofficially, the number's more like 18.4%. After health care, this must be the goal of our political efforts, because it has become all to clear that each future recovery will become even more of a jobless recovery.
   * The Right to a Living Wage – here, we actually have made some progress, both in terms of restoring some of the lost value of the minimum wage, and on a state and local level, establishing a living wage as the legal minimum. As I have said before, I think this is an important and productive part of our politics, a ritual of reconsecration to social justice.
   * The Right to Farm – ironically, here we succeeded far more than we ever intended to, and the result has been a permanent system of subsidies to agro-business and a distortion of our agricultural, energy, and food policy by the sheer political gravity of corn.
   * The Right to Freedom From Monopolies – if the financial crisis has shown us anything, it's that we need a return to stronger anti-monopoly regulations.
   * The Right to a Home – as I've said before, we really need to work on extending this to mean something more than Federal subsidies to middle-class suburban home construction.
   * The Right to Health Care – after the successful scoring of the HELP committee's new bill and the AMA's endorsement of a public option, I feel more confident than ever before that we will finally enact this right into law.
   * The Right to Social Security – while we did establish a system of old age, disability, and unemployment insurance, it is in desperate need of improvement, especially in regards to unemployment insurance (more on this later).
   * The Right to a Good Education – while we have made some steps in the right direction in improving and expanding public education, a lot more is needed to make this right a reality for all (more on this later).

“O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is as cheap as beast’s.” (Lear, II iv)

The Problem:

If there is any one area of American life that best expresses the adage “poverty in the midst of prosperity,” it must be housing. Even as thousands upon thousands of homes now stand empty, vast swathes of speculative suburban developments along the highways and hills of California turned into ghost towns, homelessness has increased. In Washington D.C, the number of homeless families has increased in the last year by 15%, with similar figures being reported in New York City and other metropolitan centers. Even when the sub-prime boom was spreading home-ownership wide and far and actually beginning to make headway against the unequal distribution of housing in America, in 2006, 8.8 million households were paying more than half their income in rent (I was probably one of them). Major systemic problems (the lack of affordable housing and workforce housing near where people work, the need to in-fill versus sprawl, racial and class discrimination) were not being addressed, even when the market was flush.

It isn’t flush now. If ever there was a need for proof that “spatial mismatch” and “credit discrimination” exist, we can find it in the fact that at a time when thousands of houses are empty rotting shells, that people who want and need housing are being turned away by banks who have suddenly become paragons of fiscal rectitude.

At the same time, the national unemployment rate currently stands at 9.4%. Within the construction industry, unemployment stands at 21%. Within California, the situation is even worse, with an overall unemployment rate of 11.5%, and a construction industry that’s down 150,000 jobs from last year. While I fully expect that the stimulative effect of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will begin to ameliorate this situation within the next six months, I personally was calling for an even larger jobs bill at the time.

I think we can tackle both problems at the same time.

The Solution:

Public employment programs – like the Works Progress Administration (WPA)- have a special affinity for has been called “light construction.”  In its eight year existence, the WPA built nearly 40,000 public buildings, and rehabilitated or improved another 80,000, despite the fact that most WPA workers actually did road construction. Those 120,000 buildings included 6,000 new schools, 2,170 school expansions, and 31,000 school modernizations, 322 new or improved hospitals, and 6,400 public office buildings. Even if you divide it up yearly, it still comes out to 15,000 buildings a year, done with only a fraction of its 3.5 million strong workforce. In my own research, I have found that the one thing that the WPA wasn’t able to do, that administrators and experts within the WPA like Emerson Ross, Jacob Baker, Alan Johnstone, Nels Anderson and a handful of other almost completely forgotten New Dealers wanted to do, was build housing.

As you can see in the above memo written by Jacob Baker, the plan to expand the New Deal’s employment program to 3-6 million men (far bigger than the WPA eventually managed),  also went hand in hand with an attempt to deal with the chronic market failure to provide affordable housing in the city core. This insight, the drive to kill two birds with one stone, is one that we should follow today.

My suggestion would be for the Federal government, along with the state and local governments, to go into areas where the housing market has failed (large proportions of renters paying more than 50% of income in rent, housing values far out of sync with median incomes, large numbers of abandoned foreclosed properties, or a lack of affordable housing in general) and do three things: first, to restore and rehabilitate derelict housing and second, to build new housing units where new housing is needed in central cities, and third, to destroy “ghost towns” that are now nothing of blight in such a way that as much of the materials can be saved as possible.

If we were establish a Housing Progress Administration (HPA) to employ 5 million unemployed workers (many of whom would no doubt be former construction workers) to do this, and we paid $24k a year (assuming an overhead rate of 30%, which is actually 10% higher than the WPA”s historic 20% rate), making a deal with states and localities to pitch in for the cost of land and materials, it would cost approximately $155 billion per year. If we kept the program going for the next two years, at which point economic growth would start to transition into employment growth, it would cost $310 billion – less than half the cost of the stimulus bill. And it would create at least 5 million jobs, nearly the total number of jobs lost in this recession.

Now the question becomes, what do we do with this new housing? I have a few suggestions:

• Selling At/Below Cost – the wonderful, undiscovered virtue of the public sector is that it doesn’t have to make a profit. If we were to sell the new/reclaimed housing at or below the cost of construction, we could begin to reverse the impacts of the sub-prime collapse, by getting low to medium income families back into housing with low-rate, FHA-backed mortgages, instead of crooked, ballooning loans. Moreover, by moving thousands or even millions of people back into housing would help defray the cost of the construction program, pushing it well below $155 billion.
• Giving Away Housing – in cities with high rates of homelessness, one of the most successful recent programs has been to simply give homeless people housing for free. For the 17% of the homeless who work, it simply gets them over the obstacle of putting together first-and-last plus security deposit; but for many more, getting a mailing address and a phone number, a place to clean their clothes, and so forth is a huge helping hand towards getting a job and staying off the streets. Even if we don’t make any money back on giving away housing, we would be solving a major social problem and a major human crisis.
• Establishing Rental Co-ops – finally, we should recognize that home-ownership is not the only route to economic security, and that our public policy needs to do more to ensure that renters get the same kind of government assistance that home-owners get from the FHA, HOLC, tax breaks, and other public policies. Thus, in addition to providing new housing for sale, the HPA should also create a variety of apartment buildings and single homes for rent, working with local housing groups (yes, like ACORN) to establish local rental co-ops who would operate and maintain the units.

In the face of manifest human need and the gross waste of our current system, what else can we do but help?