Economy & Business

Democrats’ Universal Job Plan Would Be a Socialist Disaster

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a Capitol Hill press conference, October 3, 2017. (Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters)
No skills, no interest in learning, and no wish to look for work? And you're not bothered by bankrupting America? This plan is for you.

Senator Bernie Sanders is set to announce a plan that guarantees every American “who wants or needs one” a lifetime government job paying at least $15 an hour, with health insurance and other perks. This new progressive work force will then, according to the Washington Post, build glorious “projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education, and other goals.”

It would be one thing if the nation’s leading socialist — and perhaps the most popular Democrat in the country — were the only one interested in creating a state-run work force to “compete” with the private sector. A number of other allegedly moderate Democrats and prospective presidential candidates, including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, favor a universal job guarantee as well. It’s rapidly becoming a mainstream idea.

One imagines that a quixotic proposal such as this polls quite well. I mean, who doesn’t want everyone to have a job? You don’t possess the skills that enable you to find productive work? You don’t want to learn a new trade? You don’t want to obtain a better education? You have no interest in moving to an area where your work might be in demand? You don’t want to start your career with a lower wage even if the long-term prospects of doing so might be worthwhile? Don’t worry. The government’s got an incentive-destroying job opportunity just for you.

And if you’ve been fired for a poor work ethic, or for stealing, or for making women uncomfortable with your creepy behavior, fear not; Bernie’s got your back. In the rare event that state workers do misbehave, they would be summoned to a Division of Progress Investigation (a relic of our 1930s stab at socialism) to “take disciplinary action if needed.” If the DPI were to run anything like major public-schools systems do, you can imagine it would be a study in meritocracy.

“Job-guarantee advocates,” the Washington Post says, make the absurd claim that Sanders’s plan “would drive up wages by significantly increasing competition for workers, ensuring that corporations have to offer more generous salaries and benefits if they want to keep their employees from working for the government.”

Corporations are concerned with profit. If the minimum wage kills jobs, why should we believe that businesses (especially smaller ones) would compete with government-funded projects that can print money and create salaries (and benefits) that are wholly untethered from the real cost of labor? Businesses would simply hire fewer Americans — especially those Americans first getting into the labor force.

Of course, it’s more likely that our state-run work force would be deployed for ideological and political priorities rather than economic ones. If history is any indicator, it would be used to prop up politically useful projects and keep failing industries afloat, undermining creative destruction, innovation, and long-term growth.

No doubt the Washington, D.C., bureaucracy that would emerge to run this project would be both nimble and competent.

You do have to wonder, what would happen if local communities that share President Trump’s “priorities” were to demand utilizing this state labor? What if they wanted to build sections of a wall on the southern border rather than make solar panels, or whatever progressive priority Sanders has in mind? We’d be hearing about a rise of fascism in no time.

Then there is the mission creep. No doubt the Washington, D.C., bureaucracy that would emerge to run this project would be both nimble and competent. But why only $15? Who can live on $15 an hour? Well, not a lot of people. Surely, these hard-working public servants who keep the infrastructure from crumbling around us deserve a genuine living wage. How about better pensions? As this work force grows, it wouldn’t possess any special ability other than being able to corral huge numbers of people to demand more.

Most of all, making government responsible for every American’s job prospects would change the dynamics of governance — forever. Not only would politicians be expected to help create the economic conditions that make growth possible; they would then face another unrealistic expectation. Unemployment would no longer be a function of economic conditions but rather heartless politicians who fail to create jobs for voters.

This is exactly what is wanted by left-leaning economists who obsess about inequality and push zero-sum fantasies about wealth and growth. It’s why they wanted the federal government to control the structure of the health-care system, and it’s why they want to create a “public” job option. Most of them openly argue that the universal job program would let them control wages and benefits in the private sector.

Democrats have yet to tell us how they plan to fund this massive work-force idea that doesn’t generate any profit. I have a strong suspicion it will have something to do with the nefariously wealthy not paying their fair share. I’m not sure, however, that even the Koch brothers could afford to bankroll this idea. But it’s not really meant to pass. Not yet. Republicans would never go for it, after all. Democrats see this as a promising campaign issue. In the meantime, they continue to normalize destructive socialistic ideas in political discourse.

© 2018 Creators.com

David Harsanyi — David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today

Most Popular

U.S.

Yes, Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted

I know this is ancient history, but — I’m sorry — I just can’t let it go. When historians write the definitive, sordid histories of the 2016 election, the FBI, Hillary, emails, Russia, and Trump, there has to be a collection of chapters making the case that Hillary should have faced a jury ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Yes, There Was FBI Bias

There is much to admire in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s highly anticipated report on the FBI’s Clinton-emails investigation. Horowitz’s 568-page analysis is comprehensive, fact-intensive, and cautious to a fault. It is also, nonetheless, an incomplete exercise — it omits half ... Read More
Sports

Let the World Have Soccer

The United States of America did not qualify for the World Cup this year. Good for us. Soccer is corrupt, hyper-regulated, impoverished by a socialist-style fondness for rationing, and organized to strangle human flourishing. It is so dependent on the whims of referees that is in effect a helpless captive of the ... Read More
Culture

Staying on the Path

Dear Reader (Including those of you who are no longer my personal lawyer), Almost 20 years ago, I wrote in this space that the movie A Simple Plan was one of the most conservative movies of the 1990s. In case you haven’t seen it, the plot is pretty straightforward, almost clichéd. It focuses on three men ... Read More
Immigration

Child Separation at the Border

If you want to read a thoughtful and constructive explanation and partial defense of the policies being implemented by the White House, you should read this piece by Rich Lowry. If you want to read a trollish and counter-productive screed fit for a comment section, read the White House’s official press ... Read More
Economy & Business

Asymmetrical Capitalism

I like to think of American Airlines CEO Doug Parker as my pen pal, but, in truth, he never writes back. It’s a lopsided relationship — asymmetrical, in a word. I have for many years argued that most people would be enthusiastic about capitalism if not for their interactions with a small number of ... Read More