Would You Prefer Free Money or a Guaranteed Job?

Would you rather receive a monthly check of $1,000 or have a guaranteed job that pays $36,000 a year?

This choice is animating conversations throughout the Democratic Party, from think tanks to politicians to friends and family. For instance, the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning economic think tank, seems to be a proponent of universal basic income, whereas the Center for American Progress, arguably the most powerful Democratic think tank, has promoted a guaranteed federal jobs program.

Certainly in our office we have debated, at length, whether the government should pursue a basic income or a guaranteed jobs program. (Side note: it’s such a novelty, and a joy, in today’s world to actually discuss policy as opposed to helplessly dwelling on Republican stupidity and Trumpian ineptitude.)

As I have written in the past, the more I learn about the two programs, the more I lean towards supporting a basic income. Certainly a guaranteed jobs program has many positive attributes, but I find myself deeply skeptical of the supposed “necessity” of having a job in order to give dignity to one’s life. To me, this claim reeks of elitism that conveniently forgets most Americans are not employed in their dream jobs.

That’s not to suggest that I don’t have many concerns with basic income — more than a few qualms come to mind immediately. And indeed, the complexities surrounding these two policies spurred our office to put our thoughts on the subject into podcast form — which you can listen to here:

As we state in the episode, progressives should be extremely excited that 1) they are pursuing bold solutions to economic anxieties (aka being poor) and 2) that we are renegotiating the economic relationship between the citizen and the state.

Universal basic income is hardly a new idea, and its beginnings can be traced back as far as Thomas Paine’s call for a citizen’s dividend. In the 1970s, the idea was even championed by conservative economists like Milton Friedman, who advocated for a negative income tax (essentially a basic income) which would replace a complex social safety net.

Federally guaranteed jobs, too, have historical precedence in the United States. The Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps were both public employment programs instituted during the Great Depression. Programs like these stabilized a teetering economy, lowered unemployment and acted as an effective backstop for those without work.

Ultimately, both basic income and guaranteed jobs provide more agency and choice to the American worker — two qualities which are not available to many in the workforce today. To be clear, these two policies do not have to mutually exclusive, but given the state of American politics it seems more than a little ambitious to believe both of these expensive policies could be implemented at once.

Regardless, such big-eyed thinking on economic matters is welcome news for progressives who were underwhelmed by the Democratic Party’s electoral strategy in 2016. While the party platform last year offered historic policies like a $15 minimum wage, it also served up a host of underwhelming economic platitudes like “ensuring a secured and dignified retirement.”

If Democrats are going to regain control of local, state, and federal bodies of government, they must level with the honest financial worries of Americans. Crowing about stock market performance or the low unemployment rate simply isn’t going to suffice.

Although many of the standard economic indicators look promising, the fact is, the nation is economically vulnerable.

People’s wages are still frustratingly small, even though we work harder than any other people in the Western world. College costs are astronomical, leading to insane levels of student loan debt. And basic worker protections, like paid sick leave or maternity/paternity leave are not afforded to the vast majority of citizens.

While a basic income or a guaranteed jobs program will not alleviate all of these problems, they certainly would improve the situation facing most Americans today. Inaction — the idea that people should patiently wait for the gains of the wealthiest to trickle down to them — can no longer be a worldview that Democrats subscribe to. We must become the party which actively seeks solutions to improve the lives of all, because we know that we all do better when we all do better.

That statement may sound banal, but it is true — the more inclusive our economy becomes, the more equally the gains are shared, the better this country will do — socially, politically, and economically. Any policies that seek to even the playing field should be seriously considered by Democrats if they hope to be the party of the many.