FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How to Reduce Unemployment, Rebuild the Middle Class and Free Ourselves From Wall Street

by MOSHE ADLER

Ten percent of Americans are unemployed, and many doubt that President Obama’s stimulus will create enough jobs to reduce this rate significantly. But given the structure of our labor force, more jobs is not necessarily what we need anyway. Our workforce includes 13.5 million people who don’t belong in it at all. Permitting them not to work would free up jobs and raise the wages of millions of workers who belong in the middle class. It would also free all of us of our dependence on Wall Street.

Currently, four million children under the age of eighteen work, filling the equivalent of two million full time jobs. (The actual number is higher. Even though the law permits the employment of children over the age of fourteen, the Census Bureau only collects data about workers who are older than sixteen.) Ten million college-age youth (between the ages of eighteen and twenty one) also work, and they fill the equivalent of eight million full time jobs. Five million of these college-age youth do not attend college at all. Finally, there are also four and a half million workers who are sixty six years or older, and they fill the equivalent of three and a half million full time jobs. The questions before us are then: Should these workers be removed from the workforce? How much would this cost? Can we afford it? And finally, what will our lives look like after all these workers stop working?

That high school students don’t belong in the workforce does not require an explanation. Of course, the families of these children need the money they earn, but their earnings are very small, just $19 billion in 2007, and they could be replaced by child subsidies to low income families.

That high school grads belong in college is also pretty obvious. Today, workers must have a college education in order to do well. In 1950 the difference between the wage of a college graduate and a high school graduate was 27%. But by 2000 this gap grew to 75%. Nevertheless, just as the importance of having a college education has been increasing, it has become dramatically less affordable. Between 1981 and 2005 tuition in state universities increased four times faster than personal incomes did. Making college education free would both increase the number of youth who go to college and decrease the need of those who are already in college to work.

Of course, providing all interested high school graduates with a free college education plus stipends cost will not be cheap. The average yearly tuition in public colleges is currently $6,585 and this figure covers 40% of the total cost of education. If all young adults chose to go to college, and assuming that tuition was entirely free, the additional cost to taxpayers would be $164 billion a year. The salaries and wages that all college age workers earned, both students and non-students, in 2007, was $135 billion. If the lost earnings are fully replaced by student-stipends, the total cost of providing college education to all would be some $300 billion.

That old people ought to be able to retire shouldn’t be controversial. But the social security payment of the median retiree amounts to just forty-two percent of the income she earned while working, and it is not surprising that many workers are forced to continue working even when they are old. Doubling retiree benefits would cost an additional $505 billion a year, and it is the most expensive item in our proposal.

No doubt, not all young adults who are offered the opportunity to go to college will take advantage of it, and not all older Americans will retire even with higher social security payments. But for argument’s sake if we assume that all these individuals will in fact leave, the cost of removing thirteen and a half million workers from the workforce, and giving all young adults free college education would come to $825 billion a year. This may sound like a large sum, but it is actually just 11% of the total income that households earn, excluding the wages and salaries of the workers who will no longer work.

Can we afford an average increase of 11% in taxes (a higher increase for the rich, smaller increase for the poor)? Let’s recall that between 1913, the year in which the income tax became constitutional, and 1981, the first year of the Reagan presidency, the highest marginal tax rate was on average 68%. Today it is 35%.

What will our lives be like if millions of low-wage workers stop working? The most visible effect will probably be a drastic reduction in the number of stores that are open 24 hours a day, because it is the abundance of workers that keeps these stores open in the wee hours of the night, when there is nary a customer.

But the most significant change will come from the shift to government financed higher education and retirement. Our lives will be remarkably more secure when we will no longer have to entrust our fate and the fate of our children to retirement and college savings invested in stocks. And when this happens, the incomes and the political power of stock brokers will decline precipitously; Main Street will no longer be in the clutches of Wall Street.

Inequality would decline dramatically as well. With five million fewer retail and restaurant workers, a million fewer construction and a million fewer manufacturing workers, and a six million reduction in the numbers of workers available for work in all other industries, wages will rise significantly. Furthermore, the number of positions seeking workers will increase too, because in order to accommodate five million additional students, the number of jobs on colleges will have to increase by three and a half million. And if millions of old workers will be able to retire, the services that cater to them will also have to increase.

The current crisis inflicts great harm on middle class and low-wage workers. But what we don’t want is to return to the world as it was before the crisis. That world deprived millions of children of childhood and the chance for a good education; it prevented millions of youth from being able to attend college; and it deprived millions of old people from being able to retire. It also made all of us dependent on Wall Street. Instead, let’s make sure that families have enough money to support their children, that high school grads can afford to go to college, and that older workers who want to retire can.

MOSHE ADLER teaches economics in the dept. of urban planning at Columbia and his book, “Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science that Makes Life Dismal,” will be published in January 2010 by the New Press. He can be reached at: ma820@columbia.edu

 

Moshe Adler teaches economics at Columbia University and at the Harry Van Arsdale Center for Labor Studies at Empire State College. He is the author of Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science That Makes Life Dismal (The New Press, 2010),  which is available in paperback and as an e-book and in Chinese (2013) and Korean (2015) editions.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail