Home > The Economy and the Planet, unemployment > Five economic policy changes for 2014 that could boost employment and reduce climate disruption

Five economic policy changes for 2014 that could boost employment and reduce climate disruption

from Mark Weisbrot

The U.S. economy is still weak, with 7 percent unemployment, many millions more underemployed and less people employed in November than there were six years ago. At the same time – and not unrelated – we are still devolving along a path toward increasingly ugly inequality, with 95 percent of the income gains since the Great Recession going to the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

Meanwhile, the crisis of global climate change is moving toward more irreversible catastrophic damage each year that the United States, which is responsible for more of the cumulative carbon emissions than any other country, procrastinates in making the necessary changes to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

There are feasible policy changes that can address all of these problems – and we don’t have to sacrifice employment or a more just and decent society in order to make progress on climate change. Here are five of them:

  1. A carbon tax: This one is so simple that it even gets overwhelming majority support among economists. If we tax the use of fossil fuels, less will be used and production and investment will shift to lower CO2 and more renewable forms of energy like solar. We can even use the revenue to fund alternative energy sources (as in France), or if that is not politically feasible, simply refund the money to the public or cut other taxes (as in British Columbia).
  2. Pursue full employment: We had full employment in 2000 (unemployment was 4 percent) and it didn’t lead to inflation or anything bad. In addition to reducing the suffering of millions of unemployed and their families, full employment is what enables workers to bargain for their share of the productivity gains that have, over the past 35 years, been withheld from the majority of the labor force. This means we have to keep the Fed’s quantitative easing and near-zero interest rates as long as necessary. But that has not been enough; the economy is still short more than 8 million jobs. So we also need expansionary fiscal policy, which means federal spending that creates employment.
  3. Labor law reform: Another main reason for the Latin Americanization of the United States, in terms of income distribution, is the decline of collective bargaining. Only 11.3 percent of workers are in unions today, as compared with 35 percent in the 1950s. President Obama pledged in his first campaign to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have restored some of workers’ rights to collective bargaining that they have lost over the past three decades. This will have to be brought back if we are to reverse the country’s widening inequality.
  4. Public investment in energy : The federal government can retro-fit its own buildings for energy savings of about 30 percent, and subsidize others. A “smart” electricity grid can yield a lot of energy savings, and so can investment and subsidies for mass transit. These can be part of the expansionary fiscal policy needed to create jobs.
  5. A financial speculation tax: A tiny tax (e.g. 3 cents per $100 as currently proposed in Congress) on financial transactions (stocks, bonds, futures, options) would raise tens of billions of dollars annually while reducing speculative, destabilizing trading. It has popular support and it wouldn’t hurt ordinary investors who are, for example, saving for their retirement.

Some of these proposals may seem far from the political agenda, but remember that the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing to stimulate the economy was uncharted territory until they actually did it in 2008. It was accepted by all but the far right; and it has helped. The public is more than ready for new economic policies to civilize this country and save the planet from climate disaster.

See article on original website

  1. Garrett Connelly
    January 27, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    Disappointing, this is just another Robert Reich style grow to infinity on a finite planet,

  2. Garrett Connelly
    January 27, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    Though the carbon tax is correct.

  3. January 29, 2014 at 3:42 am

    It will be interesting to hear if the Fed will continue to reduce bond purchases in the face of 2 months of a slowing real estate market, a major cold snap, and trouble in Argentina, Turkey, and China. We’re going to know if Janet Yellen and the new administration is long-term oriented or myopic.

  4. Thorfinnsson
    January 31, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    These proposals, while well-intentioned, do not seem well thought out. Allow me to offer my reservations on each:

    1. This is the worst proposal on the list. It would dramatically increase costs in energy intensive industries like steel, chemicals, aluminum, electricity generation, glass making, and cement. These industries tend to be very capital intensive, net exporting, and pay much higher wages. It is exactly these industries growing more competitive thanks to America’s shale gas boom. This proposal would also increase the cost of transportation, another area where the US economy currently enjoys a competitive edge.

    The result of this would be to disadvantage US industry while encouraging growth of energy intensive industries to countries with poor environmental regulation. This can be observed in the European Union, where energy intensive industries have either required subsidies (as in Germany) or are fleeing to countries like Russia and Algeria.

    Instead of taxing carbon, the federal government should pass a law requiring all new generation plants built to be either nuclear or hydro. Integrated steel mills should be encouraged to shift from coal to gas.

    2. Good idea, but how? Productivity gains in the past generation have been overstated, because productivity metrics improve as a result of low-cost imported input goods and since 1995 hedonic accounting has been employed. Expansionary fiscal policy is less effective at stimulating employment than in the past due to global trade. During the Great Depression, countries that recovered quickly ensured that expansionary policies stimulated demand only for domestically produced goods, whether that was the United Kingdom’s abandonment of free trade or Nazi Germany’s rearmament.

    3. This is the best idea on the list, though a cautionary note: during the previous era of high unionization, unions inhibited productivity through restrictive work rules. Perhaps collective bargaining should be restricted to compensation, hours, and benefits given that OSHA now exists to ensure safe workplaces. Experimentation with the German model of labor representation in management might be positive as well.

    4. Are the energy savings of 30% worth the cost of capital, and if so how long will it take to recover the investment? Is the ROI greater than the ROI on new generating stations?

    Smart grid is one of those buzzwords everyone can get behind without really being aware. Some proposals call for allowing utility corporations control your appliances, something I certainly am not comfortable with. Other proposals call for completely redesigning the grid for distributed generation, which would be a massive net economic loss. The grid is antiquated and requires updating, but we must tread carefully.

    I can get behind more investment in mass transit, but let’s be honest here. Outside of East Asia, very few mass transit systems achieve 100% farebox recovery rates and require public subsidies. While I’m sure better management could improve this (here in Chicago CTA workers get paid $25/hr to sleep on the job!), I’m not certain it could eliminate this.

    That said, electric mass transit may be worth subsidizing for social reasons. It increases the mobility of the poor, it spurs night-life and provides alternatives to drunk driving, and it reduces pollution.

    It should be coupled by fully taxing the cost of automobiles. Gas tax revenues are too low currently to fully fund highway construction and maintenance (already adequate), and this is only the beginning of automotive costs. Parking in urban areas is a massive cost sink which is unfairly absorbed by city budgets and property owners. In Japan, to register an automobile one must demonstrate ownership (or a lease) of two parking spaces–one for home and one for work. Motorists should also pay the true costs of traffic policing, emergency services, and other such costs.

    5. I question the merit of this. Wouldn’t this drive much trading to London and thus reduce the economic rents the American finance industry is able to extract from the world? Arguably this is desirable anyway, but people haven’t really thought this one true.

  5. Thorfinnsson
    January 31, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    @Garrett Connelly
    “Disappointing, this is just another Robert Reich style grow to infinity on a finite planet,”

    The simple solution to this without returning to preindustrial life is for humans to become a truly spacefaring race. Our solar system is very rich with exploitable mineral reserves. Metallic asteroids could be towed to geostationary Earth orbit and mined to feed manufacturing industries on Earth.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.