GND - Neg

GND – NEG
Negative Side
AT – Adv 1
1NC – AT Adv 1 – Inequality Alt Causes
Alt causes to employment and economic insecurity – AFF evidence agrees.
1AC Tcherneva, ’20 [Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Associate Professor, Economics, Bard College, THE CASE
FOR A JOB GUARANTEE, Polity Press, Medford MA, 2020, epub] //ReHL-GDI-ILake-YL
The Job Guarantee deals with two very specific aspects of economic insecurity: unemployment
(intermittent or long-term), and poorly paid employment (precarious and unequal). There are other labor
market problems such as wage theft, discrimination, poverty, and stagnant income growth. And there are other
forms of economic insecurity too, such as the lack of affordable and high quality food, care, housing, and
education, or a lack of protection from the ravages of climate change. While, in a certain sense, the Job
Guarantee has a narrow and clear mission – to provide a decent job at decent pay to all jobseekers who come a-
knocking – by its very nature and design it addresses a wide range of social and economic problems and
helps deliver a fairer economy.
At bottom, the Job

Guarantee is a policy of care, one that fundamentally rejects the notion that people in
economic distress, communities in disrepair, and an environment in peril are the unfortunate but
unavoidable collateral damage of a market economy.
The idea of using public policy to guarantee the right to employment is not new. Its long life and resilience stem from its deep moral content. It
was affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s
proposed Economic Bill of Rights, it was a signature issue in the struggle for civil rights, and it is etched into many nations’
constitutions (inspired by the Universal Declaration). But its mandate remains unmet. In the US, the architects of the 1946
Employment Act and the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act tried, but ultimately failed, to implement appropriate legislation to
secure it. In
the absence of a universal right to work, intermittent direct employment programs around the world have
attempted, there
is an appropriate level of unemployment necessary for the smooth functioning of the
economy, is among the great, unexamined myths of our time. It is also bad economics.
AT – Adv 2
1NC – AT Adv 2 – Climate !D
Climate change’s timeframe is far off and only creates latent risks after nuclear war
which means we control the internal link – AFF evidence agrees.
1AC Kemp et al. 22 (Luke, Research Associate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at
the University of Cambridge, PhD in International Relations from the Australian National University.
Joanna Depledge, Research fellow at the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource
Governance, Editor of the international, peer-reviewed journal Climate Policy. PhD from University
College London. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is a
peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journal. "Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate
change scenarios", accessed 9-13-2022, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119) //ReHL-
GDI-ILake-YL
The Potential for Climate Catastrophe
There are four key reasons to be concerned over the potential of a global climate catastrophe. First, there
are warnings from
history. Climate change (either regional or global) has played a role in the collapse or transformation of
numerous previous societies (37) and in each of the five mass extinction events in Phanerozoic Earth history
(38). The current carbon pulse is occurring at an unprecedented geological speed and, by the end of
the century, may surpass thresholds that triggered previous mass extinctions (39, 40). The worst-case
scenarios in the IPCC report project temperatures by the 22nd century that last prevailed in the Early Eocene, reversing 50 million years of
cooler climates in the space of two centuries (41). This
is particularly alarming, as human societies are locally adapted
to a specific climatic niche. The rise of large-scale, urbanized agrarian societies began with the shift to the stable climate of the
Holocene ∼12,000 y ago (42). Since then, human population density peaked within a narrow climatic envelope with a mean annual average
temperature of ∼13 °C. Even today, the most economically productive centers of human activity are concentrated in those areas (43). The
cumulative impacts of warming may overwhelm societal adaptive capacity. Second, climate change could
directly trigger other catastrophic risks, such as international conflict, or exacerbate infectious disease
spread, and spillover risk. These could be potent extreme threat multipliers. Third, climate change could
exacerbate vulnerabilities and cause multiple, indirect stresses (such as economic damage, loss of land,
and water and food insecurity) that coalesce into system-wide synchronous failures. This is the path of systemic
risk. Global crises tend to occur through such reinforcing “synchronous failures” that spread across countries and systems, as with the 2007–
2008 global financial crisis (44). It is plausible that a sudden shift in climate could trigger systems failures that unravel societies across the globe.
The potential of systemic climate risk is marked: The
most vulnerable states and communities will continue to be the
hardest hit in a warming world, exacerbating inequities. Fig. 1 shows how projected population density intersects with
extreme >29 °C mean annual temperature (MAT) (such temperatures are currently restricted to only 0.8% of Earth’s land surface area). Using
the medium-high scenario of emissions and population growth (SSP3-7.0 emissions, and SSP3 population growth), by 2070, around 2 billion
people are expected to live in these extremely hot areas. Currently, only 30 million people live in hot places, primarily in the Sahara Desert and
Gulf Coast (43). Extreme temperatures combined with high humidity can negatively affect outdoor worker productivity and yields of major
cereal crops. These deadly heat conditions could significantly affect populated areas in South and southwest Asia(47). Fig. 2 takes a political lens
on extreme heat, overlapping SSP3-7.0 or SSP5-8.5 projections of >29 °C MAT circa 2070, with the Fragile States Index (a measurement of the
instability of states). There is a striking overlap between currently vulnerable states and future areas of extreme warming. If current political
fragility does not improve significantly in the coming decades, then a belt of instability with potentially serious ramifications could occur. Finally,
climate change could irrevocably undermine humanity’s ability to recover from another cataclysm, such
as nuclear war. That is, it could create significant latent risks (Table 1): Impacts that may be manageable
during times of stability become dire when responding to and recovering from catastrophe. These different
causes for catastrophic concern are interrelated and must be examined together.
1NC – AT Adv 2 – China Alt Causes
Alt causes to Chinese tech dominance – it’s from Innovation Warfare, which the GND
doesn’t solve – AFF evidence agrees.
1AC Suchodolski et al. 20 (Jeanne, Attorney with the United States Navy Office of General Counsel
—Patent and Intellectual Property Counsel for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport;
Suzanne Harrison, Founder of Percipience, LLC, Bowman Heiden, co-director of the Center for
Intellectual Property, visiting professor at University of California, Berkeley. "Innovation Warfare,"
December 2020, from North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, Volume 22, Issue 2, Article 4,
https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=ncjolt) //ReHL-GDI-ILake-YL
technology-based innovation, is the key driver for both economic competitiveness

Innovation, in particular,
and national security. Other nations, with interests adverse to the United States, recognize this fact. In an
increasingly interconnected world, nation states seek to accumulate innovation prowess, and hence economic
strength, as a key element of their geopolitical power. Especially savvy nation states also pursue such
ends as a mechanism to influence or diminish the national security and geopolitical power of the United States. There is
no need to inflict upon the world the carnage of war if one’s geopolitical aims can be achieved via alternative competitive means. Several
authors suggest China’s long-term ambitions include unseating the United States as the world’s economic and
political leader.1 More compelling than opinions, several United States (“U.S.”) government and private studies document a
systematic and coordinated effort by China to achieve technical and economic dominance through
misappropriation of U.S. technology.2 These efforts are additionally supported by a companion effort to weaken international
economic institutions and norms designed to protect U.S. intellectual property and free trade.3 The Chinese tactics include illegal
means, and sophisticated use of legal means, to misappropriate U.S. technology and weaken the U.S.
innovation infrastructure including: a) Leveraging the open university and laboratory ecosystem via
direct sponsorship and engagement of Chinese nationals;4 b) Devaluing U.S. positions in patents and
technology platforms;5 and c) Accessing private sector U.S. technology through acquisitions and
ownership stakes in existing firms, funding of high-tech start-ups, and forced joint ventures and other
contractual agreements as a prerequisite for entering the Chinese market.6 This particular form of
competitive strategy targeting the innovation ecosystem in the United States is labeled by the Authors as
“Innovation Warfare,”7 and it is defined as an executable competitive strategy: a) Reflecting an innovation, intellectual
property, and technology strategy articulated and executed by the state (e.g. China); b) Using illegal means, political means, and legal economic
activities—of the type previously residing solely in the province of commercial enterprise, to achieve the state’s objectives; c) Employing
these economic and innovation activities to achieve both economic geopolitical power and to enhance
military capabilities; and d) Functioning as a military, national security, and defense doctrine not solely as a reflection of the state’s
economic policy goals nor commercial competition in the ordinary course. Innovation Warfare does not just threaten
American jobs and economic prosperity. By simultaneously co-opting and weakening the innovation capabilities
of the United States, China seeks to advance its rise to world power. China’s prosecution of Innovation
Warfare not only encompasses a rejection of a rules-based international order, but also poses an
existential threat. A world where China dominates the technology landscape is not just about who earns
the profits or prevails in an abstract geopolitical fight. According to the National Security Strategy of the
United States of America (“National Security Strategy”), China pursues a world in which economies are less free, less fair, and
less likely to respect human dignity and freedoms.8 China’s Innovation Warfare activities risk the type of
economic and geopolitical aggressions that were a root cause of two World Wars.
Negative Solvency
1NC Solvency Turn/Economy Link
No Solvency and net solvency turn—5 reasons the FJG will fail and collapse the
economy
Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, April 3, 2023
[Ryan Bhandari, Former Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program. PhD student studying Economics at
the University of Illinois Chicago. Published “What Is The Federal Jobs Guarantee” and What Are People
Saying About It”
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9ztj8tbVkoZs2JE1XNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc
2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1689659005/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.thirdway.org%2fmemo%2fwhat-is-
the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-about
it/RK=2/RS=R4IkaIz9XqnSlu.xHi8RmkPurcQ-, GDI-GLee]
#1: It solves a different problem. Right now there are over seven million open jobs and six million
unemployed people. Yet, many of these jobs are going unfilled. Why? Many people don’t have the
right mix of skills or training. New jobs are often in different places than old ones. Childcare and
transportation are often prohibitively expensive. And others struggle with opioid addiction and other
conditions. And yet, a federal jobs guarantee doesn’t address any of this. Even during economic
downturns, there are better and far more efficient ways to help workers and communities such as
targeted public works programs, hiring credits for employers, temporary tax cuts for working families,
extended unemployment insurance, and money to shore up state and local budgets.
#2: The cost is enormous. A federal jobs guarantee will cost at least hundreds of billions of dollars per
year and much more during a recession when the employment rolls for the government would
naturally increase. Here are the cost estimates from both plans based on people participating in the jobs
guarantee: With annual federal outlays at roughly $4.5 trillion, we’re talking about anywhere from a 10-
20% increase in spending to pay for the jobs guarantee. As for how to pay for it, advocates are split on
whether it should be paid for at all. Paul et al. provide a few possible 10 million people 15 million
people $560 billion/year $840 billion/year $468 billion/year $702 billion/yea r 4/3/23, 1:53 PM What Is
the “Federal Jobs Guarantee” and What Are People Saying About It? – Third Way
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-what-are-people-saying-
about-it 4/6 tax increases but don’t devote much attention to the matter. Stephanie Kelton says, “What
the models show is you can do this without creating an inflation problem and therefore why would you
pay for it with tax increases of one kind or another?” 2 Even though the cost of the program could be
partially offset through decreasing social assistance costs, it’s still very uncertain how and when these
savings would materialize. What we’re left with is a new program taking up funding that could be used
instead for things like increased childcare, training support, expanded health care coverage, and more.
#3: It could crowd out tens of millions of private sector jobs. There are currently 54 million people who
earn $15 an hour or less. When they find out the federal government is offering $15 an hour plus
benefits and permanent job security, many of those workers would quit their current job and join the
federal workforce. 3 Companies that could afford to would raise wages to keep some of these workers;
other companies would simply go out of business. The labor markets would be controlled by the
government in ways never seen before in America. And even if just half of low-wage private sector
workers quit, the number of federal employees would rise by between 35 and 40 million. 4 Costs to the
government would then rise to anywhere from $1.6 trillion to $2.24 trillion per year, and the private
sector would see massive repercussions.
#4: Inflation would rise. A sudden increase in the cost of labor for businesses will lead to inflation
throughout the economy because of higher business costs that will need to be passed on to
consumers. In addition, when only those at the bottom of the income distribution get a defacto raise to
$15, there are upstream consequences. Workers who were making $15 an hour may demand $20 an
hour now. Workers making $20 an hour might want $25 an hour and so on. This may seem like a
benefit, but “this is a story of serious wage-price spiral, unless we introduce other measures,” warns
progressive economist Dean Baker. 5 We have been very fortunate that inflation has been well under
control for the last few decades. A federal jobs guarantee could change that pretty quickly.
#5: It would be an administrative nightmare. Finally, matching millions of workers to the jobs
envisioned under a jobs guarantee would be an administrative nightmare to implement. State and
local governments will be tasked with finding the productive work to do, but how do we train millions
of people to do these jobs? How does the Department of Labor oversee the millions of new jobs to
make sure they’re legitimate? What are the qualifiers for the kind of work that’s eligible? What if a right-
leaning state wants jobs 4/3/23, 1:53 PM What Is the “Federal Jobs Guarantee” and What Are People
Saying About It? – Third Way https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-is-the-federal-jobs-guarantee-and-
what-are-people-saying-about-it 5/6 done that a left-leaning federal government deems unproductive
or socially unacceptable like building an oil pipeline or opening up a coal mine? Finally, how does the
federal government fire workers who are guaranteed a job? Tcherneva argues that workers can be
fired for not showing up or threatening the safety of others, but what about extremely poor
performance?
1NC No Solvency – Laundry List
A FJG is too expensive, forces the private sector out of job competition, and is
incapable of playing a role in green energy infrastructure
Dolan, senior fellow, PhD in economics from Yale University, ‘20
(Ed, "Can We Put Everyone to Work? — The Alternatives to a "Job Guarantee."," Niskanen Center,
Accessed on 7-14-23, https://www.niskanencenter.org/can-we-put-everyone-to-work-the-alternatives-
to-a-job-guarantee/, GDI--CJ)
According to two detailed descriptions [1] [2], guaranteed jobs would be taken up by some 10 to 15
million workers, even with the job market as tight as it is now. Including wages, benefits, payroll taxes,
and supplies, the total cost per job would be something like $45,000 to $56,000. The gross cost to the
federal budget would be $409 billion to $543 billion per yea r, some 9 to 11 percent of current federal
spending. The net cost could be substantially lower because of taxes paid by workers and budget savings
on existing welfare programs, however.
Nevertheless, although the cost of a full job guarantee, even with offsets, would make such a program a
hard sell in Congress, cost is not the biggest reason I am skeptical. Three things particularly concern me.
First, even though guaranteed jobs would be designed not to compete directly with the private sector , a
JG would still be disruptive. Private employers would lose workers if they did not match a job-and-
benefit package worth some $20 per hour. JG advocates are confident that private employers have
enough slack to raise wages without cutting employment, but I am not so sure. JG jobs would not only
offer good wages and benefits, but also, as advocates promise, they would be more accommodating
than many private sector jobs to workers’ personal schedules, family needs, and disabilities. A large
outflow from private employment to guaranteed jobs could raise the cost of the program sharply.
Second, I think advocates overstate the ease of creating 10 to 15 million meaningful new public service
jobs. To avoid competing with the private sector, they could not be jobs in hotels or factories. They
could not require advanced skills or investments in heavy equipment, which would mean JG workers
could play a limited role in projects like replacing aging bridges or building green energy infrastructure.
When we read advocates’ descriptions of JG jobs, they talk about things like teachers’ aides, recycling,
and planting trees on vacant lots. How many workers could be absorbed in such jobs before they
became mere make-work?
Third, many of those who remain out of work in today’s booming economy are, almost by definition,
among the “hard to employ.” Those include people with criminal records, unstable housing, substance
abuse issues, family situations that interfere with regular work schedules, and borderline mental and
physical conditions that fall short of full disability but still create problems on the job. Programs that try
to find work for the hard-to-employ are not a new idea. Many existing programs are well run. Still, their
experience shows that lasting success requires intensive, one-on-one casework to help with things like
soft job skills and support with personal issues. Even then, success rates are far from 100 percent.
Neg solvency-Laundry List
No Solvency – Laundry List of downsides
Pethokoukis, senior fellow and the DeWitt Wallace Chair at the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), September 11th, 2020
(James Pethokoukis, senior fellow and the DeWitt Wallace Chair at the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), “Underwhelming Ideas: A Federal Jobs Guarantee”, AEI,
https://www.aei.org/economics/underwhelming-ideas-a-federal-jobs-guarantee/, GDI-JSloyer)
A federal jobs guarantee is an underwhelming idea. And perhaps if Dave were remade as an
HBO mini-series or something, the many, many downsides would become evident. To think it is
a good idea means thinking that (a) Washington could anytime soon successfully direct a
workforce that would be multiples (maybe many multiples) larger than the number of K-12
teachers (but less educated) to do meaningful, socially productive work that they are not
currently trained to do; (b) even if that managerial Manhattan Project took decades to
accomplish, it could be sustained amid “stories about how these are disorganized make-work
programs” and the “stigma” that follows; (c) running such a program might not be made even
more maddeningly complicated by the possible inability to actually fire anyone; (d) these
permanent government gigs would not “crowd out” existing jobs that actually matched the skills
of the workers; (e) we could ever figure out if these new government-supplied jobs were
replacing existing jobs or jobs that would have been created anyway; (f) private employers in
high poverty areas would not see an employee drain to these probably better-paying jobs; (g)
these voluntary jobs would not become mandatory; and (h) the cost would not be crazy
tremendous.
Neg Solvency--Administration
The government will not be able to administer the FJG
Paddison, Editor of This New World in London, 18
[Laura Paddison, She edits This New World, a series exploring some of the biggest global challenges and looking at the movements, projects
and people striving to create better economies and societies. She commissions and writes about climate change, biodiversity, inequality, the
affordable housing crisis, among other topics. She won a Gold Lovie Award for reporting on the palm oil industry and was a 2019 fellow on the
CUNY Resilience Journalism Fellowship program., “What is a Federal Job Guarantee?’, HuffPost Impact, 07-06-2018,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-job-guarantee-explained_n_5b363f4ae4b007aa2f7f59fc -Accessed 7-14-
2023, GDI-AJalori]
A key concern with an idea this big and potentially unwieldy is the actual logistics of implementing it.
How would the government and local communities be able to come up with suitable, socially beneficial
jobs for potentially tens of millions of people? For Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project, a
think tank, this is the main problem. “The idea that thousands of administrations across the country will
be able to usefully employ random flows of labor with random sets of skills in random durations is fairly
implausible,” he wrote in March. Similarly, Josh Bivens, director of research at the Economic Policy
Institute, a progressive think tank, wrote in April: “I don’t think we have the public sector managerial
capacity right now to oversee the work of 11 million people ― who will be coming from varying
backgrounds and labor qualifications ― and ensure that they will be perceived as undertaking socially
useful tasks.”
No Solvency--Participation
People would not participate in a FJG – no solvency

Rainey, Managing Editor at The Fiscal Times, ’18 (Michael Rainey, Managing Editor at The Fiscal Times,
“How Much Would a Federal Jobs Guarantee Cost?”, The Fiscal Times,
https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/12/06/How-Much-Would-Federal-Jobs-Guarantee-Cost, GDI-
JSloyer)
 Not all potential participants would actually sign up, and much depends on the wages offered, with proposals ranging from
$10 an hour to $15 an hour, with variable benefits.
 The roughly 6 million workers who are currently unemployed would likely participate at high levels, along with several
million low-wage workers who would switch jobs. Some people currently out of the workforce would take jobs as well.
 Some employed workers who could switch to the federal program would stay in their current jobs, though at higher wages
sparked by the competition from the jobs guarantee.
 In one projection, the U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the unemployed, marginally attached workers and some
part-timers, would fall sharply to 1.5 percent, down from its current 9.7 percent – with nearly 10 million people gaining full-
time work.
 Wages for the bottom 80 percent of workers would rise by as much as 5 percent, and poverty rates would fall.
 Participation would likely vary significantly by geography.
 The kind of work that could be done by participants includes teachers and teaching assistants, personal care providers,
construction and maintenance workers, security and police forces, and office support.
 The costs would likely be in the billions of dollars, with two of the more aggressive proposals coming in at more than $500
billion per year.
Neg Solvency—Private sector automation
Private sector - The JG give no consideration of involving private sector and the
improving automations.
John T. Harvey, 20. professor of Economics at Texas Christian University. “The Prerequisite For Healing
The Nation: A Federal Job Guarantee” https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2020/12/03/the-
prerequisite-for-healing-the-nation-a-federal-job-guarantee/?sh=94d188534df7 Accessed 7/17/23 GDI A
Wang
How do we achieve this? The core of any successful plan must include a government job guarantee, a
promise to American citizens that if you want to work but can’t find a job, you can always find
employment in the public sector. If that sounds like FDR’s New Deal, there’s a good reason for that: it’s
very much like it, except on a much larger and permanent basis.
There is absolutely no reason to expect the private sector to provide employment for every willing
worker. To business, labor is a cost to be minimized. Fair enough, it’s not their responsibility to reduce
unemployment and it is by this process (given several other caveats) that they are able to offer products
with low prices. But, add to this the employment-reducing forces of automation (which has apparently
accelerated during our current crisis) and the outsourcing of production and it’s little wonder that we
have seen a diminishing middle class and increasing rural poverty.
While there are exceptions, there seems to be a default understanding of “job” as being something that
makes a profit for someone; or, at the very least, there is an implication that private- sector jobs
represent the most worthwhile undertakings. We need to rid ourselves of that notion. There are
separate, distinct, and complementary roles for the private and public sectors and each has a key role.
The private sector should do things that are profitable, regardless of the social benefit, while the public
sector should do things that are of social benefit, but unprofitable. Profit- derived jobs are not
inherently better or more difficult or more praiseworthy than those that are not. Indeed, were we to
rely exclusively on the profit motive, we’d leave undone things like
Administrative challenge + Private sector – No party is in favor of establishing a JG.

John T. Harvey, 20. professor of Economics at Texas Christian University. “The Prerequisite For Healing
The Nation: A Federal Job Guarantee” https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2020/12/03/the-
prerequisite-for-healing-the-nation-a-federal-job-guarantee/?sh=94d188534df7 Accessed 7/17/23 GDI A
Wang
Unfortunately, neither political party appears to have this seriously on their agenda. Early in his
presidency, Donald Trump mentioned it, but that went nowhere. Imagine if that had already been in
place when COVID hit! Nothing about what is going on now is simple, but we most certainly would not
have found ourselves hoping that a $1200 check would last until December. Nor is Joe Biden a fan .
Rather, it appears that he is counting on the private sector to create a job for everyone who willing.
That’s a losing proposition when labor is a cost to firms. Furthermore, the private sector will never
address critical but unprofitable social problems like climate change. It appears that Joe Biden hasn’t
moved past Step One yet.
No Solvency—Free Riders
The plan does not help the targeted audience, financially well-off people will take
advantage of the JG for their own benefit
Dolan, Author at Niskanen Center, 19’
[Ed Dolan 5/11/23, 2:41 PM The Economics of a Job Guarantee: How Great is the Need? - Niskanen
Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-economics-of-a-job-guarantee-how-great-is-the-need/ 5/9,
accessed 7/14/2023 GDI LPayne]
There is no question that many people who want to work but can’t find a job suffer serious
financial stress, but that is not true for all of them. Consider, for example, the results of a
5/11/23, 2:41 PM The Economics of a Job Guarantee: How Great is the Need? - Niskanen Center
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-economics-of-a-job-guarantee-how-great-is-the-need/ 5/9
survey of the nonemployed conducted in 2014 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the New
York Times, and CBS News. That survey focused on the 13 percent of the prime-age
population (25 to 54 years old) who were not working but said they wanted a job. Most of
the estimated uptake for both the PDH and Levy Institute versions of a job guarantee would
come from that group. Here are some key findings of the survey:
Among all nonemployed prime-age individuals, 36 percent said their employment
situation was not a source of stress and 20 percent said it was only a minor source of
stress.
Among those who said they were nonemployed but able to work, 26 percent selfidentified as
homemakers. Among self-identified homemakers, 77 percent said their
nonemployment was not a source of stress and another 15 percent said it was only a
minor source of stress.
Among all prime-age nonemployed adults, 51 percent reported they were very or
somewhat financially secure. Among self-identified homemakers in this group, 76
percent reported they were very or somewhat financially secure.
The nonemployed, nonstressed people in this survey were prime-age adults whose
financial needs, in most cases, were presumably being met by the earnings of other
members of their households. The survey would not have included teenage or college-aged
people living at home but looking for part-time work while studying. Nor would it have
included older people who wanted part- or full-time work to supplement an already
minimally adequate retirement income, or simply to get out of the house and do something
interesting.
It is likely, then, that at least some guaranteed jobs would be taken up by people who were
motivated by a desire for self-fulfillment or extra pocket money rather than a need to
escape poverty. Providing those jobs would increase the cost of a JG program and, at the
same time, would dilute its rationale as an antipoverty measure. Additional surveys or
results of JG pilot programs might shed light on the number of people in each category.
Meanwhile, the reported survey suggests that the issue is far from trivial.
Negative Solvency—other countries
Jobs guarantee has been unsuccessful in other countries
2023, GDI-AJalori]
In Argentina, the Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupados (Program for Unemployed Male and Female Heads
of Households) was introduced after a financial crisis in 2001. Federally funded and locally administered,
the program offered guaranteed employment of at least four hours a day in community-created jobs to
the unemployed heads of households. The program was phased out after a few years and replaced with
more traditional social spending efforts.
And India has the National Rural Employment Guarantee, which gives up to 100 days of guaranteed paid
employment per year to workers from rural households. It was found to increase earnings in low-income
households by 13 percent and reduce the gender pay gap. The program is still going, but payments to
workers are frequently late and the government has been accused of denying it funds .
No solvency—Not employable
Unemployed often difficult to employ
Dolan 20 (Ed Dolan-Can We Put Everyone to Work? — The Alternatives to a "Job Guarantee." - Niskanen
Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/can-we-put-everyone-to-work-the-alternatives-to-a-job-
guarantee/ 1/7) (Accessed 7/13/2023) GDI M. Juszynski 7/17/23
many of those who remain out of work in today’s booming economy are , almost by definition, among
the “hard to employ.” Those include people with criminal records, unstable housing, substance abuse
issues, family situations that interfere with regular work schedules, and borderline mental and
physical conditions that fall short of full disability but still create problems on the job. Programs that
try to find work for the hard-to-employ are not a new idea. Many existing programs are well run.
Still, their experience shows that lasting success requires intensive, one-on-one casework to help with
things like soft job skills and support with personal issues. Even then, success rates are far from 100
percent The leading JG proposals do not, in my view, come close to budgeting enough for
administration, counseling, and support services. Work Requirements Although the issues just
discussed make me skeptical of guaranteed jobs, I am no less skeptical of the leading conservative
alternative – work requirements on welfare recipients. Welfare reforms of the 1990s already
imposed work requirements on most recipients of cash welfare. The current administration now
wants to extend work requirements to noncash programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and housing
assistance. A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers claims that the welfare reforms
of the 1990s prove that work requirements can increase employment and reduce dependence. I see
two reasons to doubt such confidence. For one thing, backers of work requirements assume there
are many nondisabled welfare recipients who are able to work, but who choose not to. The data
show otherwise. They show that a majority of nondisabled welfare recipients already work or face
serious barriers to work. The following chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows data for
Medicaid recipients. The figures for SNAP, housing assistance, and other programs are
similar.5/11/23, 2:40 PM Can We Put Everyone to Work? — The Alternatives to a "Job Guarantee." -
Niskanen Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/can-we-put-everyone-to-work-the-alternatives-
to-a-job-guarantee/ 4/7 As the chart shows, well over half of Medicaid recipients are already
working, and nearly half work full time. Some 12 percent are not working because of caregiving
responsibilities and another 7 percent because they are in school. Although the chart excludes
people who have qualified for Social Security disability programs, 11 percent even among the
officially nondisabled cite illness or disability as their reason for not working. That leaves just a sliver
who fall into the category of “not working but able to work.”
No Solvency—Not enough Jobs
Unlikely that the backlog of unfilled, sustainable public jobs reaches near the number
of job guarantee enrollees
Dolan, economist and senior fellow at the Niskanen Center, 2019
[Edward, economist and senior fellow at the Niskanen Center, “The Economics of a Jobs Guarantee:
Wage and Employment Effects”, Niskanen Center, June 6 2019, https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-
economics-of-a-job-guarantee-wage-and-employment-effects/, accessed 7/12/23 JCP-npas]
The real question, though, is not whether some worthy public-service jobs go unfilled, but how many
there are. Both the PDH and Levy Institute proposals envision that the new JG positions would be
created by local governments and nonprofits. Those two sectors together currently employ in the
neighborhood of 30 million workers. Could they really create half-again as many new positions with
value-added equal or greater to their cost?
Remember, those jobs do not come cheap. The PDH proposal estimates the cost of each
new PSE position to be about $56,000 per year, including wages, benefits, payroll taxes,
capital, and supplies. The Levy Institute, which uses lower estimates for benefits and
overhead, estimates the cost per job at $45,800. As noted before, these estimates do not
include costs of administrative support or case work with hard-to-employ job candidates.
Neither proposal offers an explicit estimate of the value added by new PSE jobs. However, we can get an
idea of what to expect if we look at some of the projects that the Levy Institute gives as illustrations:
Example 1
The city mobilizes men and women with varied skill levels for a
cleanup of vacant lots and abandoned public spaces, rehabilitation of
infrastructure, and reclamation of materials. People with disabilities
who may have difficulty with physical work but have basic computer
skills create a database, documenting the cleanup efforts, cataloguing
the reclaimed materials, and offering office-based logistical support.
At-risk youth help with park cleanup and apprentice with skilled
workers in building, painting, and landscaping skate parks and
basketball courts.
Example 2
A former coal-mining community experiences city blight, mass
unemployment, and a high incidence of health problems. The PSE
program organizes a comprehensive project for restoring the natural
habitat based on existing best practices. Workers are employed to
plant appropriate tree species that restore the ecosystem, stem soil erosion, and reintroduce important lost wildlife to the region. The
municipalities organize food insecurity, water quality, and
malnutrition surveys. They launch a comprehensive community
garden program.
It is easy to imagine that some of the jobs described in these examples would produce
benefits in excess of their $40,000 to $50,000 annual costs, while others would not. Until JG advocates
provide more convincing support for the idea that the backlog of cost-effective but unfilled public jobs is
commensurate with the number of jobs their programs aim to create, the verdict regarding the public
service gap must be, “not proved.
No solvency—Unemployment--automation
FJG accelerates replacement of low-income private sector jobs with automation – aff
can’t solve unemployment
Patel, Master of Public Administration, 2020
Prateek, “The Federal Job Guarantee: A Hopeful Plan That’s Too Expensive to Deliver”, The Public
Purpose Journal, https://thepublicpurpose.com/article/patel-federal-job-guarantee/ (pg.114, accessed
7/17/23, Google Scholar) gdi-npascas
Whenever we add money to the market or change wage floors, we see various inflationary
pressures that will reduce the value of the dollar in the short-term. The rise in salaries will see a
shortterm rise in the cost of goods (Edwards, 2016). This will trickle to make the overall cost of goods
and services increase to offset the additional increase in wages. In order to combat these issues, the
government will need to alter the current tax rates and federal interest-rate to offset the inflated cost of
the dollar (Edwards, 2016). Plus, private-Sector low-income jobs may be replaced by technology, as
certain jobs would be much more efficient with machinery over people (Edwards, 2016). With wage
changes and cost increases, companies will need to shift more towards technology making the product
cheaper and more affordable. Therefore, in order to maximize efficiency while minimizing costs, many
more lowincome private-sector jobs will be lost. This includes jobs like hamburger flippers, baristas, or
waiters, that there is a demand for, but can easily be replaced by technologies. There can also be a
potential public-sector spillover with the use of technology, because when citizens are paying for each
additional job, their tax dollars value efficiency (Caponi, 2017).
AT: “Training” Solves Job Shortages
A federal job guarantee cannot require advanced skills in the field and does not
practice training—jobs will become “make-work”
Dolan, senior fellow, PhD in economics from Yale University, ‘20
(Ed, "Can We Put Everyone to Work? — The Alternatives to a "Job Guarantee."," Niskanen Center,
Accessed on 7-14-20, https://www.niskanencenter.org/can-we-put-everyone-to-work-the-alternatives-
to-a-job-guarantee/, GDI--CJ)
A job guarantee (JG) is one of the three main pillars of the Green New Deal, along with clean energy and universal health care. Under a JG,
anyone who wanted could get a full- or part-time job just by showing up. They would be directly employed by state
or local governments and nonprofit organizations, while the cost would be borne by the federal government. The jobs would pay a living wage
of something like $15 per hour, plus full benefits. Jobs
would be created to match workers’ skills and places of
residence, so they could start immediately without retraining or relocation.
According to two detailed descriptions [1] [2], guaranteed jobs would be taken up by some 10 to 15 million workers, even with the job market
as tight as it is now. Including wages, benefits, payroll taxes, and supplies, the total cost per job would be something like $45,000 to $56,000.
The gross cost to the federal budget would be $409 billion to $543 billion per year, some 9 to 11 percent of current federal spending. The net
cost could be substantially lower because of taxes paid by workers and budget savings on existing welfare programs, however.
Nevertheless, although the cost of a full job guarantee, even with offsets, would make such a program a hard sell in Congress, cost is not the
biggest reason I am skeptical. Three things particularly concern me.
First, even though guaranteed jobs would be designed not to compete directly with the private sector, a JG would still be disruptive. Private
employers would lose workers if they did not match a job-and-benefit package worth some $20 per hour. JG advocates are confident that
private employers have enough slack to raise wages without cutting employment, but I am not so sure. JG jobs would not only offer good wages
and benefits, but also, as advocates promise, they would be more accommodating than many private sector jobs to workers’ personal
schedules, family needs, and disabilities. A large outflow from private employment to guaranteed jobs could raise the cost of the program
sharply.
Second, I think advocates overstate the ease of creating 10 to 15 million meaningful new public service jobs. To avoid competing with the
private sector, they could not be jobs in hotels or factories. They
could not require advanced skills or investments in
heavy equipment, which would mean JG workers could play a limited role in projects like replacing aging
bridges or building green energy infrastructure. When we read advocates’ descriptions of JG jobs, they
talk about things like teachers’ aides, recycling, and planting trees on vacant lots. How many workers
could be absorbed in such jobs before the they became mere make-work?
Against work requirements
Work Requirements antagonize vulnerable welfare recipients who can’t work
For one thing, backers of work requirements assume there are many nondisabled welfare
recipients who are able to work, but who choose not to . The data show otherwise. They show
that a majority of nondisabled welfare recipients already work or face serious barriers to work.
The following chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows data for Medicaid recipients. The
figures for SNAP, housing assistance, and other programs are similar.5/11/23, 2:40 PM Can We Put Everyone to
Work? — The Alternatives to a "Job Guarantee." - Niskanen Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/can-we-put-everyone-to-work-the-
alternatives-to-a-job-guarantee/ 4/7
As the chart shows, well over half of Medicaid recipients are already working , and nearly half
work full time. Some 12 percent are not working because of caregiving responsibilities and
another 7 percent because they are in school. Although the chart excludes people who have
qualified for Social Security disability programs, 11 percent even among the officially
nondisabled cite illness or disability as their reason for not working. That leaves just a sliver who
fall into the category of “not working but able to work.”
Work Requirement burdens hinder employment

A second problem is that the kind of work requirements that conservatives favor are not, in practice,
very work-friendly. They often place unrealistic burdens on beneficiaries, such as detailed record
keeping, frequent verifications, and unrealistic allowances for family needs or irregular work
schedules. Administrative lapses are often punished with extended lockouts from benefits.
Furthermore, these programs – like some JG proposals – offer inadequate personal assistance to the
hard-to-employ, leaving it up to them to find work or training and to deal with personal barriers to
work. In the end, then, many people who ought to qualify for assistance fail to do so. Many who are
pushed off welfare rolls do not find work. On balance, work requirements trim welfare rolls but
increase poverty. Cynics say
DA Links
Economy/Inflation DA UQ
Recession UQ Updates [NEG]
**cards also set up links for inflation, interest rates, and JG links
Job creation and hiring shows economy is resilient but monetary policy might still
trigger a recession.
Ivanova, reporter for CBS, '6-6-23 – (Irina; reporter and editor working out of New York, doing
stories about inequality, taxes, work and the environment for CBS MoneyWatch; "Remember that
looming recession? Not happening, some economists say"; CBS; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-
there-a-recession-coming-2023/; 6-6-2023, Accessed 7-14-2023)//GDI-ILake-YL
Halfway through 2023, "The market has told us: no recession, no correction, no more rate hikes," Amanda Agati, chief
investment officer for PNC Financial Services Asset Management Group, said in a report.
Job creation across the U.S. has so far defied expectations of a slowdown, with employers adding an
average of 310,000 people every month to payrolls, according to Labor Department reports. Hiring has also
accelerated since March, with payrolls rising by nearly 300,000 in April and 339,000 last month , even as the
unemployment rate ticked up as more people started to look for work.
And while high borrowing costs have pushed down housing prices in some cities, a severe shortage of homes is keeping prices elevated in many
markets — far from the nationwide downturn some people predicted last year.
"Wrong R-word"
"People have been using the wrong R-word to describe the economy," Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, told
CBS MoneyWatch recently. "It's resilience — not recession."
Brusuelas still thinks a recession is highly likely — just not in 2023. "It's not looking like this year — maybe early next year," he said. "We need
some sort of shock to have a recession. Energy could have been one, the debt ceiling showdown could have been one — and it still could."
One factor that has fueled steady consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of U.S. economic activity: Even after the highest
iinflation in four decades, Americans still have nearly $500 billion in excess savings compared with before the pandemic. That money is largely
concentrated among people making $150,000 a year or more — a cohort responsible for 62% of all consumer spending.
"That's enough to keep household spending elevated through the end of the year," Brusuelas said.
Coin toss
Simon Hamilton, managing director and portfolio manager for the Wise Investor Group of Raymond James, puts the odds of a recession at 50-
50, essentially a coin toss. "The reason those odds aren't higher is because people are still working! It's almost impossible to have recession
with unemployment this low," he said in a note to investors.
Consumers, too, have become cautiously optimistic. A Deloitte survey in May found that the portion of people with concerns about the economy or their personal
financial situation has fallen significantly since last year. The latest University of Michigan survey of consumer confidence also showed a slight uptick in sentiment
last month.
To be sure, pushing back the expected onset of a recession points to an economy that is losing steam. Business investment is weakening, and high borrowing costs
have slowed manufacturing and construction activity.
"The economy is holding up reasonably well but faces several hurdles during the second half of the year, including the
lagged effect of tighter monetary policy and stricter lending standards," analysts at Oxford Economics wrote in a report this week.
Oxford still predicts a recession later this year, although a mild one. While the firm's business cycle indicator "suggests that the economy
is not
currently in a recession, [it] has lost a lot of momentum and is vulnerable to anything else that could go wrong," the
analysts wrote.
Economy is strong now but the jobs market and inflation policy could change the
story.
Egan, business and economy reporter, '6-5-23 – (Matt; award-winning reporter at CNN,
covering business, the economy and financial markets across CNN's television and digital platforms; "The
case for a 2023 US recession is crumbling"; CNN;
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/economy/recession-chances/index.html; 6-5-2023, Accessed 7-14-
2023)//GDI-ILake-YL
The thinking was that the US economy would grind to a halt because the Federal Reserve was effectively
slamming the brakes to squash inflation. Businesses would lay off workers and inflation-weary Americans would slash spending.
But the case for a 2023 US recession is crumbling for a simple reason: America’s jobs market is way too
strong.
Hiring unexpectedly accelerated again last month, with employers adding an impressive 339,000 jobs in
May. Not only is that more than any major forecaster expected, but it’s more jobs than the US economy added in any
single month in 2019, a very strong year for the jobs market.
“Thiseconomy is incredibly resilient, despite all the slings and arrows – despite the banking crisis, rate hikes, the
debt ceiling,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told CNN in a phone interview on Friday.
Zandi is growing more confident that 2023 won’t be the year when a downturn will begin.
“For this year, given these jobs numbers, it’s hard to see a recession. Increasingly, the odds of a recession this year are
fading,” Zandi said. “A lot of economists who have called for a recession are now in the uncomfortable position of pushing back the start date.”
Although it’s possible, things would have to deteriorate very quickly in the economy, and the jobs
market specifically, for a downturn to start this year.
“We’re running out of time for a 2023 recession,” Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, told CNN. “ We’ve
never had a recession when the labor market was running this hot. In fact, it would be absurd to use r-word at a time
when we’re creating jobs at this rate.”
Not only did nonfarm payrolls soar by 339,000 jobs in May, but the government revised the prior two months of job growth significantly higher,
too. Now the Bureau of Labor Statistics says payrolls increased by 217,000 jobs in March and 294,000 in April.
That’s miles away from the dark predictions issued not long ago. Last fall, Bank of America warned payrolls would begin shrinking in early 2023,
translating to the loss of about 175,000 jobs a month during the first quarter followed by job losses through much of the year.
Conflicting signals
Some companies are indeed cutting jobs, especially in the tech and media industries.
The number of announced job cuts has quadrupled so far this year, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. But the economic indicators
suggest many people who are laid off are quickly getting rehired.
Friday’s jobs report did offer some conflicting signals, especially in the household survey, which economists put less weight on because it tends
to be noisier.
The household survey showed the unemployment rate, which had been tied for a 53-year low, jumped by 0.3 percentage points – the most
since April 2020 – as employment fell sharply.
Yet Wolfers noted the three-month moving average for the unemployment remains extremely low at 3.5%. He
described the jobs
market as “really freaking good” and said the latest report further disputes the notion that the US
economy is already in recession – a belief many Americans have. (In a May CNN poll, 76% of respondents described the economy as
in poor shape).
“We are not in a recession. People have been telling us we’re in a recession for the last two years.
They’ve been wrong each and every day,” Wolfers said. “Employment has grown gangbusters. The data is crystal clear on this.
There is no recession.”
What could change
Of course, it’s possible that something happens to change that story in the coming months. And there is a
significant risk of a recession in the medium-term as well as growing evidence that consumers are feeling real financial pain following two years
of high inflation.
Dollar General slashed its forecast for the year and warned customers are being forced to “rely more on food banks, savings and credit cards.”
Macy’s blamed slowing customer demand for cutting its own forecast. Federal Reserve researchers have found that auto loan delinquencies are
rising, surpassing pre-Covid levels.a
The other problem

is the Fed’s war on inflation is hitting the economy with a lag. That means the full effect
of the most aggressive interest rate hikes in four decades may not have been felt yet. This raises the risk
the Fed overdoes it – or already has.
Corporate earnings and GDP show economy is strong now but things could change
with rate hikes.
Phillips, economy and business reporter, '4-28-23 – (Matt; economy and business reporter;
"Are we in a recession? The U.S. economy is doing just fine"; Axios;
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/us-economy-recession-2023; 4-28-2023, Accessed
7-14-2023)//GDI-ILake-YL
Neither corporate earnings nor the latest GDP numbers imply we're careening toward an economic
contraction.
Why it matters: Last year, as the

Fed tightened rates at the most rapid clip since the early 1980s — and stocks
fell about 20% — obsession with the possibility of a downturn overtook both executives and the
business press.
The big picture: To paraphrase the economist Robert Solow, the downturn has been everywhere, but in the economic
statistics.
Solid corporate profits, low unemployment, and Thursday's sturdy GDP data suggests the U.S. economy
is more or less fine.
Sure, it's slowed down — which is necessary to lower inflation — but there's scant evidence the economy is wobbling on the cliff's edge.
The latest: New numbers Thursday showed Q1 GDP grew at an annualized rate of just 1.1%, less than the 1.9% expected.
But the undershoot was driven largely by notoriously noisy inventory numbers, which fell sharply — and this doesn't tend to
signal much about the actual economy's health, as Axios' Courtenay Brown reported.
On the other hand, consumers seem hale and hearty.

Real disposable income was up 8% during the quarter — the best gain in a decade aside from when it was juiced by government payouts during
the COVID crisis.
That helped drive consumer spending up 3.7%, the fastest since 2021.
Meanwhile, in the corporate world: Nearly 80% of companies that have released Q1 results have delivered better-
than-expected numbers, a higher than usual pace of upside surprises.
As a result, analysts
have started raising their earnings forecasts for the coming year, a sign of an
increasingly rosy outlook.
What they're saying: CEOs think the American consumer is in good shape.
"We kind of like the environment we're in right now, where consumers have jobs, they have money, they're visiting restaurants, and the
inflation that we're seeing is pretty modest," said Chipotle CFO John Hartung on an earnings call Tuesday.
"The consumer demand for our brand remains strong. So there's no change from our perspective in terms of how we're feeling about rest of
the year," McDonald's CEO Christopher Kempczinski said, also on Tuesday.
"We have strong demand environment this summer, and we're highly confident that, that will continue going forward," according to Robert
Isom, American Airlines CEO, on a Wednesday call.
"The US consumer, I think, is holding up well," said Andre Schulten, CFO at Procter & Gamble, on Monday.
The bottom line: For

sure, there are weak spots, like the housing market. And things could change if the actual impact
of the last year of rate hikes still hasn't fully registered.
But in an economy that's 70% consumption, the current strength of the consumer is tough to square with the idea
of a looming downturn.
Economy DA Links and Case Turns
Small business tradeoff link/turn
FJG would hurt small companies
2023, GDI-AJalori]
Meanwhile, criticisms from the right tend to focus on cost. Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute, a
right-leaning think tank, says he applauds the goal of encouraging good jobs at high wages, but calls the
proposal of a guaranteed jobs program “fantasy land.” His criticisms are many and vociferous. A jobs
program could scoop up far more workers than envisioned, maybe 30 million, Riedl told HuffPost. “ The
wages and benefits would be higher than what 40 percent of workers already earn ,” he said. “Therefore
they would not only attract the unemployed but those out of the workforce, retirees and anyone
earning less or who is unhappy with their job.” At the $56,000 some advocates have estimated each job
would cost, the whole program could cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion a year , he says. Riedl argues
such a program would also “eviscerate” low-paying sectors like retail, fast food and landscaping. “The
laws of supply and demand are very clear that not all industries, especially in rural areas where costs are
lower, can afford to pay $15 an hour plus full benefits,” he said. And even if the private sector could
afford to pay, he says, many workers might be attracted to the government program because they’d be
less likely to get fired from a guaranteed job scheme.
Small Businesses and the Private Sector is key to Climate Resilience

Maria Botero et al 2020, 15 years of experience with leadership in climate finance, sustainable infrastructure, environmental
management risks, and climate change, "Small and medium-sized businesses are among the most innovative enterprises in building climate
resilience," Inter-American Development Bank, https://blogs.iadb.org/sostenibilidad/en/small-and-medium-sized-businesses-are-among-the-
most-innovative-enterprises-in-building-climate-resilience/ [GDI - ASrinivasan]
Most people recognize that the climate crisis is upon us. Yet there is still a lack of understanding of how to protect businesses and communities from the impacts of
climate change. Climate change is increasing risks and impacts across the world, particularly in developing countries where there is less capacity to adapt. By
2030, studies suggest that the cost of making climate-vulnerable business sectors resilient is expected to
be in the billions per year. Fortunately, there is a growing demand from the private sector for products and
services to help various stakeholders better manage their exposure to climate risks. This demand is an opportunity
for all firms not just to build resilience to climate risk but also to speed the recovery post-pandemic. Demand for climate solutions from businesses is growing
Climate risk is driving a large and growing demand for private climate solutions. While relevant action is taking place, it is unclear how much, or whether it will be
enough to avoid significant economic loss. The private sector is already providing many cost-effective climate resilience solutions that are practical and, in many
cases, already in place across sectors such as agriculture and transportation. These solutions are helping to build resilience to better manage climate risks such as
weather forecasting, flood control, irrigation strategies and infrastructure design and refitting services. Private solutions can both increase
resilience and reduce the impacts of climate risks for many types of assets and businesses, and in turn strengthen the global response to
climate change, while also generating economic opportunity and social benefits. Investors do not need to wait for a comprehensive
global strategy to start addressing the effects of climate change – technologies and solutions exist and are ready for investment
and scale up. Climate resilience requires markets to take a more system-wide and forward-looking perspective. Effective long-term adaptation to climate change will
require extensive stakeholder engagement, higher levels of expertise and prioritization of proven resilience products and solutions to facilitate investment and
move beyond project-based adaptation towards a more integrated systemic approach. Radical
strategies will be needed to transform
key economic systems to be more resilient and productive in the face of a changing climate. A new assessment
sheds light on the associated risks and uncertainties to protect businesses and communities A Private Markets for Climate Resilience (PMCR) assessment, funded by
the IDB and the Nordic Development Fund (NDF), looks at how the private sector is addressing climate risk in the agriculture and transportation sectors in the
following six developing countries, Colombia, South Africa, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Kenya and Vietnam. It provides an overview of the private market and
innovation in climate resilience, identifies opportunities, highlights weaknesses inhibiting a market response and examines the role of policy. The (PMCR) is a
pioneering effort and the first initiative by development institutions to better understand climate resilience solutions provided by the private sector. It examines
current best practices and opportunities related to climate resilience, by identifying leaders that are shaping the national markets, highlighting products, services,
tools and processes. The study found that smaller firms, including some microenterprises, are among the most innovative enterprises in climate resilience. Coffee
plantation in Nicaragua Resilience is place, time and actor specific Resilience actions are dependent on the type of risk and vulnerabilities linked to the local climatic
conditions being addressed. Political context, existing market structures, geography and environmental conditions, institutional capacity, socio-economic conditions
and regulation requirements are also key. Adaptation benefits come down to good practices, but, without a clear understanding of vulnerability drivers,
geographical settings, including climate risks and local context, even known good practices can lead to maladaptation. Many
companies providing
resilience services are often small- and medium-sized businesses. In the countries and sectors under investigation, the
study finds a general lack of awareness of the business case for resilience, combined with the relatively
high cost of doing business for smaller companies. Building private markets for climate resilience To flourish, sustainable markets need
more than just willing buyers and sellers. They also depend on relevant public services, including access to reliable information to promote behavioral change, as
well as favorable policies, enabling market conditions, trust and oversight. Strong
policies are needed to incentivize the private
sector to embrace and invest on long-term business continuity, instead of focusing on short-sighted climate-proofing of
operations and treating resilience as an added cost. These markets also need access to capital investment flows to scale up promising technologies and services.
Consequently, the financial sector also has a key role to play in providing investment capital, affordable insurance, credit and other blended financing products.
Many of the barriers to market expansion we identify were not specific to climate but rather a general reflection of local conditions. Typical examples are a lack of
government incentive for business innovation, burdensome regulations and taxes, and the inability for smaller players and start-ups to get access to capital or to
good credit. In
turn, climate change can exacerbate these barriers even more for small producers and micro-,
small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). The climate crisis and pandemic underscore our common vulnerability and the unequal
distribution of capacities and resources available to build resilience against these threats. Building greater climate resilience is therefore a necessity as climate risks
are accelerating. There are countless business and investment opportunities presented by the need for buyers to better manage climate risks that threaten property
and assets, value chains, people, settlements and natural ecosystems. This report shows that we
have just begun to scratch the surface on
unlocking private innovation in climate resilient technologies, products and services in developing and emerging markets.
No solvency and small business link and turn--Aff will be investing billions of dollars
into a JG plan that can’t reach most of its intended audience
Gunn 18
(Dwyer Gunn, a Pacific Standard contributing writer with works appearing in New York Times, Slate, Psychology Today, and elsewhere, 12-06-
18, “How Many People Would Be Helped by a Federal Jobs Guarantee”, Pacific Standard, https://psmag.com/economics/how-many-people-
would-be-helped-by-a-federal-jobs-guarantee, 07/17/23, GDI- KYan)
Opponents of federal job guarantees point to the high price tags associated with such programs, and the
potentially damaging effects they could have on small businesses that can't afford to compete with the
wages offered by the federal government.
The magnitude of all these effects depends heavily on the details of the program—whether it's available
to all Americans or only certain demographics in targeted locations, for example— and, crucially, the
program take-up. To shed some light on the latter factor, which has often gotten short shrift in program
proposals, the Hamilton Project researchers look at who is likely to participate in a large-scale federal
jobs program. As the figure below, from the report, demonstrates, there are almost 100 million
Americans who are currently either unemployed, earning less than $15 per hour, or out of the labor
force.
But a good many of those Americans may be unlikely to jump into such a program. Many of the
unemployed, for example, are likely simply in between jobs and capable of finding a better position.
Meanwhile, well over half of those who are currently not in the labor force are either caregivers,
disabled, or ill, making them unlikely to rejoin the labor force.
Claims that FJG would raise wages in the private sector rely on studies of minor
minimum wage increases – incomparable to the FJG which doubles the federal
minimum wage.
In defending the notion that most employers of low-wage workers would respond to JG mainly by
raising wages rather than cutting payrolls, both the PDH and Levy Institute teams rely on studies of
minimum-wage increases. Those studies have used data from changes in the federal minimum wage and
also cross-border data from similar states and cities where the minimum wage differs. Although there
are exceptions, the consensus of the literature seems to be that recent changes in minimum wages have
caused little if any change in employment.
However, there are caveats in applying those studies to a broad federal job guarantee. One is that most
recent changes in minimum wages have been relatively small. In a comprehensive review of the
literature for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, John Schmitt notes that although “the
minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers,”
the most likely reason is that “the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms’
overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers.”
By comparison, the cost shock of a broad JG policy would be massive. The federal minimum wage
currently stands at $7.25 per hour, with no requirement that benefits be paid. The version of JG outlined
by the Levy Institute envisions a wage of $15 per hour and benefits equal to 20 percent of the wage. The
version presented by PDH calls for a starting wage of $11.83 per hour and an average wage of $16.25,
with benefits equal to 30 percent of the wage. Both would represent more than a doubling of the
current federal minimum — a far greater increase than those considered in the empirical literature.
DA Link—Small business
FJG’s unequal effects crushes small businesses and benefits large corporations,
strengthening the oligopoly
When it comes to the Federal Job Guarantee plan, Caponi’s discussed impacts show how a
massive public sector work project can have many drawbacks to the private sector. In Greg Ip’s Wall
Street Journal article titled The Problem with a Federal Jobs Guarantee (Hint: It's Not the Price Tag), Ip
discusses the challenges that the private sector will face with wages, inflation, and technology after the
implementation of the Federal Job Guarantee plan. First in order to keep many of the workers that make
less than $15/hour, the private sector will see massive salary increases. Employers will be forced to raise
the salaries of their workers, because they do not want to lose their labor, similar to a $15 minimum
wage effect (Ip, 2018). This will lead the companies to potentially raise the private sector causing rise in
customer costs to offset their short-term losses in revenue. This raised cost on customers will negatively
impact certain businesses more than others (Ip, 2018). Policies such as this will positively impact labor in
big firms like Wal-Mart that can afford offering health benefits or wage increases (Ip, 2018). But these
policies will hurt smaller firms to a mega scale, that cannot offer the same benefits as the public sector
would with Job Guarantee. Overall this may intensify the oligopoly market that we have in the country,
because many small businesses or start-ups, will be unable to meet labor or revenue demands to stay
afloat (Edwards, 2016). This would make many argue that the Job Guarantee plan will not be very
positive for the private sector as a whole. It may force labor or employment changes against the market
need, that may help some, but forced changes have mixed effects from unequal benefits.
Economy DA Links and Turn—Cost
DA Link—Cost
The Aff’s FJG must supply tens of millions of Americans with hourly wages above
minimum wage annually- costing billions and a laundry list of consequences
Gunn 18
(Dwyer Gunn, a Pacific Standard contributing writer with works appearing in New York Times, Slate, Psychology Today, and elsewhere, 12-06-
18, “How Many People Would Be Helped by a Federal Jobs Guarantee”, Pacific Standard, https://psmag.com/economics/how-many-people-
would-be-helped-by-a-federal-jobs-guarantee, 07/17/23, GDI- KYan)
"If a federally supported job offers a minimum hourly wage of between $7.25 and $10, a relatively
modest fraction of currently employed U.S. workers would likely be affected," the researchers write.
"However, at higher hourly wages like $15, a federal program would have more-sweeping implications
for the U.S. labor market, affecting an unknown fraction of 27.9 million full-time workers, 15.9 million
part-time workers, 5.9 million unemployed workers, and tens of millions of people who are outside the
labor force."
The implications of the program wage rate also vary significantly by geography. A federal jobs program
with a $15 wage, for example, will have much higher take-up in a state like Mississippi (where almost
40 percent of workers earn less than $15 per hour) than in New York or Massachusetts. Still, Nunn,
O'Donnell, and Shambaugh conclude that a federal job guarantee could (depending on the wage and the
private sector's reaction) ultimately reach tens of millions of Americans.
The researchers also note a couple of potential negative unintended consequences of a federal jobs
program (beyond the cost): it could result in decreases in human capital, as workers leave school for
federal jobs, and it could allocate workers to less productive jobs than they might otherwise have found.
Wages and employment, however, would see boosts.
"The larger programs would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and could lift employment
rates by 2 to 4 percentage points depending on take-up," the researchers write. "Higher-wage job
guarantees would also lift more out of poverty and raise wages of the bottom 80 percent of workers by
roughly 5 percent."
Costs billions of dollars

Rainey, Managing Editor at The Fiscal Times, ’18 (Michael Rainey, Managing Editor at The Fiscal Times,
December 6, 2018, “How Much Would a Federal Jobs Guarantee Cost?”, The Fiscal Times,
https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/12/06/How-Much-Would-Federal-Jobs-Guarantee-Cost, GDI-
JSloyer)
 Not all potential participants would actually sign up, and much depends on the wages offered, with proposals ranging from
$10 an hour to $15 an hour, with variable benefits.
 The roughly 6 million workers who are currently unemployed would likely participate at high levels, along with several
million low-wage workers who would switch jobs. Some people currently out of the workforce would take jobs as well.
 Some employed workers who could switch to the federal program would stay in their current jobs, though at higher wages
sparked by the competition from the jobs guarantee.
 In one projection, the U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the unemployed, marginally attached workers and some
part-timers, would fall sharply to 1.5 percent, down from its current 9.7 percent – with nearly 10 million people gaining full-
time work.
 Wages for the bottom 80 percent of workers would rise by as much as 5 percent, and poverty rates would fall.
 Participation would likely vary significantly by geography.
 The kind of work that could be done by participants includes teachers and teaching assistants, personal care providers,
construction and maintenance workers, security and police forces, and office support.
 The costs would likely be in the billions of dollars, with two of the more aggressive proposals coming in at more than $500
billion per year.
Aff does not account for the other costs that come along with FJG, does not take into
account the people who will quit their jobs to reap the benefits
[Prateek Patel, https://thepublicpurpose.com/article/patel-federal-job-guarantee/, Accessed 7/17/23, GDI LPayne]
If this temporary federal job guarantee program were deemed to be successful by Congress in these
potentially 15 or more sample of unemployed communities, than Senator Sanders resolution would
institute this program throughout the nation. However, the bill itself does not have any explicit
information on what kind of jobs will be created, what the unemployed individuals will need to do, and
the cost of the basic groundwork necessary to implement the project. Under the resolution, Senator
Sanders plan will guarantee a job or training paying $15 an hour with health-care benefits to every
American worker that is currently unemployed (Stein, 2017). Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates, the current unemployment rate is around 4.1. The total labor costs per each individual
worker will cost roughly $37,440 per year, with this program. This means there are around 13 million
unemployed Americans, making the initial labor costs around $486.72 billion per year (Stein, 2017). But
we need to factor in workers that make less than $15/hour and disgruntled or uninterested workers not
in the labor force. The labor force participation rate measures the active labor force in the United States.
This number is computed by dividing the number of people participating in the labor force by the total
number of people eligible to participate in the labor force. The last census shows that 63% of our
current population is in the workforce or 163,351 million Americans are in our current labor force.
Among the 37% of the people not within the current Labor Force calculations, such as: stay-at-home
parents, recent immigrants, illegal immigrants based upon state-laws, or retired people may wish to re-
enter the workforce. Many of these individuals have not been calculated within the financial estimates,
however these individuals will potentially participate in the program for $15/hour with health benefits.
The financial costs also fail to measure the current labor force that makes less than $15/hour that the
Federal Job Guarantee Plan promises. According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of May 2018,
around 54 million people earn $15/hour or less; around 39% of the current workforce. This workforce
will now have an incentive to quit their current job if possible and join a federal program that promises
at-least a $15/hour wage. Obviously, the location and movement will play a factor, but these failed cost
measurements, does undervalue the overall cost of the Federal Job Guarantee program.
Massive labor and administration costs would pressure struggling finances

[Ryan Bourne 18, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics, Cato Institute, “A Jobs
Guaranteed Economic Disaster,” CATO AT LIBERTY, Cato Institute, 4—24—18,
https://www.cato.org/blog/jobs-guaranteed-economic-disaster, accessed 7-13-23] GDI M. Juszynski 7
17 2023
Democrats are plugging new energy into an old idea: a federal “Jobs Guarantee” program. Senator Cory
Booker previously introduced legislation for a pilot in high unemployment communities. Now Senator
Bernie Sanders will announce a plan guaranteeing a job or training paying $15 an hour and health‐care
benefits to every American worker “who wants or needs one,” in a host of public infrastructure, care
giving and environmental upkeep projects. The scheme, seemingly based on a recommendation from
the Levy Economic Institute, comes with grandiose purported benefits. It would, we are told, eliminate
involuntary unemployment, deliver a living wage, boost GDP, reduce the cost of recessions, raise labor
market standards, reduce environmental degradation, reduce racial inequality, and much else besides. If
it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. There are severe problems with this idea, which can
be loosely grouped under three “c’s”: costs, crowd out and corruption. Costs The Levy Economic
Institute calculates up to 16 million could take part in such a program today (including the unemployed,
those working part time seeking full time work and individuals currently inactive who might move into
the labor market). Given the federal government would have to pay $15 an hour for full time jobs, plus
benefits equal to 20 percent of wages, total labor costs per worker would be $37,440 per year. That’s
before the cost of the materials for the programs and administration of the program itself. Even
assuming some opt for part‐time positions, and ignoring the non‐labor program costs, we are talking
about a gross cost of up to around 2.4 percent of GDP, significantly higher than the existing Medicaid
program (2 percent of GDP). The net cost on these assumptions will be lower, of course. People who
take jobs will require less in welfare payments and pay some back in taxes. Some might wisely consider
it a risk for their employment fortunes to be tied to the whims of politicians and their willingness to fund
this program, and so remain in the private sector. But even taking this into account, and assuming the
policy generates the macroeconomic bounty that the Levy researchers expect, they still think the annual
net cost will be between 0.8 and 2 percent of GDP, with the program employing up to 10 percent of the
workforce. That would in itself be a huge new commitment to finance at a time when the long‐term
fiscal outlook is already dire, and the short‐term deficit already expected to balloon to over 5 percent
of GDP in the coming years.
DA Link--Crowdout
Higher labor costs crowd out private sector employment
17 2023
In reality, the fiscal costs are likely to be much, much higher, and the economic welfare losses even
more significant, because in the labor market and broader economy, a public jobs guarantee program
would significantly crowd out productive private sector activity. This type of policy will radically alter
behavior of both workers and businesses, and so the supply and demand for labor. The Census shows
that, among those who worked in 2016, 70+ million Americans earned under $32,500 (the full‐time job
guarantee salary would be $31,200). Yes, not all of these would seek out positions on the jobs guarantee
program. But a large proportion would, especially those employed in uncertain roles with low levels of
job security. In fact, some even paid more than $31,200 might consider leaving their jobs to pursue
guaranteed roles if they perceive better working conditions or an easier worklife (asked under what
conditions someone would be fired from such a role, the Levy Institute paper suggests that you would
be sacked for failing to go to work, but that your performance would not be judged by “private sector
‘efficiency criteria’”, for example.) It’s not inconceivable then that over 25 percent of the labor force
could find itself part of the scheme. This crowd‐out is likely to be particularly acute in low productivity
regions, and (ironically) after economic downturns. A nationwide jobs guarantee program paying $15
an hour will be particularly attractive to workers in low wage regions, and by setting a de facto wage
floor the program will prevent private investment in regions on the basis of cheap labor. Though no
doubt there would be some demand spillovers from well‐paid jobs, the net consequence is highly likely
to be weaker private sector job creation in poor regions, which has been the experience of countries
such as Britain with a nationwide minimum wages and public sector national pay bargaining. Proponents
of the scheme see “higher labor standards” as a good thing, but absent productivity improvements,
policies which raise labor costs significantly will reduce the quantity of workers demanded.
DA Link—Crowdout—public and non profits
FJG undermines existing government and nonprofit jobs
Another caveat is that the minimum wage literature is mainly concerned with effects on private-sector
employment. However, a JG wage of $15 an hour plus benefits would also have a big impact on workers
in state and local government and in the nonprofit sector. Together, these sectors employ almost 35
million workers, many of them in the same kinds of public-service jobs that a JG program would offer.
The migration of even a small percentage of these workers to newly created guaranteed jobs could be
quite disruptive. As of 2019, state governments employed some 5.3 million people and local
governments 14.7 million. According to another study from the CEPR by John Schmitt, when differences
in age and education are taken into account, those jobs pay about 4 percent less than jobs in the private
sector.
JG advocates recognize the potential conflict between existing government jobs and newly created,
guaranteed public-service positions. PDH, for example, caution that “it is vital that the program is
designed to avoid state and local governments utilizing the program to pay for existing state and local
government jobs which would normally be financed through local tax revenues.”
In practice, though, it might not be easy to maintain a clean wall between the existing state and local
workers and newly created guaranteed jobs. For example, it is hard to imagine that currently employed
teachers’ aides or custodians would continue to work contentedly at $11 per hour, elbow-to-elbow with
newly hired JG workers doing similar work for $15 an hour and more generous benefits.
What is more, unlike a fast-food restaurant or retail stores, state and local governments could not
simply raise the wages of existing employees and then pass the increase along to customers. Instead of
customers, the sources of government revenues are voters. Voters might not agree to having their taxes
raised in order to allow states and localities to raise wages to match those of federally-funded
guaranteed jobs.
A similar situation exists in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofits currently employ some 14 million workers,
nearly as many as local government. Although some workers in this sector are well paid — for example,
health care professionals at nonprofit hospitals and professors at private colleges — others are not.
According to Nonprofit Quarterly, pay is especially low in the large social-assistance sector, which
includes community, food, child and youth, elderly, and disabled services, and in arts and entertainment
organizations. The reported average pay for such workers falls well short of that envisioned by the PDH
and Levy Institute JG proposals. Yet JG advocates specifically single out this sector as a source of
employment opportunities.
Like state and local governments, nonprofits would be unable simply to pass the cost of higher wages
and benefits through to their customers. Instead, they would have to solicit additional donations, a task
that might be no easier than for state and local governments to raise taxes.
DA Link--Crowdout
Cost of FJG spirals upwards as private sector jobs are displaced
guaranteed jobs would be taken up by some 10 to 15 million workers, even with the job market
as tight as it is now. Including wages,
benefits, payroll taxes, and supplies, the total cost per job would be something like $45,000to
$56,000. The gross cost to the federal budget would be $409 billion to $543 billion per year,
some 9 to 11 percent of current federal spending . The net cost could be substantially lower
because of taxes paid by workers and budget savings on existing welfare programs, however.
Nevertheless, although the cost of a full job guarantee, even with offsets, would make such a
program a hard sell in Congress, cost is not the biggest reason I am skeptical. Three things
particularly concern me.
First, even though guaranteed jobs would be designed not to compete directly with the private
sector, a JG would still be disruptive. Private employers would lose workers if they did not
match a job-and-benefit package worth some $20 per hour. JG advocates are confident that
private employers have enough slack to raise wages without cutting employment, but I am not so
sure. JG jobs would not only offer good wages and benefits, but also, as advocates promise, they
would be more accommodating than many private sector jobs to workers’ personal schedules,
family needs, and disabilities. A large outflow from private employment to guaranteed jobs
could raise the cost of the program sharply.
Not enough jobs without crowding out private sector

Second, I think advocates overstate the ease of creating 10 to 15 million meaningful new
public service jobs. To avoid competing with the private sector, they could not be jobs in
hotels or factories. They could not require advanced skills or investments in heavy
equipment, which would mean JG workers could play a limited role in projects like replacing
aging bridges or building green energy infrastructure. When we read advocates’
descriptions of JG jobs, they talk about things like teachers’ aides, recycling, and planting
trees on vacant lots. How many workers could be absorbed in such jobs before they became
mere make-work?
DA Link—Crowdout and productivity
FJG creates a crowding-out effect in the private sector and dwindles overall economic
productivity
According to Vincenzo Caponi’s “The Effects of Public Sector Employment on the Economy,” he
examines the impact on public sector employment on the economy as a whole. Whenever the public
sector creates jobs by hiring citizens to provide goods and services, it has both positive and negative
effects on the labor market (Caponi, 2017). His research showed that the unemployment rate decreased
in the short-term, creating more stabilizing effect in economy. Along with this, certain demands in
inequity were met in places that had higher levels of poverty in comparison to others. Plus, with the
higher levels of public sector jobs, many employers were encouraged to employ disadvantaged and
marginalized Americans (Caponi, 2017). At the same time, the reduction of short-term unemployment
by expanding public sector jobs were not efficient, because wages in the public sector are flexible and
not fixed. This expansion of public sector jobs created a crowding-out effect of private sector, where
many people left their low-paying private sector jobs to work for the public sector that provided higher
levels of stability. To add to this, wages are unresponsive to productivity differences, so if workers are
less or more productive in the public sector, they do not see salary increases or decreases (Caponi,
2017). With the crowding-out effect leading to labor shortage and lack of overall productivity in public-
sector jobs, Caponi’s research suggests that there is a reduction in the overall productivity of the
economy, coupled with the negative effects of the resource reallocation from the private to the public
sector.
DA Link—Productivity Declines
Ignoring market pressures causes inefficiency
17 2023
There’s good reason to expect the policy will reduce the efficiency and productive potential of the
economy too. Taxes will eventually need to be raised to cover the net cost of the program. In
infrastructure and care giving provision, costs will rise – because nobody would now work in these
directly substitutable sectors for less than the wage and conditions offered in the job guarantee
program. This will waste resources, and there’s highly likely to be overinvestment in lots of relatively
low value ventures and programs to ensure workers are employed, especially given the explicit aim is
to provide employment rather than deliver projects at low cost. Throwing resources at regions with
higher levels of unemployment and after recessions too will work directly against market signals and
deter the mobility of labor (in geographic and industrial terms) and capital to its most productive uses
given prevailing market conditions. This is important: yes, employment is highly likely to have some
positive externalities; but the real driver of better living standards over time are productivity
improvements, discovered by market‐based activity. Proponents of this policy seem to put an
enormous weight on the idea that time out of the labor market has huge scarring consequences which
could be ameliorated by any type of temporary employment. But the literature on this shows that
temporary jobs do not provide the workers with skills to improve longer‐term labor market outcomes.
DA Link—Corruption and Political meddling
Political meddling stymies plans benefits for economy
17 2023
As if all these consequences were not bad enough, such a program will be ripe for corruption and
political interference at the government, provider and individual level. Senator Sanders’ plan would be
administered by the Department for Labor, with local and state governments submitting projects to
regional offices for consideration. There’s a huge question mark on whether projects will be considered
on economic grounds, when there might be an incentive for make‐work schemes to aid particular
politicians or indeed to put resources towards “public good” causes or NGOs more in line with the ethos
of the governing party. For Democrats this might be for environmental issues. For Republicans it might
be, say, for a wall on the southern border. NGOs and local public bodies themselves will have incentives
to apply for federal funds for projects that would otherwise have occurred anyway, and to maximize
the number of applications. Pork barrel projects would proliferate. What is more, at the individual level,
the guarantee coupled with the purported unwillingness to judge worker performance on a commercial
basis will incentivize low levels of work effort on the margin.
Politics
Politics DA – L – GND Re-highlighting
The GND’s climate-economy bundling strategy conversely alienates centrists and
conservatives – AFF evidence agrees.
1AC Bergquist et al., 20 (Parrish Bergquist, Assistant Professor at the McCourt School of Public
Policy at Georgetown; Matto Mildenberger, Assistant Professor of Political Science at UC Santa Barbara,
and Leah C Stokes, Anton Vonk Associate Professor of Environmental Politics in the Department of
Political Science at UCSB, 5-12-2020, “Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public
support for climate action in the US,” Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15 (5),
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab81c1, GDI-MAM) //ReHL-GDI-Ilake-YL
1. New strategies for building support for climate policy
The impacts of climate change are already being felt around the world (IPCC 2014, USGCRP 2018). Yet,
governments have struggled to enact climate policies at the scale of the crisis and are not on track to
keep warming below 2 °C (Raftery et al 2017). As the world's largest economy, the United States plays a
pivotal role in the global effort to reduce emissions. But the U.S. has thus far failed to enact federal
climate policy, and even state-level efforts to address climate change are being rolled back in some
cases (Mildenberger 2020, Stokes 2020). Global efforts to combat climate change require the emergence of domestic US political coalitions in
favor of ambitious climate reforms. And yet, despite apparently strong public support for action to address climate
change (Bergquist and Warshaw 2019, Mildenberger et al 2017), a bipartisan support coalition has proven elusive.
To break policy gridlock, US climate advocates have begun to champion a new strategy: linking climate policy
to social and economic reforms. These advocates view climate change as one of several inter-linked
crises that amplify poverty, inequality, and social vulnerability (Brulle and Pellow 2006, Mohai et al 2009). Some federal,
state, and local politicians have embraced this policy bundling approach. Federal politicians have proposed a 'Green New
Deal' that combines investments to transition carbon-intensive sectors—such as electricity,
transportation, and industry—with reforms to economic and social policies—including healthcare, the minimum
wage, and housing. New York's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, passed in June 2019, combined aggressive climate policies
with targeted investments in disadvantaged communities. The two largest cities in the United States—Los Angeles and New York City—have
also adopted policies that would dramatically reduce carbon emissions while creating new jobs. These debates have also found new relevance
in the context of the COVID-19 health and economic crisis. Governments around the world are debating whether and how to leverage stimulus
packages to simultaneously manage climate risks and support economic recovery.
This bundling effort represents a fundamental shift in political strategy. Instead of building an elite bipartisan
coalition as prior federal efforts did (Skocpol 2013), these advocates seek to mobilize massive public support, including
constituencies who may not consider themselves 'environmentalists'. As such, bundling climate policy with
progressive social and economic programs reflects an effort to expand the scope of political conflict
(Schattschneider 1975) to engage new voters. These efforts view social movements as central to enactment.
Conversely, this strategy moves away away from bipartisanship as the central feature of federal climate policymaking
(Layzer 2012, Mildenberger 2020) and could even alienate centrists or conservatives.
Will combining climate, economic, and social policy increase public support for climate action relative to
previous climate advocacy strategies? Prior research suggests that emphasizing co-benefits such as
economic development and public health can expand support for climate policy (Rabe 2004, Myers et al 2012,
Stokes and Warshaw 2017). The policy bundling strategy exemplified in the Green New Deal goes a step further,
by synthesizing across seemingly distinct policy areas. To date, we have lacked empirical evidence to assess advocates'
claims that bundling climate policy with economic and social programs can deliver broader support coalitions. Here, we offer a rigorous
empirical test of this new coalition-building strategy. First, we use a conjoint survey experiment to evaluate whether integrating climate policy
with economic and social policy reforms expands or shrinks public support for climate action. Next, we use a second conjoint experiment to
examine how specific climate policies—including carbon pricing, clean energy standards, technology investments, and transportation policies—
change the size of support coalitions. This analysis builds on work assessing variation in support for different policy instruments (e.g. Lachapelle
et al (2012)). Our conjoint design allows us to examine public preferences in a choice setting that mirrors the tradeoffs inherent to real policy
debates. Finally, we explore the composition of a potential coalition by analyzing differences in support by partisanship, race, and income.
Overall, we find climate policy bundles that include social and economic reforms such as affordable housing, a
$15 minimum wage, or a job guarantee increase US public support for climate mitigation. Clean energy standards,
regardless of what technologies are included, also make climate policies more popular. Linking climate policy to economic and
social issues is particularly effective at expanding support among people of color. This is notable, since
these are the communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and to the costs of climate
policy (Harlan et al 2015).
Republicans hate the GND – AFF evidence agrees. **re-highlighting at bottom.

1AC Allam et al. ‘22 (Zaheer Allam; Research Candidate at the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the
University of Technology Sydney, Ayyoob Sharifid, Damien Giurcoa, Samantha A. Sharpe, “Green new
deals could be the answer to COP26’s deep decarbonisation Needs,” Sustainable Horizons Volume 1,
January 2022, 100006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2022.100006, GDI-MAM) //ReHL-GDI-ILake-YL
Green New Deals (GND) can be positioned as a potent model to pursue green growth. It simultaneously
pursues economic growth, societal resilience, and community empowerment while addressing the core
challenges of sustainability transitions. Regarding this, GNDs can be defined as a resolution agreed by either governments,
institutions, or organizations to mobilize different aspects of economies and societies to ensure the transition to
cleaner energy, production, and operation of varying human activities while increasing job opportunities for all people
via a guarantee for social protection by authorities (Allam et al., 2021). As of 2021, a variety of GNDs existed, varying
dynamics. An example of such is the European Union's GND Model illustrated in Figure 1 below, which showcases the breadth of scope that the
model can be made to approach. Similarly, other geographies can implement such strategies regarding contextual needs, where policies can be
made to respond to localized socio-economic needs while collectively building towards global emissions reduction targets.
The GND concept has gained traction in the last decade, with different regions formulating their versions. However, it is
appreciated that the concept started to gain global popularity in 2008 after the United Nations announced a global Green Deal (Barbier, 2009).
Following this, former United States President Barack Obama 2008 attempted, with no success, to introduce a GND for the U.S in 2008.
However, in 2019, Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey championed the policy and successfully advocated
for its passing, which could be credited to the efforts of the civil societies firmly demanding an economic paradigm shift (Conte, 2019). In other
jurisdictions such as Europe, the GND concept has gained similar popularity, especially with the proposal for the EU region to embrace and
adopt a circular economy model, incorporating the aspects of a GND (European Commission 2019).
The popularity of GNDs is due to the promise of addressing sustainability agendas and focusing on social
and economic justice, side-lined in linear economic and climate action discourses . With a solid cross-cutting
approach, GNDs are structured to favour rapid transition frameworks, including the popular area of energy, focusing on the phasing out of fossil
fuels to lower emissions. The U.S.
GND version, for instance, proposes the need to make fossil fuels unattractive by
rising fuel prices, akin to approaches like carbon taxation and carbon offsets (Fischer and Jacobsen, 2021). While the latter is subject to
contemporary debates about its moral purpose in business milieus, it will play a key role in bringing financial capacities to
southern geographies, should the concept be extended to other economies. GNDs can further be crafted to encourage
governments to undertake Research and Development (R & R&D) in green technologies to supply the
upcoming market demand in many sectors, such as renewable energies, housing, and others. Interestingly, in the European
GND, the target transcends national boundaries and instead cements a regional aim of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 (European
Commission 2019). This is to be completed by ensuring that economic growth is decoupled from resource use and by addressing socioeconomic
issues via extensive jobs creation and increased supply of basic amenities like food and clean water and quality healthcare, to name a few. This
perspective is interesting, as it highlights possibilities for country-specific GND policies aligning with regional net-zero
objectives while ensuring healthy and sustainable cross-border transactions, being key to ensure that
geopolitical balances are maintained.
While varying versions of GNDs are geared to become successful shortly, thus, boosting climate actions in different
regions, a few areas would still need to be furnished to increase their global acceptability. First, country and region-specific GND
policies would need to be emphasized to ensure that most local challenges’ solutions emanate from
communities themselves rather than from being proposed by governments. This would provide room for the bottom-
up approaches being championed within economic recovery programs in different geographies. By so doing, this
will have positive bearings on how limited financial resources are to be utilized ; by specifically pressing programs
that would have both short-term and long-term impacts on the livelihoods of local communities and how fiscal mechanisms could
be used in an equitable way to revitalize local economic landscapes. Without considering this, GNDs may face the
threat of being categorized as neo-capitalist philosophical discourse aimed at dictating policy on financially constrained economies. It would
further be a strategy to extend the existing inequality gap between different geographical locations and regions. However, suppose the
GNDs are to be crafted to embrace an inclusive approach, supporting the formulation, and structuring of country-specific
GNDs. In that case, it will be possible to align shareholder and stakeholder interest and further attract the
private sector. This way, it will be possible to secure larger financial capacities to support R&D programs
required for the development of green technologies and to invest in climate mitigation programs via Public-
Private Partnership (PPP) ventures.
Addressing equitable Public-Private financial needs is essential as sustainability transitioning is an expensive undertaking and a potentially
disruptive one (Táíwò, 2019; Chatzky and Siripurapu, 2021). Carefully
crafted GNDs can thus be positioned as a powerful
solution at the national level while promoting economic justice through social frameworks and meeting
national, regional, and global targets. This would, however, demand political support across the board. The popularity of the
American version reflects this, as even though the proposal could be argued to address both economic and
social justice, it received sharp criticisms from republicans (Bloomfield and Steward, 2020), outlining that
sustainability transitions may suffer from political polarisation. It would thus be essential to approach sustainability as a
cross-cutting theme, beyond politics, and from a multi-scaled lens.
Farm Bill – AT “Isn’t Their First Rodeo”
Their non-unique evidence is nonsense:
1. It’s a survey of farmers that have no idea what’s going on in Congress.
2. It’s about whether Congress will pass a farm bill, not the specific 2023 farm bill.
Counterplan Cards
UBI good
UBI solves negative employment incentives
Successful though it is, the EITC has its critics. Some point out that the once-yearly payment makes
budgeting difficult for low-income families and dilutes the program’s incentive value. Others note that it
does little to help people with no children and nothing to help those who cannot work or cannot find
work. One way to meet those criticisms would be to pay a Universal Basic Income (UBI) to everyone
regardless of whether they worked or not, and regardless of the number of dependent children. For
example, the Freedom Dividend proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang would
give every adult citizen a payment of $1,000 per month. Many other UBI variants have been discussed,
including some with conservative backing. How would a basic income affect work incentives? It might at
first seem that a UBI would discourage work. After all, you might think, if you give people money
whether they work or not, why would they work? In reality, though, the effect on work incentives
depends on what a UBI would replace. Current means-tested welfare programs like TANF, SNAP, and
housing vouchers, which reduce benefits for each dollar a person earns, have a strong negative effect
on work incentives. If a UBI replaced those, as Yang’s Freedom Dividend and many other versions do,
the net effect would be to encourage work. The spending saved on those other forms of welfare could
go a long way toward paying for the UBI itself. (See here for more on the incentive effects of a UBI.)
Against EITC or jobs guarantee counterplan
No net benefit to CP without Plan, perm can be more effective
In the form of the EITC, they raise many families out of poverty, and most studies suggest that they
cause many people to take jobs who would otherwise not work at all. However, structuring the EITC as
an annual lump-sum tax refund reduces its incentive value, and the program does little for families
without children. A basic income would help those without children and would increase work
incentives at least to some degree, provided that it replaced the “welfare traps” inherent in existing,
means-tested programs. But could we do better still? There is no logical reason to view wage subsidies
and basic income as either-or alternatives. Why not combine them? Why not a wage subsidy that
would give a bonus to all low-income workers, as the EITC does, with a UBI that would provide a
minimum benefit to everyone, including children? This approach could combine the best pro-work
features of both policies while more effectively combating poverty than either could do alone
Kritik Links
Capitalism Links
GND Cap K Links
GND subordinates the working class to fuel the “progressive” candidates, shifting our
focus of the leftward shift to revolution—only breaking from the states will break
from the bourgeois institutes
Dean, Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva,
‘20
(Jodi, communist party organizer; Kai Heron editor at ROAR Magazine and a casualized academic with
research interests in political theory, ecology, psychoanalysis, and political economy. “Revolution or
Ruin,” E-Flux, Journal #110 - June 2020, https://www.e-flux.com/journal/110/335242/revolution-or-ruin,
Accessed on 7-17-23, GDI--CJ)
For Riofrancos, a politics of pure negation is unhelpful because it mistakes the GND for a “prepackaged
solution” to the climate crisis that one either accepts or rejects wholesale. She proposes that the plan is
better thought of as an ever-changing “terrain of struggle” with “the potential to unleash desires and
transform identities” and reasons that if the final shape of the GND is still to be decided, then to reject it
is to cede important territory to fossil capital. As an alternative, she suggests that we “take our cue from
social movements that adopt a stance of critical support, embracing the political opening afforded by
the Green New Deal while at the same time contesting some of its specific elements, thus pushing up
against and expanding the horizon of possibility.” “Critical support” for the GND is as unsatisfactory as a
politics of “pure negation.” Like all democratic socialist strategy, it subordinates working class struggle
to the task of electing progressive candidates. It gives up on the left’s revolutionary tradition to focus
instead on the more “realistic” task of agitating for gradual leftward shifts in the Overton window. As
with all political strategies, the efficacy of democratic socialism rests on the achievability of its aims.
While Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour’s leader in 2015 and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s success in
2018 gave democratic socialism a boost, the Democratic National Committee’s opposition to Bernie
Sanders and the 2019 UK election have shown the limits of mainstream parties’ tolerance for socialism.
To think it possible to implement a progressive GND with the DNC that we have, the Supreme Court that
we have, the House of Lords that we have, or the patterns of property and land ownership that we have
—that is to say, with the capitalist state that we have—is to assume that the institutions of ruling class
power can be used for mass benefit without removing the ruling class. Riofrancos proposes that “extra-
parliamentary, disruptive action from below” should be combined with “creative experimentation with
institutions and policies,” but surely by now—in the midst of compounding crises—we should be
beyond experimenting with bourgeois institutions on bourgeois terms. Riofrancos’s “critical support”
excludes the option of building towards revolution. As her argument unfolds, it moves from defending
the GND as an important site of struggle to arguing that it is the site of struggle. To question the GND’s
electoralism is to make a choice for “resignation cloaked in realism,” to acquiesce to an endless “waiting
for [the] ever-deferred moment of rupture.” The obvious but unspoken third option here, though, is to
build toward the moment of “rupture,” or more concretely the seizure of power, outside of the
Democratic or Labour Parties. No doubt this option remains unspoken because it is too “unrealistic,”
too undemocratic, and too “authoritarian” for democratic socialists to countenance. Let’s look at this
third option more closely. To build towards an eco-communist revolution, we need to avoid both a
politics of pure negation and a politics of “critical affirmation.” As Marx argued, revolutions need
dialectics. They need us to find what Fredric Jameson calls the “dialectical ambivalence” in capitalism.
This means training ourselves to locate aspects of the present that point beyond themselves and
towards the communist horizon. Lenin did precisely this after the outbreak of the First World War.
Rather than joining with the majority of the socialist parties of the Second International in capitulating
to imperialist war, and rather than wallowing in melancholia following the betrayal of so many of his
German comrades as they voted for war credits, Lenin saw in the war an opportunity for revolutionary
advance. Those interested in the emancipation of the working class needed to fight not for peace but
for the dialectical conversion of nationalist war to civil war. The war, and the collapse of the Second
International, was the opportunity for something new. What would it mean to think dialectically about
the GND? We think it would mean stripping the policy’s reformist content away from its revolutionary
form. For decades environmental movements in the capitalist core have busied themselves fighting for
local solutions to global problems: cooperatives, local currencies, urban agriculture, and ethical
consumerism. As these experiments blossomed, the climate crisis continued unabated. More pipelines
were built, more indigenous land was stolen, more fires raged, and more species flickered out of
existence. In their form the GND and GIR put localism aside. Both recognize that the climate crisis
demands a state-led, centrally planned, and global response. They take for granted that we need a state
to intervene on behalf of nature and workers against capital. The fact that the GND and GIR promise to
do this is what makes capitalists fear them. Those who are excited about the promise of the GND—such
as Riofrancos—have similarly turned towards the state as a terrain of struggle and a locus of power.
Consciously or not, these movements have learned from the failures of Climate Camp, Occupy, and the
Movement of Squares. It is not enough to suspend the normal running of things. Taking responsibility
means taking power and organizing society in what Marx called the interests of “freely associated
workers,” or more controversially, the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The struggles to implement the
GND and GIR tell us that environmentalists are increasingly aware of the need to seize the state—and
the need to develop a fighting organization with the capacity to do so.
Cap K – L – GND Re-highlighting
A federal GND is just a neo-capitalist strategy to perpetuate inequality – AFF evidence
agrees. **re-highlighting at bottom.
1AC Allam et al. ‘22 (Zaheer Allam; Research Candidate at the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the
University of Technology Sydney, Ayyoob Sharifid, Damien Giurcoa, Samantha A. Sharpe, “Green new
deals could be the answer to COP26’s deep decarbonisation Needs,” Sustainable Horizons Volume 1,
January 2022, 100006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2022.100006, GDI-MAM) //ReHL-GDI-ILake-YL
Green New Deals (GND) can be positioned as a potent model to pursue green growth. It simultaneously
pursues economic growth, societal resilience, and community empowerment while addressing the core
challenges of sustainability transitions. Regarding this, GNDs can be defined as a resolution agreed by either governments,
institutions, or organizations to mobilize different aspects of economies and societies to ensure the transition to
cleaner energy, production, and operation of varying human activities while increasing job opportunities for all people
via a guarantee for social protection by authorities (Allam et al., 2021). As of 2021, a variety of GNDs existed, varying
dynamics. An example of such is the European Union's GND Model illustrated in Figure 1 below, which showcases the breadth of scope that the
model can be made to approach. Similarly, other geographies can implement such strategies regarding contextual needs, where policies can be
made to respond to localized socio-economic needs while collectively building towards global emissions reduction targets.
The GND concept has gained traction in the last decade, with different regions formulating their versions. However, it is
appreciated that the concept started to gain global popularity in 2008 after the United Nations announced a global Green Deal (Barbier, 2009).
Following this, former United States President Barack Obama 2008 attempted, with no success, to introduce a GND for the U.S in 2008.
However, in 2019, Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey championed the policy and successfully advocated
for its passing, which could be credited to the efforts of the civil societies firmly demanding an economic paradigm shift (Conte, 2019). In other
jurisdictions such as Europe, the GND concept has gained similar popularity, especially with the proposal for the EU region to embrace and
adopt a circular economy model, incorporating the aspects of a GND (European Commission 2019).
The popularity of GNDs is due to the promise of addressing sustainability agendas and focusing on social
and economic justice, side-lined in linear economic and climate action discourses . With a solid cross-cutting
approach, GNDs are structured to favour rapid transition frameworks, including the popular area of energy, focusing on the phasing out of fossil
fuels to lower emissions. The U.S.
GND version, for instance, proposes the need to make fossil fuels unattractive by
rising fuel prices, akin to approaches like carbon taxation and carbon offsets (Fischer and Jacobsen, 2021). While the latter is subject to
contemporary debates about its moral purpose in business milieus, it will play a key role in bringing financial capacities to
southern geographies, should the concept be extended to other economies. GNDs can further be crafted to encourage
governments to undertake Research and Development (R & R&D) in green technologies to supply the
upcoming market demand in many sectors, such as renewable energies, housing, and others. Interestingly, in the European
GND, the target transcends national boundaries and instead cements a regional aim of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 (European
Commission 2019). This is to be completed by ensuring that economic growth is decoupled from resource use and by addressing socioeconomic
issues via extensive jobs creation and increased supply of basic amenities like food and clean water and quality healthcare, to name a few. This
country-specific GND policies aligning with regional net-zero
perspective is interesting, as it highlights possibilities for
objectives while ensuring healthy and sustainable cross-border transactions, being key to ensure that
geopolitical balances are maintained.
While varying versions of GNDs are geared to become successful shortly, thus, boosting climate actions in different
regions, a few areas would still need to be furnished to increase their global acceptability. First, country and region-specific GND
policies would need to be emphasized to ensure that most local challenges’ solutions emanate from
communities themselves rather than from being proposed by governments. This would provide room for the
bottom-up approaches being championed within economic recovery programs in different geographies. By so
doing, this will have positive bearings on how limited financial resources are to be utilized ; by specifically
pressing programs that would have both short-term and long-term impacts on the livelihoods of local communities and
how fiscal
mechanisms could be used in an equitable way to revitalize local economic landscapes. Without
considering this, GNDs may face the threat of being categorized as neo-capitalist philosophical discourse aimed
at dictating policy on financially constrained economies. It would further be a strategy to extend the
existing inequality gap between different geographical locations and regions. However, suppose the GNDs are to be crafted
to embrace an inclusive approach, supporting the formulation, and structuring of country-specific GNDs. In that case, it will be
possible to align shareholder and stakeholder interest and further attract the private sector. This way, it will
be possible to secure larger financial capacities to support R&D programs required for the development
of green technologies and to invest in climate mitigation programs via Public-Private Partnership (PPP) ventures.
Addressing equitable Public-Private financial needs is essential as sustainability transitioning is an expensive undertaking and a potentially
disruptive one (Táíwò, 2019; Chatzky and Siripurapu, 2021). Carefully
crafted GNDs can thus be positioned as a powerful
solution at the national level while promoting economic justice through social frameworks and meeting
national, regional, and global targets. This would, however, demand political support across the board. The popularity of the
American version reflects this, as even though the proposal could be argued to address both economic and social justice, it received sharp
criticisms from republicans (Bloomfield and Steward, 2020), outlining that sustainability transitions may suffer from political polarisation. It
would thus be essential to approach sustainability as a cross-cutting theme, beyond politics, and from a multi-scaled lens.

GND - Neg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GND - Neg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GND – NEG

At bottom, the Job

technology-based innovation, is the key driver for both economic competitiveness

People would not participate in a FJG – no solvency

Administrative challenge + Private sector – No party is in favor of establishing a JG.

Among all nonemployed prime-age individuals, 36 percent said their employment

minor source of stress.

somewhat financially secure. Among self-identified homemakers in this group, 76

percent reported they were very or somewhat financially secure.

Work Requirement burdens hinder employment

What could change

The other problem

Why it matters: Last year, as the

On the other hand, consumers seem hale and hearty.

The bottom line: For

Small Businesses and the Private Sector is key to Climate Resilience

Costs billions of dollars

Massive labor and administration costs would pressure struggling finances

Not enough jobs without crowding out private sector

Republicans hate the GND – AFF evidence agrees. **re-highlighting at bottom.

You might also like