First off, when I Google (on desktop, in Firefox) “Bernie Sanders jobs guarantee” I am presented first with the “Top Stories” window which shows three links, one from National Review, one from the Washington Post, and one from National Review. A great big sarcastic “Hmmmmmm…” seems in order.
Then the first link presented is from… the National Review. I guess it is no surprise that the most vocal opponents would have the most links in search results. This first article , by Robert Verbruggen, is about the commonalities with a GOP food-stamp reform. Okay, gross.
The ideal setup is closer to the GOP approach, but less harsh. It includes strong work requirements in poverty programs, coupled with a fair option for able-bodied people who are struggling to find jobs, something constructive they can do for a reasonable amount of time in exchange for the assistance they receive.
“Less harsh,” as in, maybe, if you are disabled you don’t have to work, or you only have to work a little? If you are on Medicaid and care for a disabled child, how harsh is too harsh?
I should hope we would disagree about what “reasonable” means here, at the very least.
He notes, a little later on, that about a quarter of the population works for less than $15 per hour, and such a generous jobs guarantee would put “a tremendous amount of pressure” on private-sector employers. Um, okay… isn’t that the beauty of the “free market”? It can withstand all kinds of tremendous pressure?
Maybe some pressure is what the private sector needs. Maybe a little competition would encourage employers to raise wages to something a little closer to where they should be if they tracked productivity? Maybe.
Every Republican has about twenty hours of speech ready to go about how great work is and how everyone needs to love to work. But the logical leap is never made to wanting to help people get jobs.