From an article in The Hill this past Wednesday:
Democrats have said Republicans for the last two years have failed to bring up any major jobs bills, which they generally define as bills that increase spending to fund construction projects.
In contrast, Republicans have said the House has passed dozens of jobs bills, which they generally define as bills that remove federal regulation to make it easier for companies to do business and expand. (my emphasis)
(Updated Below)
A lot of economists have been making the case for a while (I’ve documented some of it on this blog), but like Krugman, I’ve noticed that more and more economists are falling off the structural unemployment bandwagon.
But it’s not just the pundits who are stubbornly resisting this growing consensus, but people involved in actual policy (in and out of government). For example, a lot of workforce investment policy arguments are predicated on the idea that high unemployment is largely structural. I get that many economists (and political progressives) are frustrated by this because they believe it discourages action on more critical areas of economic policy. But it’s worth noting that there are also a lot of good policy goals (like investing more in adult education) that are (in part) supported by the idea that continued high unemployment is mainly a structural problem. It’s a bit of a conundrum.
UPDATE 8/8/13: An additional thought on this. There really isn’t any reason why an argument for offering Americans the opportunity to upgrade their skills should be dependent on the idea that our high unemployment levels are structural. I think the problem only comes when you suggest that improving skills alone will solve the problem of high unemployment/good jobs. But to suggest that there aren’t real adult education or worker training needs, or good policy reasons behind trying to improve people’s education and skill attainment—that it’s all just a scam—is just as facile an argument.
On July 4th, The Washington Post published an interesting article on the prospects of immigration reform legislation in the House, based largely on an interview with Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV). The Post published the entire interview on-line, and if you are interested in this topic, it’s worth reading.
One thing that was surprising to me: Rep. Heck isn’t wild about the “trigger”—the idea that border control provisions would need to be implemented and goals met before any of the pathway to citizenship provisions for unauthorized immigrants go into effect:
“I think there are reasonable steps that the Senate bill puts into place. The issue that I have is that there’s a provision where everything is pegged on being able to go from RPI [Registered Provisional Immigrant] status to green card status that says that if we don’t do all these border security things within 10 years, then they’re waived. And I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think if we’re saying that we’re going to put these things in place, then moving forward, we have to put these things in place.”
Rep. Heck also doesn’t like the idea of including workforce provisions in the legislation that are not directly connected to immigrant labor:
“In the Senate bill, there’s a provision that was tacked on that has to do with the Youth Job Corps. Now, as a workforce investment act item, it has nothing to do with immigration, it doesn’t create jobs for DREAMers or new immigrants, it’s for underprivileged youth between the ages of 16 and 25. And it’s going to be funded by an additional fee tacked on to the guest worker program paid for by employers.
“Look, I’m very active in educational workforce investment issues. I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee. I’ve introduced legislation to make the Workforce Investment Act work better. It has no place in an immigration bill. And that’s what happens when you have an 1,198-page immigration bill.”
Without passing judgment one way or another on the specific provision he’s talking about, those of us suggesting provisions within immigration reform that address jobs and job training in a more general way think this is fundamental to the success of the legislation, not just something that’s being “tacked on.” Our argument is that immigration reform is, in fact, a major piece of labor legislation—one of the biggest in recent memory—that will impact the entire labor market, and so it’s appropriate for there to be provisions in the legislation that support all members of the workforce, not just immigrants. And that by doing so, immigrant integration will be more effectively achieved (because everyone then has skin the game).
Recently I had the opportunity to work with the National Skills Coalition (NSC) on developing a proposal to significantly expand federal investment in adult education and training as part of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). Most of us who work in adult education or workforce development think it’s likely that CIR will cause a significant increase in demand for adult education—not just by currently undocumented immigrants seeking to learn English, but also for many U.S. citizens and legal residents in the current workforce who will be under increasing pressure to upgrade their skills in response to the labor market changes that CIR will produce. Our report, Comprehensive Immigration Reform: A Proposal for a Skills Strategy that Supports Economic Growth and Opportunity, was released earlier this week.
NSC is, naturally, very employment-focused in their view of adult education. What I think is unique about this proposal, and something I’m particularly proud of, is how we attempted to outline an overarching strategy that recognizes the need for an integrated approach to meeting this likely growth in demand. So, for example, the report calls for expanding English language learning for all immigrants while investing more in integrated basic skills and vocational training for the existing workforce—and to do it in a systematic way that leverages the adult education system we have now.
The report also proposes to accomplish this within the framework of the current Senate immigration reform legislation, but without increasing the overall cost of the bill.
It was a pleasure to work with NSC on this proposal. If you have any comments or questions about it, I’d love to hear from you.
Literacy & Policy 