Solving Overwork and Unemployment: How to Create a Functional Labor and Tax Platform in Eight Easy Steps

     American tax and labor policies are in a state of dysfunction, inactivity, stagnation, and chaos. We must restore functionality and logic to the American economy and its labor market as soon as possible.

     Unemployment, being overworked and overburdened with pressure to accept overtime hours, and struggling to scrape together enough work-hours to qualify for benefits and make ends meet, have all become severe problems in the United States.

     In order to fix this problem, each our overtime laws, our minimum wage laws, poverty threshold laws, and laws on tax credits and basic income, need to work together. Laws on taxes and labor need to be crafted in a coordinated manner which makes sense, with each policy measure logically proceeding from, and being justified by, and making room for the other related policies being implemented, in order to help fulfill the conditions necessary to achieve those policies' goals.

     The following is a set of proposals regarding laws on taxes, labor hours, poverty levels, and related topics. But it is also a set of instructions for those wishing to legislate on economic matters.

     You can come up with your own proposal like this; by going through each of the eight topics, and choosing your favorite proposal from among the two or three choices listed below them. I have called these options are the “Conservative”, “Progressive”, and “Libertarian” plans, which in some cases feature combinations or alterations. [Note: I do not mean to suggest that all conservatives would be likely to support the proposals I've termed "conservative", however; I only mean that the "conservative" reforms are the most conservative reforms, of the reforms I've proposed below.]
     I suggest highlighting your favorite proposal, crossing everything else out, jotting down a few notes based on what's left, and adding your own ideas.

     This proposal can also function as a political survey.

     I recommend selecting either the “a” option for all questions, or the “b” option for all questions, or the “c” option for all questions. I say this because consistency is important, given that the whole idea of this article is to provide a framework for achieving an interlocking set of proposals that make sense together.

     But libertarians and conservatives, conservatives and progressives, and progressives and libertarians each have a specific set of things that they agree and disagree about; therefore I will not discourage my readers from mixing and matching. Just keep in mind that the consistency will be diminished, and the problem may not be fully solved as the result of your choices.

     Feel free to e-mail me at jwkopsick@gmail.com if you have any questions or suggestions about this proposal and survey, or if you would like to tell me your response to the survey.

     Notes about the statistics referenced in this article:

     The 6.7% unemployment rate figure (which I use to estimate a 26.8% "real real unemployment rate") is cited because the unemployment rate was 6.7% in December 2020. In January, that rate decreased to 6.3%, so adjustments should be made wherever necessary, when updating these statistics to generate policy suggestions conforming to the new economic reality and the new statistics coming out.

     The 34.5 work-hours per week figure is based on statistics from 2019.

     http://www.statista.com/statistics/215643/average-weekly-working-hours-of-all-employees-in-the-us-by-month/

     The original statistic was 34.4 hours per week, but I have rounded that to the nearest half an hour, for simplicity's sake. More precise numbers should always be used to generate final policy proposals. This article should be used only as a template and place-holder, until closer to the election for which it will be developed and perfected.     

     1. Reduce the standard number of work-hours per week which the government intends to be the standard number used in regards to the pertinent federal labor laws:

     1a. (“Conservative” or “simple/basic” option, only solves half of the problem but could also be a major first step towards finishing the job): Reduce the standard number of work hours per week from 40 to 34.5, the average number of hours worked by Americans.

     1b. (“Progressive” or “complex/extra” option): Reduce the standard number of work hours per week from 40 to 27.2, to account for the number of unemployed people who would start working if they could, which issues from the fact that “real real unemployment” (i.e., U6 or U7) is at approximately 26.8% (so it would require reducing the 40 hours a week by 26.8%, down to 27.2 hours per week).

     1c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal all laws which establish or suggest a uniform or target goal as it pertains to desired number of work-hours per week (This would be difficult without eliminating vast numbers of government workers).

     2. Repeal or amend overtime laws to reflect the need to reduce competition for labor-hours between temporary and gig workers, underemployed people, and seasonally and structurally unemployed workers (etc.) vs. overtime workers with secure jobs:

     2a. (“Conservative” option, assuming that 1a was followed and completed): Keep overtime laws, but make overtime start at 34.5 hours per week, without increasing the “time-and-a-half” pay requirement for overtime work.

     2b. (“Progressive” option, which might make the problem worse): Keep overtime laws, but make overtime start after 34.5 hours per week, and increase the “time-and-a-half” pay requirement for overtime work to 175% or 200%.

     2c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal and eliminate overtime laws altogether, thereby reducing external pressure and incentive to work overtime.

     3. Set a goal to achieve an average American worker income:

     3a & 3b. (“Progressive-Conservative” option): Set a goal to achieve an average American worker income of $34,500 per year.

     3c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal all laws which establish or suggest a uniform or target goal as it pertains to desired average American worker income.

     4. Raise the poverty level (up from $12,760 per year, per single-person household):

     4a. (“Conservative” option): Raise the poverty level to $17,250 (equal to half of the $34,500 per year goal).

     4b. (“Progressive” option): Raise the poverty level to $34,500 (the average annual income goal).

     4c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal any and all laws establishing or suggesting any sort of poverty level or uniform poverty threshold.

     5. Increase the minimum wage, to adjust for cost-of-living increases and other economic factors which need updating:

     5a. (“Conservative” option): Set a $17.25 per hour minimum wage. (This is based on the premise that many people may still choose to work for forty hours a week or more, and thus might not need $20/hr. At fifty five-day weeks per year, that comes out to an annual income of $34,500 per year).

     5b. (“Progressive” option): Set a $20 per hour minimum wage (to account for the fact that 34.5 hours of work per week, for $20 per hour, for fifty five-day work-weeks per year, comes out to $34,500 per year).

     5c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal and eliminate minimum wage laws altogether, in order to remove and criminalize all external suggestions on prevailing, minimum, and maximum wages, which may not only be unnecessary, but which also distort the market by distorting price signals for wage labor. Allow the labor markets to dictate the prevailing wage, and let the free-floating prevailing wage to be the only wage rate that is considered “average”, or remotely “official”, in any way.

     6. Create a tax exemption for poor people which is based on the average annual income suggested by the new minimum wage and standard number of work-hours:

     6a & 6b. (“Progressive-Conservative” option) Exempt all 18-year-olds (most of whom lack proper tax documentation) - and all people 19 and older whom disclosed their taxes the previous year - from all taxes, as long as they do not earn more than $34,500 per year, and can prove it.

     6c. (“(Geo-)Libertarian” option) Exempt everyone from taxes, except for people and businesses which profit from the despoilation of land, and from the improper solicitation of taxpayer subsidies and monopoly privileges. Eliminate all taxes which are levied based on quantity, and only enforce tax laws against those who use violence and/or destruction to earn their livings.

     7. Establish an alternative minimum tax payment that gives taxpayers some choice in regards to how they are taxed:

     7a & 7b. (“Progressive-Conservative” option): Establish an alternative minimum tax payment of $17,250, or up to $17,250, per year; and require that taxpayers choose between the following: 1) report that your annual income was over $34,500 and pay taxes; 2) report that your annual income was under $34,500 and receive an exemption from taxes for that year; or 3) keep information about the amount you earned private, but disclose the sources, and pay the alternative minimum of $17,250.

     7c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal and eliminate the alternative minimum tax payment.

     8. Provide a basic income (or refundable tax credits which occur on a routine basis), or else pass additional non-refundable tax credits.

     8a. (“Conservative” option): Pass non-refundable tax credits for people with sick, young, old, and disabled dependents, and for people earning slightly more than $34,500 per year but may still need and/or qualify for assistance.

     8b. (“Progressive” option): Pass a universal basic income guarantee for all residents earning less than $34,500 per year; providing a basic income equal to $17,250 per year ($1,437.50 per month).

     8c. (“Libertarian/Friedmanite” option): Pass a Negative Income Tax proposal which builds on the voluntary tax information sharing proposal. Those who elect to provide the amounts in their tax receipts, shall receive refundable tax credits of an amount which is equal to 50% of the difference between the amount they earned in the previous year, and $34,500.

Written and published on February 5th, 2021

Edited on March 17th and April 22nd and 23rd, 2021

Eighty Topics You'll Want to Understand Well if You Plan to Run for Elected Political Office

     I created the following two images in 2015, to help myself organize information about topics I would need to understand in order to create my congressional platform and structure it in a way that makes sense. I offer these images as learning aids, to assist any of my readers who may wish to run for office - especially federal or national office - in the future.

     Before deciding whether to run, make sure that you have some thoughts and opinions about how and why the laws need to change or stay the same, regarding the topics that pertain to the duties of the office for which you are running. You can check both the requirements of the office, and the state or federal constitution, to find out what those duties are. You might decide that your strengths would be better applied to a different office with different duties that cover different policy areas.
     Note: Policing, and alternative economic and taxation systems (such as Land Value Taxation) are not included, but probably should have been.

Click on the images, and/or open them in a new tab or window, to enlarge and see in full detail

Images created in August 2015

This article published on September 4th, 2020

Edited on August 4th, 2021

Political Questionnaire: Are You a Joe Kopsick Voter? #2

Click on the above image in order to view in greater detail

Questionnaire created and published on May 12th, 2020

Updated (guns question edited) on August 27th, 2020

Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019 (Third Draft)

     In the matter of the mayor appearing in ads for the Waukegan Music Festival, the legal issue at hand is this: Whether it constitutes taxpayer fraud (an illegal use of taxpayer funds) for elected officials to appear in advertisements for public events.

     Since this is a tradition started by a previous mayor, we shouldn't blame the current mayor for this; we should only find fault if he continues this practice. You see, it unfairly benefits incumbents – not just the mayor, but all elected officials who are up for re-election – whenever sitting public officials allow their names, faces, or titles to appear in ads. It's arguably a misappropriation and misdirection of public funds to promote an incumbent candidate's campaign.

     The only thing appropriate for the current mayor to do about this controversy, for now, is to recuse himself from it, due to the possible conflict of interest involved. But I'd like to ask the rest of the city council to do whatever is in its power to cease including the names and faces of all elected officials in advertisements for the Waukegan Music Festival - and all other public events - and also to refrain from including the title of any elected official in the name of any public event. It must be made perfectly clear to voters that this is the people's festival, not the mayor's, and that the mayor did not personally give this festival to the people of Waukegan.

     This is a delicate legal issue that should be handled by the Illinois Supreme Court, not argued out between the mayor and one of our aldermen. Even if it turns out that this practice is totally legal, the appearance of public officials in ads still unfairly helps incumbents. So, for the sake of fair elections, this practice should end immediately; before someone gets charged with taxpayer fraud, and before the courts have to get involved.

     The set of career opportunities which the city will stand to offer our young people, following the opening of this casino - is appallingly disappointing.

     The city council should not be encouraging kids who just graduated high school, to join the police – nor enlist at Great Lakes Naval Base - because they could get shot and die before the age of 20. That should be obvious, but judging from the last meeting, it's not obvious to the city council.

     To the parents present: If you value your children's career prospects, and their lives and health (which you should not be willing to trade for career prospects), then you should offer them something better than the three most prominent career choices in this area once the casino moves in, which will be:

     1) deal cards, or serve alcohol (a neurotoxin and central nervous system depressant), at a casino or bar to men who will flirt with them and leer at them;

   2) join the police or military, and get beaten up, pepper sprayed, and injected with strange chemicals as part of basic training; or

     3) work for a company that makes medicine while polluting the air we breathe.

     The purpose of the Waukegan City Council should not be to abide by a jobs policy that lets outside companies exploit Waukegan residents' need for jobs; nor to allow local government to passively enable local parents to expose their young adult children to these very real dangers in exchange for the prospect of money and jobs. It's not worth it.

     Even if your kid ends up in government (or tourism), he's just going to convince a bunch of criminal businesses to set up shop in this polluted county. And who will that help? Only the exploiters and polluters.

     I'd like to thank the council for celebrating that a federal court ruled against including a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. However, on July 29th, N.P.R. reported that the U.S. Census Bureau sent out census forms including the citizenship question to 240,000 households.

     The Trump Administration says this was only a test. However, they've been criticized for not doing this test long enough before the 2020 census, before it can be approved in its final form. There are five months left until 2020.

     It was completely predictable that the administration would keep pushing on this issue, because pushing and doubling-down is what this administration does. We shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to stop them from doing something illegal; they will find ways to keep enforcing policies even when they know they are unconstitutional, improperly authorized, or could easily be enforced differently or not at all.

     We should endorse Jeffersonian nullification. Although using a "states' rights" solution could be politically unpopular (or even offensive), the same power could also be used to justify keeping Illinois a "sanctuary state".

     What are you going to do, Waukegan City Council, to stop peaceful undocumented immigrants from being deported? I'll tell you what you're going to do; you're going to urge the public to cooperate with law enforcement personnel at all times, because that's your job, and that's the law.

     So if you don't intend to do anything to stop the continued operation of an illegal federal department that didn't even exist just 17 years ago, then you cannot rightfully claim that what you do promote either freedom or public safety, which I believe are the tasks with which you're charged.

     The city council should demand that Governor Pritzker use his power to nullify unconstitutional federal law, to stop federal agents working for the unconstitutional Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from attempting to operate within the state legally (that is, without being arrested).

     Is it really worth the cost of freedom involved, if all of us be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement - including in the enforcement of a census that includes a citizenship test (which could carry with it the risk of deporting beloved members of our community who committed no violent crime)?

     The only benefit we get from cooperating with the census, is a guarantee to federal funds. The number and location of people determines where district lines are drawn, and how much money they get. Our elected officials make money off of the fact that we live in their districts. That sounds like slavery to me.

     The census is a deportation and extortion racket, and I urge my fellow citizens not to participate in it.

     Finally, it is Monday night. I do not come to the Waukegan City Council to pray. Who even prays on a Monday night? Which religion is that?

      I thought we were supposed to have a separation of church and state. Instructing all people present to pray for the public officials before them, seems like enough of an endorsement of religion by a public institution to me, to potentially conflict with the freedoms listed in the First Amendment.

     We cannot truly consent to anything if we are under such intimidating circumstances, because we could easily become intimidated into refraining from expressing our disagreement. I will remind you that children have been physically assaulted in American schools for failing to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance; this shouldn't happen to children or adults.

     I would ask that the city council stop inviting everyone to stand and pray. This should upset not only those who don't believe in any gods; it should upset the Christians who just went to church yesterday that they have to stand and pray again today... for the government... while the government watches them. When they'd rather be praying inside of a church.

     This is not only a First Amendment violation, it is just plain rude, and creepy. It tests our abilities to do what is in our conscience, when everybody around us is doing something that we are not doing. If the city council will not discontinue this practice of public prayer, then it should pass an ordinance that if your friend jumps off a bridge, then you have to too.

     We should not be urged to pray for our elected officials; that is feudalism-era thinking. If anything, our elected officials should be urged to pray for us. After all, their job is salvation; their job is to save us.

     And we need the city council's help, in order to save us.

     And it can do so by helping us to protect ourselves; from the casino, from companies that pollute our air, from companies whose H.R. departments want to exploit us, from the fascist administration that's currently running the federal government, and from government overreach in general.

     And also, from possible white supremacists in our police departments who may want to cooperate with I.C.E. and let them operate within the state, and from people in our government who excuse the continued operation of I.C.E. under completely baseless constitutional foundation.

     And I understand why you'd want to keep a casino away from schools, but not from churches. Where are Waukegan fathers going to go for repentance, after they've gambled away all of their family's rent and food money on card games and alcohol? Any casino approved, should be required to be near, even surrounded by churches.

     What on Earth do you think you're doing? Please do the exact opposite of what you're currently doing.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/2019/07/29/746158231/why-the-2020-census-citizenship-question-hasn-t-gone-away

Read previous, more detailed drafts of this speech at:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/taxpayer-funded-local-events-should-not.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/licensing-breeds-licentiousness-speech.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/speech-to-waukegan-city-council-on.html

Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019 (Second Draft)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Waukegan Music Festival Controversy

3. Young Waukegan Residents Urged to Join Police Force

4. Council Tolerates Poor Set of Local Career Opportunities

5. Why the Council Urges Cooperation with the Census

6. Census Carries Deportation Danger

7. Local and State Government Must Avoid Betraying the People
8. Religion in the Public Square
9. Conclusion

Content

1. Introduction

     My name is Joe Kopsick, I'm originally from Lake Bluff, and moved to Waukegan a year and a half ago.

     When I last spoke here, on July 15^th, I talked about garage sales, the census, immigration, and permits. I meant to explain my criticism of the casino approval, but I didn't have time then, so I'll address it today. But not before sharing my thoughts about the Waukegan Music Festival.

2. The Waukegan Music Festival Controversy

     At that last city council meeting, a citizen shared her concern that it might be a case of illegal taxpayer fraud, that the mayor appears in advertisements for the Waukegan Music Festival. I feel that that citizen's concerns were not adequately explained.

     Please imagine, for a moment, that someone else is the mayor of Waukegan. We don't know the person's name. But they're facing re-election, like all mayors do. If the mayor's name, likeness, and/or title, appear in advertisements for public events, then it's reasonable to expect that that incumbent mayor would get an edge in the election, because of that ad, right?

     We should not blame the current mayor personally for the fact that he has appeared in advertisements for public events, because – as he explained - this is a tradition which was started by an earlier mayor. But we can blame the mayor who started it (if indeed this is an improper and illegal use of taxpayer funds). We can't blame Mayor Cunningham for starting this tradition, but we can blame him if he doesn't end it.

     Elected officials – or at least those whom are incumbents and are actively running - gain an unfair advantage from being allowed to appear in ads for public events. The issue of whether this constitutes taxpayer fraud, should best be decided by either the Illinois Supreme Court, or by the voters gathered here in this room; not through a shouting match between the mayor and an alderman.

     The city council allowed the mayor to be his own judge, and acquit himself, without any charges being filed. The mayor should have done the legally appropriate thing, and recused himself from this controversy, seeing as he is a party to it. Either the state Supreme Court should be consulted on the legality of this matter; or if there is no question about the illegality of these ads, then charges should be filed against the mayor (and/or the city department that plans public events).

     The appearance of incumbent candidates in advertisements for public events, unfairly hurts the election chances of new candidates who wish to unseat incumbents, whom should have the same chance as the current mayor to get elected. Finally, the name of the festival should not contain the name, nor title, of any public official, for all the reasons I have explained above.

3. Young Waukegan Residents Urged to Join Police Force

     I have to express my concern about the city council congratulating high school students, who have their whole lives ahead of them, to sign up to be police officers. Eighteen-year-olds may be adults, but they are not old enough to decide whether to sign up to work as police officers and soldiers.

     What would you sacrifice to make sure that your child has a good career? Would you sacrifice their very health and safety? Police and military recruits are often subjected to being pepper sprayed and tased. Military recruits are injected with strange mixes of chemicals that they're never told what it is.

     Do Waukegan parents really think that whatever their kids are getting paid, is enough to offset the emotional and medical cost of enduring beatings in the military, and an onslaught of poisonous chemicals? Is this what you're willing to put your kid through, in order to secure them a job?

     We're told that we're supposed to be proud when young adults – especially racial minorities – join the police force. “Make the police look like the communities they serve”, they tell us. Well, it just so happens that tyrannical regimes throughout history, have co-opted the local communities, and found members of them who were willing to sell all the others out, and chalked it up as a mark of social progress and racial equality.

     For example: European colonizers got African tribal chiefs drunk, and bribed them into letting the colonizers round up their people as slaves. Other colonizers got Native American tribal chiefs drunk, and bribed and defrauded them into letting them claiming the land and kick everybody off. When the Nazis conquered Ukraine, Poland, and Western Russia, they found local military leaders who were willing to compromise with the Nazis. Similarly, the Jewish Ghetto Police enforced Nazi rule over the ghettos (with some degree of Jewish self-governance), while maintaining communications between imprisoned Jews and Nazis.

     Tyrannical regimes co-opted native peoples they conquered, and used the fact that a representative has been chosen from among them, to pretend that that conquered people has given their consent to be ruled. It is a lie, and the idea that more minority police officers will improve a deeply racist, intrinsically violent law enforcement mechanism, is a complete hallucination.

     We should not be encouraging our children to join the police force, especially not at such a young age. God forbid they get shot to death at the age of 18; not even in a war zone, but on the streets of America while doing their job (when they could have chosen any other job, most of them much safer for a young adult whom, again, has their whole life ahead of them).

     Lastly, I must note that I find it laughable that the city noted that the students present, decided to become police officers because of their feeling that “being a cop isn't just for the stupid kids”. I mean, if these are the smart kids, I'd hate to see the stupid kids! Especially the ones who want to become cops. By the way, I hope the city council warns those students against becoming police officers in New Jersey, where courts have ruled it's legal to refuse to hire police applicants if their I.Q. is too high. Because I'm not so sure that the world has any need for smart cops; not until we start training them to de-escalate violence (instead of escalate it) in the course of carrying out orders.

4. Council Tolerates Poor Set of Local Career Opportunities

     And what career opportunities the graduates of Waukegan High School have these days! Why, they can volunteer for the police, and get pepper sprayed and tased as part of training! Hell, why not bring police training directly to the high school, as one town down south did? Why not tase and pepper spray these kids right in their classrooms!? God knows that school security officers have tased and pepper sprayed younger children in public school classrooms in recent years; why stop now?

     But suppose the kid doesn't want to be a cop. They can go to Great Lakes Naval Station, and sign up to be in the military! And be injected with mysterious chemicals, and routinely beaten up as part of basic training, for a very difficult to determine amount of money. Fantastic.

     If your kid doesn't want to be a cop or a soldier, luckily, that new casino is coming to town! Your 17- and 18-year-old daughters can take this opportunity to work at the casino, dealing cards or serving drinks to older men. Men who will probably leer at them, and get away with it because your child will be expected to flirt with them as part of earning tips. Swell.

     Don't want your kid to be a cop, soldier, casino employee, or bartender? Well, she can work at Medline, or a cement company, or the local Sterigenics plants. Why not help her make some money polluting the air that we all have to breathe?

     Waukegan City Council, you are not protecting us. You're not protecting our job opportunities, because none of them are any damn good. You're not protecting public health, nor public safety. And you're not protecting our children's prospects for a clean environment, and a future with decent, honest, respectable careers.

5. Why the Council Urges Cooperation with the Census

     Anyone who was paying attention during the last meeting, will remember exactly why the city council urged us to cooperate with the 2020 U.S. Census survey. The first reason was that a court ruled that the Trump Administration could not include the citizenship question on it. But I ask the members of the city council: What will you do to protect us, if the administration insists on including it anyway (whether they figure out how to do it legally or not)?

     The Constitution authorizes the federal government and its census takers to collect no information other than the number of people. All questions about ethnicity, race, religion, country of origin or birth, and citizenship, are thus illegal, and laws providing for those questions to be asked are unconstitutional. We cannot legally be obligated to answer any of those questions, and I urge residents not to answer them.

     The second reason why the city council urged us to cooperate with the census, is that our elected officials use the census to make money off of us. Making sure that everyone participates in the census, is how government makes sure that congressional districts have equal numbers of people. But the number of people in the district also secures that district federal funding, as part of its “equal share” of federal funding. Of course, it matters to almost nobody that spending and the tax burden are not shared anywhere near equally by the districts and states. But the fact that equality is not furthered in determining where these districts lie, should show that the census's main purpose is to secure whatever funding the district can manage to get.

     This is nothing more than a scam to defraud us, the voters and taxpayers and residents, of our financial power (through our right to those funds), and our legal power (through allowing our elected officials to take away some of our power of attorney, and in so doing, to appropriate more of those federal funds towards themselves and their own offices than towards We the People).

6. Census Carries Deportation Danger

     Aside from the census being a money-making scheme for our legislators, it is also a plot to track us, and harvest our private personal information. Government-regulated credit rating agencies and banks routinely lose millions upon millions of people's personal information; do you really trust government to handle your personal information wisely?

     Moreover, the census could potentially be used as a way to round-up non-citizens and other “undesirables” or “enemies of the state”. I repeat, what do you – the city council – plan to do, if the Trump Administration goes forward with its plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census (whether legally or illegally)?

     Well, I know what you're going to do; You're going to urge cooperation at all times, because to do otherwise would be against the law, and the opposite of what you're supposed to do as elected officials. Which is to urge faith in all public institutions at all times. And you might think that elected officials and police have an obligation to do their jobs, and do as ordered.

     But if your job is to threaten force against people who entered this country illegally but without threatening force themselves, then your job is immoral, and you doing your job conflicts with the public's moral obligation to peacefully resist unjust laws.

     The Waukegan City Council should urge Governor J.B. Pritzker to instruct the Illinois National Guard, and all public police in Illinois, to refrain from cooperating with federal authorities. And that goes for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), and agents of the 2020 census, alike. That's because the vast majority of these agencies' activities (and questions) are unconstitutional.

     Under no circumstances should the Illinois public be urged to cooperate with federal authorities in pursuit of these unconstitutional aims. The governor should immediately issue an order nullifying the federal law which authorized I.C.E.; effectively removing the authority of I.C.E. to operate legally within the boundaries of the State of Illinois. If necessary, Illinois National Guard troops should be mobilized to arrest federal troops or agents, and/or prevent more of them from entering the State of Illinois, if they insist on enforcing unconstitutional federal laws.

7. Local and State Government Must Avoid Betraying the People

     Just as the Waukegan City Council is doing its residents no service to help them find a clean environment or decent careers, it is also doing them no service to recommend that they cooperate with the Trump Administration.

     Even if the administration doesn't use the census to carry out deportations, it's deporting peaceful undocumented immigrants now. I.C.E. is hassling Hispanic-Americans who were born in America now. Seasonal farm workers are being trapped in America at the end of harvest season, and mocked and driven into the shadows for being here illegally (through no fault of their own), now. Immigrants are being funneled away from points of entry where they could easily declare asylum, and instead are forced to trek through dangerous desert, now.

     Whether the Trump Administration's immigration, deportation, and census policies going forward, will be legal and constitutional or not, why should you urge us to cooperate with those “authorities”? Aren't you supposed to protect public safety? The city government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.

     If the police and National Guard of Illinois do not come to the aid of all non-violent residents (not just citizens who pay them) during deportation raids, then neighbors will come together to protect vulnerable residents of Illinois who are in the United States without proper permission.

     And if that happens, then it will be the members of local government – of this city council - who will have urged resident and police cooperation with federal authorities, whom will be remembered as the people who urged cooperation with a blatantly authoritarian regime, and nearly suckered us into becoming fascist collaborators (in turning-in our undocumented neighbors).

     The Waukegan City Council is either against fascism and for its own people, or else it is against its own people and it is enabling the fascist Trump Administration and the companies that are polluting our air and our social culture. Now is the time to choose.

8. Religion in the Public Square

     Finally, I must express my dismay at the fact that these city council meetings begin with a public prayer. Participating in the prayer may be voluntary, but for some 98% of audience members to stand at being urged to pray for the officials here gathered today, should by any reasonable person's standards constitute at least the appearance of government endorsement of religion (even if not some particular religion).

     The people should not be instructed to pray for their legislators. If it is a legislator's job to be concerned with the problems and salvation of the people, then if anything, it's the legislators who should be instructed to pray for the people, not the other way around.

     Residents, look at the way your elected officials are gathered before you. How was Jesus displayed when he was crucified? He was elevated, as a mark of sarcastic reverence towards someone who was said to be a king. Well, your elected officials are elevated in front of you too. Of course, modern legislative chambers and courtrooms are modeled after royal courts; so it should be obvious that this was done intentionally. Under monarchies, kings got their power from God, and everyone below the king (including judges) got their power from the king, who got it from God.

     Fellow citizens, I came to the Waukegan City Council meeting on a Monday evening. I did not come here to pray. I did not come here to watch 98% of you turn this place, intended to promote civic engagement, into a place where we pray for our king as if we were in feudal times, ask the government to answer our prayers, agree to sacrifice our own neighbors for the sake of federal funds and the illusion of civil order, and agree to sacrifice our children's health and safety for the sake of humiliating jobs and depreciating money.

9. Conclusion

     Waukegan City Council: You have no intention of protecting us against fascist federal authorities enforcing unconstitutional deportation orders. You are poisoning your people physically and morally. You are behaving as if the public commons were a church. You are thus a usurpation of God. Everything you are doing is wrong and has no authority, because it comes from neither God nor the people.

     I urge the people to arm themselves, and to resist the census. The federal government has the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not to enforce it, nor to establish any other types of immigration policy; and the federal government has no obligation to collect census data in addition to the number of people.

     Moreover, the governor would be fully within his right to nullify I.C.E., deportation orders, and additional census questions, and in so doing make Illinois a “Sanctuary State” (although I would not recommend that this designation be made in a way that secures Illinois federal funds). Thus, I also urge the people, and the police, to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities enforcing all immigration laws.

     The Waukegan City Council, and Governor J.B. Pritzker, have a decision to make: Whether they are on the side of freedom and the American people, or whether they want government to be a religious cult, in which we may trust nobody to solve our problems, except for the elected officials who happen to be in charge at the moment. And those officials may only attempt to solve those problems by enforcing whatever set of laws happens to be on the books.

     The Waukegan City Council does the youth of this community no service, by ruining their respect for the importance of civic engagement for the remainder of their lives, by blindly urging cooperation with - and trust in – government, even when the officials and laws we are expected to trust have authoritarian and fascist intentions.

     But even if the city council does put a generation of young adults off of the idea that the government deserves to be trusted, then frankly, so be it; it's not such a bad thing after all. Because government doesn't work - more bad untested laws and more violent enforcement don't work – and so, we should not teach young people to trust the government. If we do, then the next thing you know, their baby is missing, and they've been pepper-sprayed in the eyes, injected with toxic chemicals, and handed a wad of cash.

     Until the Waukegan City Council can start offering more than words when criticizing the Trump Administration's desire to implement legislation they know damn well is unconstitutional – if the council could offer condemnation and plans for action – then it could show a generation of young Waukegan residents that America is about not only civic engagement but also freedom and resistance to tyranny, and that the American people stood up to fascism, and will stand up to it again.

Written on July 30^th, 2019

Based on "Public Officials Should Not Appear in Ads for Public Events:
Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019"
(which can be read at the following address:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/taxpayer-funded-local-events-should-not.html)

Edited on August 19th, 2019

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Part-Right on Unemployment

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Multiple Job Holders

3. “The” Unemployment Rate

4. Working Overtime

5. Additional Factors in Employment

Content

1. Introduction

     On July 13^th, 2018, U.S. House Democratic primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) appeared on PBS's program Firing Line, to discuss her campaign with host Margaret Hoover.

     Ocasio-Cortez, a former Bernie Sanders campaign staffer who has been described as a democratic socialist, was criticized for her response to Hoover's question about unemployment. The following is a transcript of that exchange:

            Margaret Hoover:

     In your campaign. It was always about working-class Americans. You talk about the top versus the bottom, not the left versus the right.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

     Right.

MH:
     Now, the economy is going pretty strong, right? There's roughly four percent unemployment, 3.9% unemployment... um... Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans, or is [it] no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?

AOC:
     Well, I- I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right? Because we look at these figures, and we say, “Oh, unemployment is low, everything is fine”, right? Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working sixty, seventy, eighty hours a week, and can barely feed their kids. And so, I do think that we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hyper-capitalism. What that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world. When this country started, we were not a capitalist- we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

     Ocasio-Cortez's comments were quickly criticized by numerous figures in conservative media, including Tomi Lahren and Dan Bongino on Fox. On July 17^th, former Republican congressman turned conservative radio host Joe Walsh tweeted “@Ocasio2018 is proof that just because you have a degree in Economics doesn't mean you actually understand economics.”

     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated from the College of Arts and Sciences of Boston University in 2011, with a bachelor's degree in economics and international relations. Her critics have also pointed out their reasons for suspecting she is as unqualified to speak about international relations as they feel she is about economics, specifically her position on what she called “the occupation of Palestine”.

     Although many news outlets and fact-checking sites were determined to prove her wrong, she did have a point. While her comments on unemployment were not technically correct in the strictest and most literal sense, the way she articulated her position on why unemployment is low is, at the very least, understandable and on the right track.

     That's because, as Harvard economics professor Gabriel Chodorow-Reich says – as quoted in “Ocasio-Cortez Wrong on Cause of Low Unemployment”, written by Corey Berman and Robert Farley, published on FactCheck.org on July 18^th, 2018 - “if she meant 'The unemployment rate is low[,] but that doesn't mean the economy is at its potential[,] because many people don't have a solid job and instead are forced to work two jobs to make ends meet', you could find economists willing to agree or disagree with the statement.”

     I suspect that that's exactly what she meant.

2. Multiple Job Holders

     Ocasio-Cortez's critics say that one reason she is wrong about unemployment, is that the percent of workers who have multiple jobs is near an all-time low.

     That is true; however, that low was achieved in 2013, in the middle of the Obama presidency, and thus, could arguably be attributed to Democratic policies. But on the other hand, that rate increased from 2013 to 2016, and decreased from 2016 to 2017. This rate has ranged between 4.8% to 5% since 2010, and ranged between 5-6% during the previous 25 years before that.

     Ocasio-Cortez never claimed that the number of people working two jobs was at an all-time high. Although it was hyperbole for her to use the word “everyone” to describe who has two jobs, it would be incorrect to say that she claimed that the multiple job holders rate is higher than it has ever been. While she arguably may have appeared to imply that, she did not directly say it.

     Despite the fact that that figure is actually near its all-time low, many people, nevertheless, still do have two or three jobs. George W. Bush said this is possible “only in America”, but it's also only necessary in America.

     One job ought to be enough for people to make ends meet. But a minimum-wage job is not enough to support a small family in a two-bedroom apartment in any state in the nation. And that statistic is not made-up; it's the people who say the minimum wage doesn't support a one-bedroom who are wrong.

     The reason Ocasio-Cortez was not technically correct about the cause of low unemployment rates, is that employed people getting second and third jobs, does not, by itself, increase, nor in any way affect, the unemployment rate.

     But that's because the figure we're talking about is the “proportion of employed persons with more than one job”; that is, the number of total workers, divided by the number of workers with multiple jobs. That statistic is not based on the relationship between the number of multiple job holders and the number of unemployed people.

     That's why the unemployment rate does not change when a job goes to a person who is already employed, instead of someone who is non-employed, who arguably needs the work more badly than the already employed person.

     Focusing on the multiple job rate instead of unemployment, blinds us to the fact that unemployment can stay about the same, even while the number of jobs rises, which is largely attributable to people getting a second job, and having both jobs' hours fall to 25 to 30 hours a week each.

     The last thing I want to do is to pit unemployed people against employed people who are struggling to balance two jobs. But the truth is that people who take-on a second job are “taking jobs” from unemployed people who actually need those jobs.

     This is a struggle related to the ease of obtaining employment, yet changes in the number of people with two or more jobs does not affect the unemployment rate the way it is currently measured. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rightfully drew attention to that fact, when she said “ I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem”. The way we measure unemployment does not in any way give us a clear picture of the general woes the people are experiencing as it pertains to obtaining employment opportunities.

3. “The” Unemployment Rate

     As Margaret Hoover noted that the unemployment has been hovering between 3.8% and 4.1% lately, Ocasio-Cortez's detractors have noted that as well. Some conservative commentators have described this as an all-time low, and some have even credited President Trump for this supposed achievement.

     The idea that the U.S. is currently experiencing all-time low unemployment rates is false. Around the year 1970, the unemployment rate hovered around 3.5%, which is lower than it is now. Since the unemployment rate's history began in 1948, the lowest unemployment rate ever measured was 2.5%, in 1953.

     Additionally, the decline in unemployment numbers began long before Trump took office, near the beginning of the Obama administration.

     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was correct when she implied that the decline in the unemployment rate has to do with the way they're measuring it.

     You see, when people say "the unemployment rate", that's a misnomer, because there really is no single way that the U.S. government measures unemployment. But what is almost always meant by "the unemployment rate" is the so-called "official unemployment rate"; a measurement called "U3". According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the "Current U3 Unemployment Rate" is defined as the total number of unemployed people, as a percent of the civilian labor force.

     The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment in a variety of ways; known as U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, and U6. There have been conflicts between presidents, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about how to measure unemployment, and these different ways of measuring unemployment reflect some of those differences of opinion.

     The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines U6 as “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force”.

     Using U3 instead of U6 is basically a way to “fudge the numbers” on unemployment, resulting in a lower “official” unemployment rate than the “real unemployment" rate (U6). And U6, itself, represents a number of workers that's about half as much as the total number of people who are out of the work force and could potentially be employed (we might call this the "real real unemployment rate").

     The U3 unemployment rate excludes a lot of people who aren't technically “unemployed” in the sense that they have filed for, and collect, unemployment benefits from the government, and are currently searching for work, and have not yet become discouraged enough to stop looking. Such people are “non-employed”, but they are not “unemployed”. People who are between jobs, and think they'll find a job soon, and never file for unemployment, fall in this class, and so do college students who do not work due to having support from their parents.

     The U3 excludes not only non-employed people, but 1) underemployed people; 2) structurally unemployed people (whose industries or professions are uncertain or struggling due to long-term changes in the economy); 3) seasonally unemployed people; and 4) “non-attached workers” who work on-and-off, and also couch surfers who lack a permanent residence, some of whom might work in the gig economy; as well as homeless people who cannot file for unemployment benefits because they have no permanent residence.

     The U6 unemployment rate is about 90% higher than the U3 unemployment rate. If you factor-in everyone I mentioned in the last two paragraphs, then the real unemployment rate might be four times higher than the stated unemployment rate of 3.8% - that is, 15-16% - if not more than that. In fact, to prove that Donald Trump is wrong that unemployment is low, I'm going to cite one of his harshest critics, Donald Trump. In an August 2015 interview for Time Magazine, Trump told Pete Schroeder that he doubted the official unemployment rate, saying “our real unemployment rate is 42 percent” because “ninety-three million” people “aren't working”.

     In summary, we're measuring unemployment the wrong way, and the official unemployment rate (U3) is not the best way to measure the general economic woes of the country as it pertains to obtaining quality employment. Again, that's because U3 includes neither the non-employed, the structurally unemployed, the seasonally unemployed, non-attached workers, the underemployed, nor the homeless.

4. Working Overtime

     Ocasio-Cortez's critics also took issue with her claims that “people are working sixty, seventy, eighty hours a week”. Again, at no point did she claim that the number of people who work long hours is at or near an all-time high. Whether her critics have alleged she said that or not, her critics are not wrong to point out that the average number of hours worked per week is near its all-time low.

     That is correct; however, the Obama presidency saw an overall rise in the average number of weekly hours worked. Under Obama, that number did not quite rise to the numbers seen under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. For the past twenty years, the average number of hours worked, has ranged between 34.25 and 34.5 hours, with a brief but significant dip to 34 hours in 2009.

     Average weekly hours worked is near its all-time low, but nevertheless, it is true that many people still do work sixty hours per week or more. I work as a private security guard, and I do know people who work such long hours like that. The fact that historically few people work long hours, should not distract from the fact that there are many individual human beings who are working long hours; just like the fact that historically few people work multiple jobs, should not distract from the fact that there are many individuals who are working multiple jobs.

     It is certainly a good thing that many people work less than forty hours a week, and the facts show that a 34-hour week is not only possible but the norm. Weekly hours worked could be much lower, especially if we utilize technology to its full potential and allow automation to flourish. Nearly 250 years ago, Benjamin Franklin predicted that a 20-hour work week would soon be possible, and Franklin D. Roosevelt declined to sign a bill that would have established a 30-hour work week about 85 years ago.

     Another thing to consider is that low average weekly hours worked, might not even be desirable, especially if it is caused by policies that incentivize people to work fewer hours than they want to. Examples of these policies include: 1) laws limiting the number of consecutive days which may be worked (which can negatively impact farm laborers); and 2) Obamacare's exemption of “part-time workers” (defined as people who work less than 30 hours a week), a policy which arguably gave employers an incentive to cut employees' hours in order to avoid being legally required to provide them with health insurance.

5. Additional Factors in Employment

     Here are some additional factors which indicate the general prospects of the American people as it pertains to obtaining employment, which do not directly relate to unemployment, but which affect non-employment nevertheless.

     First, fewer people on unemployment benefits might simply mean that people have stopped looking for work, and have declined to file for unemployment benefits.

     Second, lower unemployment numbers could also mean that more people have given up trying to become self-employed, given up trying to start their own businesses, and given up trying to make money through investments. In general, that they given up looking for other ways to get by without selling their labor to an employer (which arguably indicates desperation to find a job; desperation to prostitute themselves to potential employers by giving up rights to organize on the job, rights to full pay, etc.).

     Third, even if it were true that the economy is fine, and that the low unemployment rate reflects that, then more people having jobs is still not necessarily a good thing. Remember, a lot of the jobs people are getting, are jobs in industries that were given multi-trillion dollar bailouts just a decade ago. The jobs might be in industries which are being favored and privileged and bailed-out by the Trump Administration.

     The jobs might be in industries which are destroying our environment for profit. Maybe some of those jobs aren't all they're cracked up to be. The employees at the job in question might be overworked. The employees might be working multiple jobs, or might hope for full hours or raises, so that they can avoid taking on a second job. The workplaces might have safety and health hazards. Not every job is respectable; not every job saves lives; and not every job and industry should be subsidized, protected, and bailed-out by taxpayers.

     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not “mad because people have jobs”, nor mad because low unemployment numbers are accurate and prove her wrong. She is “mad” (read: heartbroken) because when someone who already has a job takes a job that somebody else needs, it doesn't change the unemployment rate. Similarly, when someone who needs Food Stamps loses them because the government throws them off, it's counted as a success, as though they stopped needing Food Stamps and got off the S.N.A.P. program voluntarily. And that affects people's ability to feed themselves and their children.

     There are many people, who struggle to feed their families, whether they are working or not, and whether they are on government assistance or not. Some people are on government assistance even though they have jobs; not always because they're lazy and greedy, but often because their job doesn't pay them what they need to subsist. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the spotlight now because the electorate is ready to hear from a candidate who considers these issues to be serious problems, even if these problems are not as bad as they have ever been.

President Donald J. Trump,

explaining why unemployment and the economy are doing just fine

Sources

http://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/

http://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ocasio-cortez-wrong-on-cause-of-low-unemployment/

http://slate.com/business/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-gaffe-about-the-unemployment-rate-and-working-two-jobs-is-no-big-deal.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/08/20/donald_trump_says_the_real_unemployment_rate_is_42_it_s_not.html

http://ritholtz.com/2012/10/u3-versus-u6/

Visit the Following Links to Read My Previous Articles on Unemployment

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/taxes-and-unemployment.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/inflation-adjusted-minimum-wage-vs.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/inflation-adjusted-minimum-wage-vs.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/02/reflection-upon-use-of-forced-labor.html

Written on July 4^th, 20^th, 26^th, and 27^th, and August 1^st through 4^th, and 6^th, 2018

Originally Published on August 6th, 2018

Table of Contents and Aquarian Agrarian Links Added on August 8th, 2018