Written April 2021

Introduction

In this paper I will offer an analysis of The Green New Deal, a bill introduced in 2019 by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other congressional colleagues. I will specifically focus on the possibilities for Federal employment programs that operate within the goals set forth in the Green New Deal. Drawing on New Deal programs such as the WPA and CCC along with contemporary analysis of what a job guarantee program could look like in the 21^st century, I will offer policy recommendations that uphold the core tenants of the Green New Deal while expanding employment to anyone who needs it.

The Green New Deal

The purpose of the Green New Deal is to recognize the Federal government’s obligation to provide all people in the United States with high quality healthcare, affordable and safe housing, economic security, access to clean water, air and nature, and access to affordable and healthy food. It does not create specific policy, but rather creates a guidebook for future green initiatives. The bill explains the dangers of climate change around the world, especially focusing on economic repercussions and impacts on vulnerable communities in the United States. These crises include lower life expectancy, lack of accessibility to basic needs such as water and healthy food, exposure to deadly heat stress, loss of economic output, and damage to infrastructure and coastal real estate. It specifically names the United States as a major contributor to global climate change and says the U.S. government has the responsibility to make amends through “economic transformation.” The Green New Deal broadens the scope of climate change, moving beyond strictly environmental impacts by connecting it to anti-worker policy, massive economic inequality, and the perpetuation of systemic injustice.

The bill outlines a ten year “Green New Deal Mobilization” that will build on the foundations of the bill. Briefly, this list includes:

• Fund community-driven actions to build resiliency against climate disasters;
• Improve infrastructure to identify and eliminate pollution, guarantee access to clean water, and protect against environmental impacts of climate change;
• Expanding green power sources to provide 100% of renewable power to the U.S.in an affordable way;
• Reenforce and construct buildings to be energy efficient and safe;
• Switch to clean manufacturing and eliminate emissions as much as possible;
• Uplift sustainable family farming and universal access to healthy food;
• Eliminate pollution in transportation systems by investment in zero-emission cars, accessible and sustainable public transit, and high-speed rail;
• Restore natural ecosystems to remove greenhouses gasses from the atmosphere;
• Promote international exchange of green technology and ideas.³

These goals present ample opportunity to create a thriving Federal employment program in a way that would alleviate poverty, expand access to good and affordable food, water, and transit, expand green technology, and mitigate the impacts of climate disaster on communities. The bill goes on to propose fourteen goals and projects to achieve the mobilization plan, including many labor protections. In the coming pages, I will discuss the history of Federal employment in the U.S., explore theories of full employment, and conclude with ways that a Federal job guarantee program could benefit the country.

The Original New Deal & Its Limitations

The original New Deal was a program designed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression with the purpose of stabilizing a turbulent American economy. There were many initiatives developed under the New Deal, but I will specifically focus on the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps because they directly employed Americans on the Federal level.

In 1933, FDR established the Civilian Conservation Corps (originally the Emergency Conservation Work program) via executive order. Within the first four months of the program 250,000 unemployed men aged 18-25 were enrolled. The purpose of the program was to provide employment while improving the natural environment and public infrastructure. Projects ranged anywhere from wildfire protection to infrastructure improvement, but the focus was on conserving wildlife and forests. Participants were paid a monthly wage of $30, with $25 sent home to family or stored in savings until the end of their term. Aside from wages, workers benefitted from consistent meals, many earning high school degrees, learning new employable skills, and providing for family back home. Communities where the camps were located were initially hesitant, but ultimately benefitted from local CCC projects and stimulated economies. Additionally, CCC groups were deployed to areas after a natural disaster to aid the community in recovery and restructuring.⁴

Camps provided a doctor, an educational advisor, and army officers. They also hired “Local Experienced Men” to guide projects by training laborers or offering local insight. As far as eligibility, participants were 17–28 year-old men who had been unemployed for six or more months. Racial discrimination was technically banned, but in Southern camps Black and white workers were segregated. 14,000 Indigenous people were employed and mostly assigned to reservation soil erosion projects.⁴

One of the advantages of the CCC administration is the lack of means testing to decide eligibility. Six months of unemployment was the only prerequisite for men; however women were not included. Hiring “Local Experienced Men” allows for a level of community involvement, compensating locals for their expertise. Sending money back to the families of CCC workers brought financial support, however the wages were critiqued by labor advocates as insufficient. The possibilities of receiving education and learning new skills were helpful to workers beyond their time in the CCC. Local communities benefitted from the work done to improve the environmental conditions of the area as well as critical support during emergencies.⁴

The Works Progress Administration (1935-1943) was also created via executive order in May of 1935 to employ impoverished workers on Federal works projects. Over the WPA’s eight years of operation, 8.5 million people were employed and a total of $8,990,597,000 in wages were paid.¹ The WPA was versatile, offering opportunities in construction and engineering, service work, and the arts.

Eligibility for WPA employment was severely limited. Workers applied through local welfare offices and needed to display “need” to be accepted. Congress did not define what need is, so localities ultimately decided eligibility based on means testing. One person per family was permitted to the program, and upon acceptance they were required to relinquish social security benefits. Legally, discrimination based on race, religion, political ideology, or union activity was banned. However, white workers constituted an overwhelming percentage of those employed by the WPA in comparison to Black workers. Initially WPA employees would be reassigned after finishing a project, but later limitations put an eighteen-month maximum on all workers. Wages, work hours and eligibility were defined by Congress and the WPA heard complaints and grievances from employees. Though the WPA did not recognize any unions, The Workers Alliance acted as the agency’s unofficial union with 260,000 members by helping workers bring complaints to the administration. Wages were determined based on skill level and location of the project, with the lowest “unskilled” wages ranging between $19 and $55, and the highest “professional and technical” wages ranging from $39 to $94.¹

These restrictions had measurable impacts. In the Final Report on the WPA it is estimated that between 500,000 and 1.3 million eligible people were not employed by the WPA, and only 40 percent of the nation’s total unemployed population found work under the program. In 1940, women constituted 12-18 percent of WPA employees which rose to 41 percent by 1942. At its height, Black employment in the WPA reached nearly 20 percent, 12.5 percent men and only 7.5 percent Black women. Despite the disproportionate impact of the Great Depression on Black Americans, their representation in the WPA never rose above 20 percent.¹ This reveals an underlying inequality that is unaddressed in the Final WPA report. It is likely an effect of racist attitudes from those determining eligibility, the criminalization of Black people (those in penal institutions were ineligible for employment) and other factors that disenfranchised Black people from fully participating in public welfare programs. Additionally, the only races accounted for in the report are white, Black, and “other.” Any future Federal jobs program must account for systemic inequality and ensure that marginalized people are adequately represented.

Projects undertaken by the WPA included construction and engineering, conservation work, emergency response, service work, arts programs, and welfare projects. These programs supported different aspects of the workforce and the country’s needs. Construction projects made huge strides in the quality public infrastructure and public space. Over the course of the WPA’s operation, workers built 8,000 parks, 500 water treatment plants which brought clean water to previously neglected rural areas, built 500 schools and renovated 31,000 more, built or renovated 1,000 libraries, built 226 hospitals and renovated 2,170 more. They constructed or improved 572,000 miles of rural roads to link isolated farms with markets and other opportunities. 72,000 new bridges and viaducts were constructed along with 1,000 new tunnels. Airport projects were another major area of improvement: 1,200 new airport buildings were constructed (including LaGuardia Airport), 2,800 were improved, and 5,925,000 feet of runways were constructed or improved.¹

Conservation work was another largely influential project that addressed water conservation, mine sealing, and erosion control. Workers built dams to bring consistent water supply to underserved areas and constructed lakes for public recreational use. Some plans had adverse effects, as some of the dams stopped water from reaching other localities. 177 million trees were planted in Federal forests, and workers undertook extensive projects to protect against wildfires and invasive species. Another environmental project undertaken by the WPA is the emergency response program, where workers responded to floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, and other natural disasters.¹ WPA workers were usually the first emergency responders deployed during its operation. Similar conservation projects would be helpful today in protecting our increasingly turbulent environment.

Service projects provided resources and workers to local libraries, nurseries, adult education, recreation, museums, and the arts. This was enriching for the communities receiving direct investment by the Federal government as well as workers who were employed in specialized and rewarding fields. Theatre, art, music, and writing were also funded through the WPA by commissioning and employing local artists. This brought employment to artists, created art for public access, published guidebooks for each state, and took theatre to a public audience. This is only a brief overview of the WPA. The breadth of WPA projects is extensive and compelling. Like all history it presents lessons that we can implement or learn from in the present.

New Horizons and Potential Struggles

 In the closing of this paper, I will discuss the benefits of a full employment program as explained by Nersisyan and Wray (2013), then explore different ways it could promote Green New Deal policies. As Nersisyan and Wray (2013) lay out, a full employment program would offer jobs to any person that wants one. It would offer community-based work to individuals that includes training, good pay and benefits, and the ability for employees to unionize. This would build a more skilled workforce that private employers can hire from. Additionally, by setting a standard wage and benefits package, private employers would be pressured to match what is offered by the Federal jobs program.² There should be no qualification restrictions aside from those under 18 and no time limits on how long someone can keep employment. These measures can begin to alleviate poverty as it is related to involuntary unemployment, however welfare spending on social services beyond guaranteed employment is also required. Many people are unable to work due to disability, family obligation, or age. For those who cannot participate in the jobs program, we must have a robust social safety net and ample resources.

 Within the frame of the Green New Deal there are many places where a full employment program could be largely influential. Workers can be assigned to projects dedicated to climate stability such as green technology, access to water, restoring devastated ecosystems, and adapting infrastructure to meet increasing environmental catastrophe. A growth in the Federal workforce would allow us to make major progress in infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail, public transit, and renovating public buildings. Conservation and environmental projects like restoring green spaces in urban landscapes and preserving nature across the U.S. or responding to natural disasters are instrumental in both preventing and preparing for climate change. Service and arts projects can benefit communities by expanding public access to childcare and in-home care, arts education and appreciation, as well as enhancing the quality of public libraries and museums.

A Federal jobs guarantee would provide individuals with training and valuable skillsets that they can utilize in future employment and build a skilled workforce that can contribute to green futures. By training workers in green technology, investing in research and existing projects, we will expand our capacity to move toward zero-emissions. In a larger sense, this will mitigate the impacts of climate change and offer hope for the future of our planet.

References

• ¹ Final Report on the WPA Program (1935-1943). Library of Congress.
• ² Nersisyan, Yeva and L. Randall Wray. (2013). “Universal Job Guarantee Program: Toward True Full Employment” from The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st Century. ABC-CLIO, CA.
• ³ Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. (2019) House of Representatives, 116TH Congress.
• ⁴ Spuelda, Lou Ann and Rhoda Owen Lewis. (2003). “History of the CCC and WPA and other Depression-Era Programs” from Region 6: Historical and Architectural Assessment of the Depression Era Work Projects.