Last Updated: September 01, 2026
← Just want the overview? Read the We The People Summary.

The Economic Opportunity and Fairness Act

Constitutional Authority

Article I, Section 8 (Commerce Clause — interstate labor markets, the well-settled basis for the Fair Labor Standards Act since United States v. Darby (1941)); Article I, Section 8 (Spending Clause — federal funding of state-administered Job Guarantee programs, well-established under South Dakota v. Dole (1987)); Article I, Section 8 (general welfare clause supporting the Federal Job Guarantee and Paid Family Leave appropriations); PRO Act provisions sit on settled NLRA territory (Wagner Act of 1935, Taft-Hartley of 1947, all upheld under the Commerce Clause). The Localized Living Wage is constitutionally identical to the existing federal minimum wage with a formula adjustment — no constitutional novelty required. Paid Family Leave is structured as a Social Security extension (FICA-style payroll funded) consistent with Helvering v. Davis (1937). The Federal Job Guarantee is structured as a federally-funded, state-administered program in the mold of unemployment insurance and Medicaid, both of which have decades of Spending Clause precedent.

Rationale

The American labor market is broken in ways that are not natural features of market economies — they are structural failures produced by decades of policy choices. The federal minimum wage has not kept pace with productivity for 50 years; if it had, it would be at roughly $25 today. Workers without four-year degrees have seen wages stagnate while corporate profits and executive compensation have grown to multiples of mid-century norms. Unemployment is artificially used as a tool of macroeconomic management — the Federal Reserve deliberately maintains a “non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment” that consigns millions of Americans to involuntary joblessness as a structural feature of the economy. This Act addresses each of those failures directly: the Localized Living Wage restores the wage floor to the level that productivity gains alone would have produced; the PRO Act restores the structural balance between labor and capital that made broad-based postwar prosperity possible; the Federal Job Guarantee removes unemployment as a disciplining tool and replaces it with the dignity of guaranteed work for any American who wants it; Paid Family Leave catches the United States up with every other developed democracy. This is not “Left vs. Right” — it is “Working vs. Broken.” A labor market that systematically denies dignity and security to the people who do the work is broken. This Act fixes it.

Federal Job Guarantee: Implementation Framework

The Federal Job Guarantee is the cornerstone of the Economic Opportunity and Fairness Act, ensuring that every American who wants to work can find dignified employment at a living wage. This section provides operational details for implementing this transformative program.

Program Scope and Eligibility

Eligibility Criteria:

Wage and Benefits:

Exclusions and Limitations:

Job Types and Work Categories

The program will focus on socially valuable work that is chronically underfunded and addresses real community needs:

1. Infrastructure and Climate Resilience ($100-200B annual allocation)

2. Care Work and Social Services ($100-150B annual allocation)

3. Education and Youth Services ($50-100B annual allocation)

4. Environmental Conservation ($40-80B annual allocation)

5. Arts, Culture, and Community Development ($20-40B annual allocation)

6. Administrative and Support Services ($20-40B annual allocation)

Administration and Governance

Federal Structure Option:

Federal-State Partnership Option:

Hybrid Model (Recommended):

Staffing Requirements:

Cost Analysis and Fiscal Impact

Baseline Scenario (5 million enrollees):

High-Enrollment Scenario (10 million enrollees):

Counter-Cyclical Nature — the built-in de-escalation:

The Job Guarantee is government participation in the labour market, and under Regulatory Philosophy §5 that requires a stated exit condition. Its exit condition is structural rather than legislated: enrolment falls automatically as private demand for labour rises, so the program shrinks precisely when it is least needed and no threshold has to be argued about. At full employment it approaches a residual. This is a genuine de-escalation mechanic, not an exemption from the requirement — but note what it does not do: it never reaches zero, because the standing wage floor is the point. Like the public health option, it recedes to a floor and stays there.

Offset by Savings and Secondary Effects:

Net Cost:

Cost Relative to GDP:

Private Sector Displacement Concerns and Mitigation

Legitimate Concerns:

Mitigation Strategies:

1. Wage Floor, Not Wage Ceiling:

2. Job Design to Complement Private Sector:

3. Transition Support:

4. Structural Regional Adjustments (The Localized Living Wage):

5. Employer Response:

The Incentive Problem and Productivity Guardrails

A guaranteed public job at a living wage is a powerful tool, and powerful tools fail in predictable ways if their designers ignore human nature. Two risks have to be confronted directly rather than waved away.

Risk 1 — Draining labor from difficult private work. If a guaranteed job is easier, safer, or more pleasant than the hard or unpleasant jobs the private economy genuinely needs done, workers will rationally choose the guarantee, and essential private work goes undone or its wages spike. This is not a reason to abandon the guarantee — it is a design constraint. The program is deliberately a wage floor, not a wage ceiling: it sets the baseline of pay and conditions a private employer must beat, but it does not try to out-compete the private sector on desirability. Job assignments are concentrated in work the private market chronically underfunds (care, conservation, public infrastructure), not work it is already doing. This calibration is the Private Sector Premium: the program is set so that private-sector employment always offers a premium in wages or benefits, keeping the guarantee a safety net rather than a competitor that drains essential private-sector labor.

Risk 2 — A stagnant “make-work” bureaucracy. A job that cannot be lost and produces nothing real decays into exactly the kind of unaccountable bureaucracy this framework exists to fight. The guarantee is therefore bound by enforceable guardrails:

Why a Job Guarantee rather than pure cash (UBI/EITC)? We considered the leading alternatives and reject the false choice between them.

The Job Guarantee is chosen because it preserves the contribution-for-reward link (you work, you earn), supplies a job to the person the market has left out, and — paired with an expanded EITC for those in private work — covers both gaps without resorting to an unconditional payment that ignores how incentives actually function.

Implementation Timeline and Pilot Strategy

Phase 1: Pilot Program (Year 1)

Pilot Site Selection Criteria:

Phase 2: Regional Expansion (Years 2-3)

Phase 3: National Rollout (Years 4-5)

Success Metrics and Evaluation

Participant-Level Outcomes:

Community-Level Outcomes:

Economic Impact:

Fiscal Outcomes:

Political Strategy and Coalition Building

Core Supporters:

Skeptics to Persuade:

Communications Strategy:

Have Suggestions or Feedback?

We welcome your input on this policy framework. Your insights help make The Rational Foundation Plan stronger.

Send Feedback
This page is part of The Rational Foundation Plan: A Mandate for Economic and Political Justice