Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved. Real Progressives
Powered by Modern Monetary Theory
Episode 2 – Pavlina Tcherneva on MMT, Feminism, Intersectionality & Momentum
Show Notes
Transcript
Extras
Download
In this episode of Macro n Cheese, Pavlina Tcherneva of Bard College, the Levy Economics Institute, and the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability (CFEPS) joins Steve Grumbine to talk about the prominent role of women in developing and promoting Modern Monetary Theory. As one of the leading architects of what is known as the Federal Job Guarantee, she explains how redefining work will liberate families as well as the marginalized.
Special Thanks to Geoffrey Ginter for the excellent intro song! And of course special thanks to our guest Pavlina Tcherneva, the donors of Real Progressives and our excellent staff of volunteers.
Macro N Cheese – Episode 2
Pavlina Tcherneva on MMT, Feminism, Intersectionality & Momentum
February 9, 2019
Pavlina Tcherneva [intro/music] (00:04):
When you design a job guarantee, what kind of jobs are you going to create? Are you still going to use the old ideas of what’s considered women’s work? Are we going to really work hard to eliminate the sex segregation in the workplace? I have been enormously impressed by how many people from different walks of life have gravitated to MMT. And the reason, I believe, is because it really offers hope.
Geoff Ginter [intro/music] (01:28):
Now let’s see if we can avoid the apocalypse altogether. Here’s another episode of Macro N Cheese, with your host, Steve Grumbine.
Grumbine (01:34):
All right. This is Steve with Macro N Cheese, Real Progressives, and I am excited to have Pavlina Tcherneva join me today. We are at the Second World Modern Monetary Theory Conference, and she was kind enough to join me. Welcome.
Tcherneva (01:49):
Thank you. Good to be with you.
Grumbine (01:50):
So we’ve talked to a lot of different people and you’ve been on our show on Real Progressives for live streaming. This is a real joy, but what I want to talk to you in particular about – it’s not the mechanics. or anything like that about Modern Monetary Theory .
I want to talk to you about the intersectionality of the MMT community in particular, the leadership women are playing across the globe, not just in the United States, but around the world. Today I was able, not just today, but this entire weekend women were on display that were visible, leading, speaking, taking a direct role in presenting this material that I feel is absolutely critical to ever achieving any kind of mass acceptance.
Can you talk a little bit about what it’s like, not only being a woman in a male-dominated profession, but put the role women have played in terms of crafting some of the language and some of the efforts in the Modern Monetary Theory school of thought?
Tcherneva (02:51):
Sure, thanks! Yes, it definitely is a unusual experience for me. Early in my career, most of the panels that I was on were more male-dominated – that’s the nature of the profession. There is, eh, something that doesn’t permit women to participate in sort of the higher levels of the profession.
Though they major in large numbers in economics, somewhere along their professional life, they fall through the cracks. And some of it has to do with the nature of the academic profession, and sort of the tax on women and parents and caregivers in terms of how successful they can be with publishing, et cetera.
But the reason why MMT is different, I feel, I think, is because MMT as a lens, as a movement, as an economic theory, as an understanding of the world, is a not just multidisciplinary approach, but it’s as an approach that is inclusive of all people of all walks of life. The bottom line is what we’re trying to do is understand the economy so we can elevate the voices of those who are invisible.
Those who might not be, you know, that might be in the home – those who have been marginalized or whether they’re women, people of color, the incarcerated – we offer, kind of, solutions for the public good. And for those who have sort of the forgotten, if you will.
And I think in this sense, the movement is also a lot more inclusive and in that way that we have, you know, people coming in from all walks of life that find it compelling. My particular role as a woman, I think is just to be an example to other women that want to be involved, that, you know, when my students in the classroom see me, they see what they can do with economics, where they can go.
I haven’t thought of myself as a female economist. You know, it’s not an economist that is interested in various issues, but I do understand the importance of being an example and sort of showing some sort of possibilities to my students in being involved at higher levels of policy or whatever.
And the other aspect is that since a lot of my work is on the Job Guarantee, I have been fortunate firsthand to see how empowering it has been to women, the program itself, just by studying cases like that in Argentina. And, uh, seeing how we acknowledge the invisible work of caregivers, primarily done by women, how women become empowered, how they gain a lot more bargaining power within the household and outside.
And so when we understand the world, we don’t just look at individuals or people, but we also look at where they belong, you know, which kind of category, if you will – a social strata they might belong, and what are the particular challenges they may face?
And I think that in that sense, the MMT movement is paying attention to, you know, women as – again, people of color, the marginalized. And so, we can’t speak for them if you don’t bring those voices on the table.
Grumbine (06:15):
That’s incredible. And, you know, as a cis white male in, you know, in a political economy, if you will, a political environment, that is seeking to elevate marginalized voices, one of the things that’s incredibly empowering, I hope other men realize how empowering it is to be surrounded by strong women that are willing to take the fight with them.
They’re there, they’re leading the charge, they’re in the trenches with them. And, and for me, I find it to be incredibly important because, you know, as much as we may be dominating as a, you know, in a generalized sense as white men, traditionally, the power structure going back as far as time can count, you know, in this society, we’re seeing all sorts of people marginalized.
People that were previously in power are seeing their means, uh, diminished. We’re seeing their lives become harder. People are working multiple jobs. People are struggling, families are falling apart, et cetera.
And, you know, when I see someone like yourself present something empowering like a Job Guarantee that provides people options – options that allow them to make better decisions in their own life. To me, I think that that is an incredibly empowering thing for men and women, especially when the voice is not the same tired voice that has always been on the scene.
Tcherneva (07:40):
Well, let me maybe offer a historical perspective. You know, when you think of the women’s movement – 60s, 70s and onward, and the entrance of women in the labor market – you know, there was a very significant increase in labor force participation during that time. It was really done in one way or another under the force of economic change.
Previously, and I think we’ve discussed this on your show earlier, paid work was the male domain. This is a very industrial sort of concept where women, unlike sort of pre-industrial world where men, men, and women work together on the farm, women were pushed increasingly into the sphere of the household.
And so suddenly women started getting into the labor force in the sixties and seventies, but not because we had, you know, we had the women’s movement, but it’s – it wasn’t exclusively because we started reconceptualizing the role of women. But because there was economic insecurity – because men started losing their so-called family wages.
They couldn’t really support the family on a single breadwinner income. And thus that opened the door for women to come into the labor market and participate as a second breadwinner. Well, we would like – we would like people be able to participate in the economy on the right terms, not because of economic insecurity, but because we have guaranteed some basic economic rights and we’ve guaranteed them in a way that they are socially just.
We had a discussion about when you design a job guarantee, what kind of jobs are you going to create? Are you still going to use the old ideas of what’s considered woman’s work? Or, are we going to really work hard to eliminate the sex segregation in the workplace? And then begin talking about work and opportunity in completely different ways and not such gendered ways.
We say, okay, here’s work. Here’s good, remunerative, decent work, open to all – here’s work that can be performed by men and women. And it’s guaranteed at a living wage. That helps change the conversation within the household too. And we see some of these things happening as well.
We do see that there are men, male caregivers, that stay at home or don’t have employment opportunities that they suffer the same kind of stigma that other caregivers, women have suffered in the past. “Oh, he’s, he isn’t working” – as if taking care of children is not work. So what the job guarantee does is it changes completely the terms of the conversation.
We say, we’re going to provide employment opportunities for all. They will be parent-friendly opportunities, and then we will provide – then that changes the conversation within the household. Who chooses to stay, who chooses to go to work, who wants to have the part-time hours and the full-time hours?
The way that that conversation happens currently is completely different because there are fewer choices. And, uh, you, you can’t really negotiate these. If the man is still making the higher paying – has the higher paying job – it is often the woman that will pick up and go wherever the job may be.
But imagine if they were economic opportunities in the community for both. Then we don’t have to make these – these sort of choices under terms of duress essentially.
Intermission (11:12):
You are listening to Macro N Cheese, a podcast brought to you by Real Progressives, a nonprofit organization dedicated to teaching the masses about MMT or Modern Monetary Theory. Please help our efforts and become a monthly donor at PayPal or Patreon and follow our pages on Facebook and YouTube and follow us on Periscope, Twitter, and Instagram.
Grumbine (12:02):
So, talk to me a little bit about the power dynamic that we’re experiencing. I mean, there’s obviously a shift, the bringing about, a job guarantee brings about a shift, but we’ve been living under patriarchy for an awful long time. And, you know, as a divorced father, you know, I, I see the negative results of patriarchy.
I think patriarchy hurts everyone. It doesn’t just hurt women. It hurts the men too. They just sometimes blind to the ill effects of it on themselves, and they fight to keep it. Can you talk about the shift in power and shift in that dynamic that is occurring in society today?
Tcherneva (13:10):
Well, I mean, there’s, they’re a cultural phenomenon. They’re a, there’s a new awareness, whereas sort of entering a, I think a new phase that’s been – you know, it’s, it’s been a long historical process and we’re just sort of reaching a new stage of conversation about what it means for women not just to participate in the, in the workplace, but, you know, talk about sexual harassment about, uh, various forms of discrimination.
You know, we we’re pushing the conversation forward. You know, it used to be, Oh, should women work? Now it’s not the question whether should women work. You know, what are the terms on which they work? And so, again, I come back to this idea that the power relationship is structured currently on the basis of economic insecurity and distress.
Think about the war. You know, when we had a fully employed economy, husbands went, fight the war, women went into the factory and nobody talked about, Oh, you know, manufacturing work is not, you know, is the male domain. We immediately shifted our cultural norms to accommodate a different paradigm, right.
But then, you know, the men returned from war and women were fired and we failed to secure a vibrant, fully employed economy for civilian purposes. So you can use the historical example of how you erode, like, norms of patriarchy when you have to fight a war; but we haven’t, for some reason, found the solution for peacetime purposes.
And I think that transforms all aspects of life. It’s not just, you know, how patriarchy is also manifested in a different way, the way that the labor market is structured. And the way of course the household production is structured.
But if you eliminate the threat of unemployment, what would be the power relationships there? They will certainly, they will certainly change and they will change, especially for those who are most vulnerable.
Those at the bottom of the income distribution, that happen to be women and people of color, they’re the ones that need probably the greatest improvements in their bargaining bargaining power. And, uh, I think that this is not an immediately obvious way of eroding patriarchal norms, but the job guarantee has this kind of powerful, you know, impact on, on culture as well.
Grumbine (15:04):
Well, it eliminates destitution. It really does. Let me ask you, we talked a lot about the job guarantee as – as a very, very good starting point for eliminating a lot of the ill effects of neoliberalism, but there are a great many things that modern monetary theorists have been pushing forward that would really, really change the dynamic of the family, change the dynamic of the need for work.
Not that we would ever not need work, but the change of the requirement for work. And you all put forward some stuff about getting rid of student debt altogether. I think this is another dynamic. As people enter into family life, they leave college, they’re strapped with a mortgage worth of debt on their back.
Debt makes them make very different decisions as well. How does that impact both the power dynamic that we’re speaking of in terms of the job guarantee, because more and more women are getting educated more and more women are moving into roles and, and feeling empowered to, to have a voice. What do you think eliminating student debt would do to that power dynamic as well?
Tcherneva (16:09):
Well, look, I mean, um, if you recall sort of the last 10 years of how student debt has exploded – do you remember the program, you know, moms go back to work or to school, right? I mean, in some way it was, it wasn’t a policy to empower moms, right, to empower women in the labor market. It was like an unemployment insurance policy.
We can’t figure out to grow the economy and create full employment, so let’s just give them loans to go back to school, to retrain for jobs that don’t ever come. So the explosion of student debt is so drastic and it is across the board. I haven’t looked at those specific numbers to see who bears the brunt, but we know that it is basically a widespread phenomenon.
And so families are coming out of this era burdened by debt. So they were able to sustain their families and pay for their children with their tuition money, you know, with those, with those grants – that is a very perverse economic policy of economic stabilization.
And then families come out and then you have to see who gets the jobs. So the recession was termed “man session” because there was a bigger drop in, uh, employment, uh, among men. But the recovery, uh, was much faster for men than it was for women. And so then you got to look at, is the recovery producing the income to allow the family to repay this enormous debt?
And we know that that’s not true. We know that real incomes for at least the bottom 99% of households, real incomes, average incomes are about the same as in the mid-90s. So we went through this most extraordinary period of economic insecurity. We piled on huge debt as moms and dads went back to school.
They, you know, it’s like a noose around their necks and now they’re getting jobs. They have not increased in real terms, you know, so it is another, another layer of economic insecurity that surely changes the family dynamics. And I’m sure you have these personal stories. “Oh, we were able to pay off my husband’s debt – student debt. Now we’re working on mine.”
That is an enormous – you know, you make completely different family decisions when this is a debt that you cannot default on. You can’t restructure, you know – it’s a very, it’s a very heavy burden for a family to pay.
Grumbine (18:34):
Absolutely. So I’ve asked everyone that’s come through here to kind of give a forecast of where we are with MMT, as it were, seeing Stephanie make a lot of headlines with Bernie Sanders. And, we’re seeing some really, really great movement in terms of people that would otherwise not seemingly be MMters taking on the job guarantee vocally, even if it’s not a real job guarantee.
It’s, it’s there. The conversation is shifting. What is your forecast for where MMT is today and what do you see in the near future?
Tcherneva (19:15):
I see MMT making progress on two fronts – the first one is that it has entered the conversation in such a way that is shifting – just the common consensus, the general consensus. And we’ve talked about this: academia is very difficult to change, but MMT cannot be ignored. The insights have to be incorporated. And there is some level of recognition.
It’s an important lens that we offer in understanding our economic realities. So I think in terms of the perspective, it has gotten some mainstream recognition. The second part is the policy implications that come from MMT; the job guarantee is very popular right now, and it has, it lends itself to a particular moment in time where there’s still a lot of pain and distress that’s felt from the Great Recession.
And I think some policy makers are capitalizing on this moment. So for us, uh, as a movement, uh, I have been enormously impressed by how many people from different walks of life have gravitated to MMT. And I, and the reason, I believe, is because it really offers hope. It really offers – it kind of inspires people.
And this is – you know, it’s a project that I don’t think any one of us will be part of in our lifetime as, as this project that you know. It is so I think an important, such an important project that has been, and you know, this is what we are attempting to explain as how, what was previously impossible, or thought to be impossible, is actually possible.
And we’re trying to change the conversation and say, “Hey, if we now have these, these economic possibilities before us, what kind of life would we like to have?” That is kind of an existential conversation. It is an important existential conversation and people are craving, I think, to have that conversation. MMT provides the space so we can hash out our priorities.
We can hash out our values. We can say what is important to us. We can make some commitment to whether it is jobs with justice, whether it is environmental justice, whether it is, you know, attending to the most distressed communities. And I think that this is – it takes a life of its own. You know – so long as I live, I hope, right?
I think people feel this and it becomes, it takes a life of its own and people are starting to have different conversations. So I don’t, I don’t think that this is going to stop. I believe MMT provides the foundation for what is a paradigm shift. And then that paradigm shift happens on multiple levels.
It happens as part of academia, as part of policy making, as part of the activist work that you guys are doing, the communicating of those ideas, as well as – as I stressed in the earlier panel, as well as it happens in the culture creators, right?
In the people who are not immediately attached to, to economic analysis or policy-making, but, uh, are engaged in these ideas, these existential ideas of what is possible. So I think the train has started, it’s not going to stop. We see it – that last year’s conference was a third of this year’s conference, you know, but much smaller.
So next year it’s going to probably double or triple in size, I think, I hope. And I think the hard part for us now is to be a lot more, to insist on what MMT brings, you know, that we are not really talking about just another New Deal era. We do need some sort of transformative move in terms of what the welfare state and what we want the public good to be.
But we also want to be more disciplined in terms of how we talk about the monetary system, the possibilities of fiscal space, the currency, I mean, these sort of somewhat esoteric, but really essential pieces of our story and our narrative, and then insist on some of first principles of what we want the public sector to deliver to us.
Once we articulate that, you know, austerity obviously is not an option, but what can we do when we employ the public’s money for the public purpose? I don’t know of another school of thought that gives such broad answers to these questions. There is lots of anti-austerity out there, but there isn’t exactly an alternative explanation to austerity.
Grumbine (23:46):
This is the only congruent set of ideas that I’ve been around. I, you know, through the MBA program, there was a lot of stuff that made absolutely zero sense at, you know, upon deeper reflection. And this is – you nail it. MMT equals hope. So, Pavlina, thank you once again for joining me. I really appreciate you taking the time. This is wonderful. And I look forward to talking to you again soon.
Tcherneva (24:11):
Thank you for having me, anytime.
Grumbine (24:13):
All right. Bye.
Ending Credits (24:19):
Macro N Cheese is produced by Andy Kennedy, descriptive writing by Virginia Cotts and promotional artwork by Mindy Donham. Macro N Cheese is publicly funded by our Real Progressives Patreon account. If you would like to donate to Macro N Cheese, please visit patreon.com/realprogressives
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on email
Share this Episode
Follow the show and subscribe on your favorite player.
Show Notes
Transcript
Extras
Download
In this episode of Macro n Cheese, Pavlina Tcherneva of Bard College, the Levy Economics Institute, and the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability (CFEPS) joins Steve Grumbine to talk about the prominent role of women in developing and promoting Modern Monetary Theory. As one of the leading architects of what is known as the Federal Job Guarantee, she explains how redefining work will liberate families as well as the marginalized.
Special Thanks to Geoffrey Ginter for the excellent intro song! And of course special thanks to our guest Pavlina Tcherneva, the donors of Real Progressives and our excellent staff of volunteers.
Macro N Cheese – Episode 2
Pavlina Tcherneva on MMT, Feminism, Intersectionality & Momentum
February 9, 2019
Pavlina Tcherneva [intro/music] (00:04):
When you design a job guarantee, what kind of jobs are you going to create? Are you still going to use the old ideas of what’s considered women’s work? Are we going to really work hard to eliminate the sex segregation in the workplace? I have been enormously impressed by how many people from different walks of life have gravitated to MMT. And the reason, I believe, is because it really offers hope.
Geoff Ginter [intro/music] (01:28):
Now let’s see if we can avoid the apocalypse altogether. Here’s another episode of Macro N Cheese, with your host, Steve Grumbine.
Grumbine (01:34):
All right. This is Steve with Macro N Cheese, Real Progressives, and I am excited to have Pavlina Tcherneva join me today. We are at the Second World Modern Monetary Theory Conference, and she was kind enough to join me. Welcome.
Tcherneva (01:49):
Thank you. Good to be with you.
Grumbine (01:50):
So we’ve talked to a lot of different people and you’ve been on our show on Real Progressives for live streaming. This is a real joy, but what I want to talk to you in particular about – it’s not the mechanics. or anything like that about Modern Monetary Theory .
I want to talk to you about the intersectionality of the MMT community in particular, the leadership women are playing across the globe, not just in the United States, but around the world. Today I was able, not just today, but this entire weekend women were on display that were visible, leading, speaking, taking a direct role in presenting this material that I feel is absolutely critical to ever achieving any kind of mass acceptance.
Can you talk a little bit about what it’s like, not only being a woman in a male-dominated profession, but put the role women have played in terms of crafting some of the language and some of the efforts in the Modern Monetary Theory school of thought?
Tcherneva (02:51):
Sure, thanks! Yes, it definitely is a unusual experience for me. Early in my career, most of the panels that I was on were more male-dominated – that’s the nature of the profession. There is, eh, something that doesn’t permit women to participate in sort of the higher levels of the profession.
Though they major in large numbers in economics, somewhere along their professional life, they fall through the cracks. And some of it has to do with the nature of the academic profession, and sort of the tax on women and parents and caregivers in terms of how successful they can be with publishing, et cetera.
But the reason why MMT is different, I feel, I think, is because MMT as a lens, as a movement, as an economic theory, as an understanding of the world, is a not just multidisciplinary approach, but it’s as an approach that is inclusive of all people of all walks of life. The bottom line is what we’re trying to do is understand the economy so we can elevate the voices of those who are invisible.
Those who might not be, you know, that might be in the home – those who have been marginalized or whether they’re women, people of color, the incarcerated – we offer, kind of, solutions for the public good. And for those who have sort of the forgotten, if you will.
And I think in this sense, the movement is also a lot more inclusive and in that way that we have, you know, people coming in from all walks of life that find it compelling. My particular role as a woman, I think is just to be an example to other women that want to be involved, that, you know, when my students in the classroom see me, they see what they can do with economics, where they can go.
I haven’t thought of myself as a female economist. You know, it’s not an economist that is interested in various issues, but I do understand the importance of being an example and sort of showing some sort of possibilities to my students in being involved at higher levels of policy or whatever.
And the other aspect is that since a lot of my work is on the Job Guarantee, I have been fortunate firsthand to see how empowering it has been to women, the program itself, just by studying cases like that in Argentina. And, uh, seeing how we acknowledge the invisible work of caregivers, primarily done by women, how women become empowered, how they gain a lot more bargaining power within the household and outside.
And so when we understand the world, we don’t just look at individuals or people, but we also look at where they belong, you know, which kind of category, if you will – a social strata they might belong, and what are the particular challenges they may face?
And I think that in that sense, the MMT movement is paying attention to, you know, women as – again, people of color, the marginalized. And so, we can’t speak for them if you don’t bring those voices on the table.
Grumbine (06:15):
That’s incredible. And, you know, as a cis white male in, you know, in a political economy, if you will, a political environment, that is seeking to elevate marginalized voices, one of the things that’s incredibly empowering, I hope other men realize how empowering it is to be surrounded by strong women that are willing to take the fight with them.
They’re there, they’re leading the charge, they’re in the trenches with them. And, and for me, I find it to be incredibly important because, you know, as much as we may be dominating as a, you know, in a generalized sense as white men, traditionally, the power structure going back as far as time can count, you know, in this society, we’re seeing all sorts of people marginalized.
People that were previously in power are seeing their means, uh, diminished. We’re seeing their lives become harder. People are working multiple jobs. People are struggling, families are falling apart, et cetera.
And, you know, when I see someone like yourself present something empowering like a Job Guarantee that provides people options – options that allow them to make better decisions in their own life. To me, I think that that is an incredibly empowering thing for men and women, especially when the voice is not the same tired voice that has always been on the scene.
Tcherneva (07:40):
Well, let me maybe offer a historical perspective. You know, when you think of the women’s movement – 60s, 70s and onward, and the entrance of women in the labor market – you know, there was a very significant increase in labor force participation during that time. It was really done in one way or another under the force of economic change.
Previously, and I think we’ve discussed this on your show earlier, paid work was the male domain. This is a very industrial sort of concept where women, unlike sort of pre-industrial world where men, men, and women work together on the farm, women were pushed increasingly into the sphere of the household.
And so suddenly women started getting into the labor force in the sixties and seventies, but not because we had, you know, we had the women’s movement, but it’s – it wasn’t exclusively because we started reconceptualizing the role of women. But because there was economic insecurity – because men started losing their so-called family wages.
They couldn’t really support the family on a single breadwinner income. And thus that opened the door for women to come into the labor market and participate as a second breadwinner. Well, we would like – we would like people be able to participate in the economy on the right terms, not because of economic insecurity, but because we have guaranteed some basic economic rights and we’ve guaranteed them in a way that they are socially just.
We had a discussion about when you design a job guarantee, what kind of jobs are you going to create? Are you still going to use the old ideas of what’s considered woman’s work? Or, are we going to really work hard to eliminate the sex segregation in the workplace? And then begin talking about work and opportunity in completely different ways and not such gendered ways.
We say, okay, here’s work. Here’s good, remunerative, decent work, open to all – here’s work that can be performed by men and women. And it’s guaranteed at a living wage. That helps change the conversation within the household too. And we see some of these things happening as well.
We do see that there are men, male caregivers, that stay at home or don’t have employment opportunities that they suffer the same kind of stigma that other caregivers, women have suffered in the past. “Oh, he’s, he isn’t working” – as if taking care of children is not work. So what the job guarantee does is it changes completely the terms of the conversation.
We say, we’re going to provide employment opportunities for all. They will be parent-friendly opportunities, and then we will provide – then that changes the conversation within the household. Who chooses to stay, who chooses to go to work, who wants to have the part-time hours and the full-time hours?
The way that that conversation happens currently is completely different because there are fewer choices. And, uh, you, you can’t really negotiate these. If the man is still making the higher paying – has the higher paying job – it is often the woman that will pick up and go wherever the job may be.
But imagine if they were economic opportunities in the community for both. Then we don’t have to make these – these sort of choices under terms of duress essentially.
Intermission (11:12):
You are listening to Macro N Cheese, a podcast brought to you by Real Progressives, a nonprofit organization dedicated to teaching the masses about MMT or Modern Monetary Theory. Please help our efforts and become a monthly donor at PayPal or Patreon and follow our pages on Facebook and YouTube and follow us on Periscope, Twitter, and Instagram.
Grumbine (12:02):
So, talk to me a little bit about the power dynamic that we’re experiencing. I mean, there’s obviously a shift, the bringing about, a job guarantee brings about a shift, but we’ve been living under patriarchy for an awful long time. And, you know, as a divorced father, you know, I, I see the negative results of patriarchy.
I think patriarchy hurts everyone. It doesn’t just hurt women. It hurts the men too. They just sometimes blind to the ill effects of it on themselves, and they fight to keep it. Can you talk about the shift in power and shift in that dynamic that is occurring in society today?
Tcherneva (13:10):
Well, I mean, there’s, they’re a cultural phenomenon. They’re a, there’s a new awareness, whereas sort of entering a, I think a new phase that’s been – you know, it’s, it’s been a long historical process and we’re just sort of reaching a new stage of conversation about what it means for women not just to participate in the, in the workplace, but, you know, talk about sexual harassment about, uh, various forms of discrimination.
You know, we we’re pushing the conversation forward. You know, it used to be, Oh, should women work? Now it’s not the question whether should women work. You know, what are the terms on which they work? And so, again, I come back to this idea that the power relationship is structured currently on the basis of economic insecurity and distress.
Think about the war. You know, when we had a fully employed economy, husbands went, fight the war, women went into the factory and nobody talked about, Oh, you know, manufacturing work is not, you know, is the male domain. We immediately shifted our cultural norms to accommodate a different paradigm, right.
But then, you know, the men returned from war and women were fired and we failed to secure a vibrant, fully employed economy for civilian purposes. So you can use the historical example of how you erode, like, norms of patriarchy when you have to fight a war; but we haven’t, for some reason, found the solution for peacetime purposes.
And I think that transforms all aspects of life. It’s not just, you know, how patriarchy is also manifested in a different way, the way that the labor market is structured. And the way of course the household production is structured.
But if you eliminate the threat of unemployment, what would be the power relationships there? They will certainly, they will certainly change and they will change, especially for those who are most vulnerable.
Those at the bottom of the income distribution, that happen to be women and people of color, they’re the ones that need probably the greatest improvements in their bargaining bargaining power. And, uh, I think that this is not an immediately obvious way of eroding patriarchal norms, but the job guarantee has this kind of powerful, you know, impact on, on culture as well.
Grumbine (15:04):
Well, it eliminates destitution. It really does. Let me ask you, we talked a lot about the job guarantee as – as a very, very good starting point for eliminating a lot of the ill effects of neoliberalism, but there are a great many things that modern monetary theorists have been pushing forward that would really, really change the dynamic of the family, change the dynamic of the need for work.
Not that we would ever not need work, but the change of the requirement for work. And you all put forward some stuff about getting rid of student debt altogether. I think this is another dynamic. As people enter into family life, they leave college, they’re strapped with a mortgage worth of debt on their back.
Debt makes them make very different decisions as well. How does that impact both the power dynamic that we’re speaking of in terms of the job guarantee, because more and more women are getting educated more and more women are moving into roles and, and feeling empowered to, to have a voice. What do you think eliminating student debt would do to that power dynamic as well?
Tcherneva (16:09):
Well, look, I mean, um, if you recall sort of the last 10 years of how student debt has exploded – do you remember the program, you know, moms go back to work or to school, right? I mean, in some way it was, it wasn’t a policy to empower moms, right, to empower women in the labor market. It was like an unemployment insurance policy.
We can’t figure out to grow the economy and create full employment, so let’s just give them loans to go back to school, to retrain for jobs that don’t ever come. So the explosion of student debt is so drastic and it is across the board. I haven’t looked at those specific numbers to see who bears the brunt, but we know that it is basically a widespread phenomenon.
And so families are coming out of this era burdened by debt. So they were able to sustain their families and pay for their children with their tuition money, you know, with those, with those grants – that is a very perverse economic policy of economic stabilization.
And then families come out and then you have to see who gets the jobs. So the recession was termed “man session” because there was a bigger drop in, uh, employment, uh, among men. But the recovery, uh, was much faster for men than it was for women. And so then you got to look at, is the recovery producing the income to allow the family to repay this enormous debt?
And we know that that’s not true. We know that real incomes for at least the bottom 99% of households, real incomes, average incomes are about the same as in the mid-90s. So we went through this most extraordinary period of economic insecurity. We piled on huge debt as moms and dads went back to school.
They, you know, it’s like a noose around their necks and now they’re getting jobs. They have not increased in real terms, you know, so it is another, another layer of economic insecurity that surely changes the family dynamics. And I’m sure you have these personal stories. “Oh, we were able to pay off my husband’s debt – student debt. Now we’re working on mine.”
That is an enormous – you know, you make completely different family decisions when this is a debt that you cannot default on. You can’t restructure, you know – it’s a very, it’s a very heavy burden for a family to pay.
Grumbine (18:34):
Absolutely. So I’ve asked everyone that’s come through here to kind of give a forecast of where we are with MMT, as it were, seeing Stephanie make a lot of headlines with Bernie Sanders. And, we’re seeing some really, really great movement in terms of people that would otherwise not seemingly be MMters taking on the job guarantee vocally, even if it’s not a real job guarantee.
It’s, it’s there. The conversation is shifting. What is your forecast for where MMT is today and what do you see in the near future?
Tcherneva (19:15):
I see MMT making progress on two fronts – the first one is that it has entered the conversation in such a way that is shifting – just the common consensus, the general consensus. And we’ve talked about this: academia is very difficult to change, but MMT cannot be ignored. The insights have to be incorporated. And there is some level of recognition.
It’s an important lens that we offer in understanding our economic realities. So I think in terms of the perspective, it has gotten some mainstream recognition. The second part is the policy implications that come from MMT; the job guarantee is very popular right now, and it has, it lends itself to a particular moment in time where there’s still a lot of pain and distress that’s felt from the Great Recession.
And I think some policy makers are capitalizing on this moment. So for us, uh, as a movement, uh, I have been enormously impressed by how many people from different walks of life have gravitated to MMT. And I, and the reason, I believe, is because it really offers hope. It really offers – it kind of inspires people.
And this is – you know, it’s a project that I don’t think any one of us will be part of in our lifetime as, as this project that you know. It is so I think an important, such an important project that has been, and you know, this is what we are attempting to explain as how, what was previously impossible, or thought to be impossible, is actually possible.
And we’re trying to change the conversation and say, “Hey, if we now have these, these economic possibilities before us, what kind of life would we like to have?” That is kind of an existential conversation. It is an important existential conversation and people are craving, I think, to have that conversation. MMT provides the space so we can hash out our priorities.
We can hash out our values. We can say what is important to us. We can make some commitment to whether it is jobs with justice, whether it is environmental justice, whether it is, you know, attending to the most distressed communities. And I think that this is – it takes a life of its own. You know – so long as I live, I hope, right?
I think people feel this and it becomes, it takes a life of its own and people are starting to have different conversations. So I don’t, I don’t think that this is going to stop. I believe MMT provides the foundation for what is a paradigm shift. And then that paradigm shift happens on multiple levels.
It happens as part of academia, as part of policy making, as part of the activist work that you guys are doing, the communicating of those ideas, as well as – as I stressed in the earlier panel, as well as it happens in the culture creators, right?
In the people who are not immediately attached to, to economic analysis or policy-making, but, uh, are engaged in these ideas, these existential ideas of what is possible. So I think the train has started, it’s not going to stop. We see it – that last year’s conference was a third of this year’s conference, you know, but much smaller.
So next year it’s going to probably double or triple in size, I think, I hope. And I think the hard part for us now is to be a lot more, to insist on what MMT brings, you know, that we are not really talking about just another New Deal era. We do need some sort of transformative move in terms of what the welfare state and what we want the public good to be.
But we also want to be more disciplined in terms of how we talk about the monetary system, the possibilities of fiscal space, the currency, I mean, these sort of somewhat esoteric, but really essential pieces of our story and our narrative, and then insist on some of first principles of what we want the public sector to deliver to us.
Once we articulate that, you know, austerity obviously is not an option, but what can we do when we employ the public’s money for the public purpose? I don’t know of another school of thought that gives such broad answers to these questions. There is lots of anti-austerity out there, but there isn’t exactly an alternative explanation to austerity.
Grumbine (23:46):
This is the only congruent set of ideas that I’ve been around. I, you know, through the MBA program, there was a lot of stuff that made absolutely zero sense at, you know, upon deeper reflection. And this is – you nail it. MMT equals hope. So, Pavlina, thank you once again for joining me. I really appreciate you taking the time. This is wonderful. And I look forward to talking to you again soon.
Tcherneva (24:11):
Thank you for having me, anytime.
Grumbine (24:13):
All right. Bye.
Ending Credits (24:19):
Macro N Cheese is produced by Andy Kennedy, descriptive writing by Virginia Cotts and promotional artwork by Mindy Donham. Macro N Cheese is publicly funded by our Real Progressives Patreon account. If you would like to donate to Macro N Cheese, please visit patreon.com/realprogressives