Job Guarantee / Public Employer of Last Resort for Consumer Services

[Die Neue Zeit]

In light of recent discussions by L. Randall Wray, Jesse Myerson, and Lynn Parramore, my original article back from December 2009 on a public employer of last resort for consumer services (http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-employer-last-t124658/index.html) should be updated.

Other supporting points have been added, from the U6 unemployment rate since 2009 to employment transition issues for politicians and civil servants (more in terms of reform, but amplified in a DOTP period) to effects against discrimination.

[Vilhelmo]

I'm glad more people are discussing the issue of Job Guarantees.
A permanent Federally funded Job Guarantee Program at a living wage & benefits would ameliorate much unnecessary suffering.

[Vilhelmo]

I'm glad more people are discussing the issue of Job Guarantees.
A permanent Federally funded Job Guarantee Program at a living wage & benefits would ameliorate much unnecessary suffering.

[cyu]

A permanent Federally funded Job Guarantee Program at a living wage & benefits would ameliorate much unnecessary suffering.

Would Keynesians pay some people to dig holes and others to fill them up again? (Or some people to build World Trade Centers and others to fly planes into them?)

This isn't to say everyone having a way to make a living is a bad thing, but some bandaids are better than others.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Would Keynesians pay some people to dig holes and others to fill them up again? (Or some people to build World Trade Centers and others to fly planes into them?)

This isn't to say everyone having a way to make a living is a bad thing, but some bandaids are better than others.

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of different socially-useful jobs that one can come up with. Some of the proponents of the Job Guarantee has done that many years ago.

[cyu]

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of different socially-useful jobs that one can come up with.

Agreed. However, some questions:

1. If there is work that is "Nice to have" rather than "Must have" - like planting flowers in a park as opposed to growing food - should unemployed people be forced to do the "Nice to have" work, just to be able to live?

2. Would politicians fund projects that compete against the business interests of their campaign contributors?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Agreed. However, some questions:

1. If there is work that is "Nice to have" rather than "Must have" - like planting flowers in a park as opposed to growing food - should unemployed people be forced to do the "Nice to have" work, just to be able to live?

2. Would politicians fund projects that compete against the business interests of their campaign contributors?

1. Job Guarantee doesn't force anyone to do anything. At a theoretical level it postulates unemployment benefits and an opportunity to work if one chooses so. The wage from the work is theorized to be little bit higher than from benefits, but it's not a necessity, I suppose.

2. Most probably not. Then again, nobody is gonna implement Job Guarantee out of the kindness of their hearts, we all know that too well. It's more like a theoretically, i.e. economically justified option for the working class to push. At least that's how I see it.

[cyu]

I would say if the work specified by job guarantees is not the same type of work that people need in order to survive (ie. producing food versus producing mansions and helicopters for rich people), then I would say the non-essential work cannot be properly defined as "valid" work at all, but merely frivolous activity, if not outright oppression and slavery.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I would say if the work specified by job guarantees is not the same type of work that people need in order to survive (ie. producing food versus producing mansions and helicopters for rich people), then I would say the non-essential work cannot be properly defined as "valid" work at all, but merely frivolous activity, if not outright oppression and slavery.

I think you are missing the point. As I said people would have a choice whether they want to work or receive unemployment benefits. There are plenty of people who would choose the former.

As for the non-essential work, what is it exactly? Is cleaning rivers/forests a non-essential work? Or teaching illiterate to read? Or organizing lessons for people to learn play a piano/guitar? It is rather obvious that we aren't talking about building mansions, but are talking about socially beneficial work, which can't be provided by the private sector.

[cyu]

As I said people would have a choice whether they want to work or receive unemployment benefits.


Well, for those that more anti-property than others, there wouldn't be a material difference between those that work and those that don't. In other words, if you want to work, that's great and all, but the psychological motivation to do so will not come from a transfer of "property" over to you if you do.



As for the non-essential work, what is it exactly?


In politics, somebody will always have to decide and judge, right? Depending on the system of government, different people will do the judging. In plutocracy, the wealthy decide. In dictatorship, the dictator (and his delegates) decide. In aristocracy, the aristocrats decide. In a system of majority votes, the majority decides. I would say that anarchists would encourage everyone to decide for themselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would Keynesians pay some people to dig holes and others to fill them up again? (Or some people to build World Trade Centers and others to fly planes into them?)

This isn't to say everyone having a way to make a living is a bad thing, but some bandaids are better than others.

Cyu, this public policy reform proposal comes from the Post-Keynesian heterodox political economy. It does not come from the usual Keynesian suspects (and odd Trots) who advocate "public works." The emphasis on services such as elder care flies in the face of stereotypical public works programs.

Though Guy Standing is a Basic Income crusader, he mentions that many services in today's economy still don't get paid, like elder care.


Agreed. However, some questions:

1. If there is work that is "Nice to have" rather than "Must have" - like planting flowers in a park as opposed to growing food - should unemployed people be forced to do the "Nice to have" work, just to be able to live?

We're not Labourites, gung-ho for compulsory jobs guarantee programs. Unemployed people shouldn't be forced to do this stuff.


2. Would politicians fund projects that compete against the business interests of their campaign contributors?

This is where there are diverse opinions with regards to compensation under the job guarantee / ELR. Everyone agrees with living wage levels, and that by today's standards should already compete against some business interests (those that pay lower). However, some proponents prefer just that (like Wray himself), while others prefer some form of wage differentials to take into account skilled work.

More left-leaning supporters of this policy tend to be in the wage differential camp, since real wages of skilled labour haven't improved much for a few decades now.


The wage from the work is theorized to be little bit higher than from benefits, but it's not a necessity, I suppose.

"A little bit higher" would depend on the Post-Keynesian view of unemployment benefit levels, no? There are some who support living wage levels for the ELR / job guarantee but not for status quo unemployment benefits.

[cyu]

When the economic situation gets really bad, the working class becomes ever more desperate. However, I'm not the type that would purposely let the poor suffer just to increase the probability of revolution. So yes, even if a lukewarm liberal policy can bring some benefits, then I would rather have that than nothing at all, though it doesn't mean I'd be satisfied with it.

At some point, given enough lukewarm "concessions", the majority of the working class may even be placated enough to stop being so revolutionary. Though I would be disappointed by the lack of progress beyond that point, I would still at least welcome the progress made to reach that point.

One also has to be careful that often supposed "reforms" proposed by capitalists are no such thing - merely something that sounds good, but is in fact an attempt to make the poor easier to exploit.