Frank wrote on Mar 19
th, 2023 at 4:49pm:
Arguments for a jobs guarantee
Supporters argue that a jobs guarantee would help stabilise the economy during economic downturns and lift workers out of poverty when they are unable to find jobs that offer enough pay or hours of work.
One of the most popular arguments is that it would improve pay and conditions for all low-paid workers. As Bryce Covert argues:
If the government offered a job to everyone who wants to work, private-sector employees could demand adequate pay, humane schedules, and more generous benefits with less fear of getting fired. In effect, corporate America would be forced to compete with the government for employees—which would put pressure on private employers to provide desirable jobs.
Indeed...or
higher pay for jobs which are not so "desirable".
Quote:Arguments against a jobs guarantee
The idea has attracted criticism from all sides. In New York magazine Jonathan Chait acknowledges that the jobs guarantee co-opts ‘the conservative themes of self-sufficiency and hard work’ and neutralises the objection that Democratic policies subsidise sloth. However, he argues that the proposal suffers from two serious problems—its cost and the practical difficulty of creating such a large number of jobs.
1. "Cost" is not a problem, because a JG is funded by a
currency-issuing government which is constrained by
resources, not money (by definition).
2. The practical difficulties of introducing a JG are not large, because the JG is easily implemented at the local council level (where the unemployed are).
Quote:According to Chait, a program that provided good pay and benefits could quickly expand beyond the target group of unemployed and underemployed workers. The cost of running such a large program would probably mean increased taxes on the middle class and this would put an end to its popularity.
Addressed above: a JG is funded by the currency-issuing government's money, not "taxpayer money".
Quote:Chait argues that an even bigger problem is ‘is that designing a federal jobs program large enough to usefully employ all applicants is a devilishly complex challenge that none of the proposals currently circulating have worked through.’
Refuted above, Chait obviously hasn't read the JG literature.
Quote:If the program funded jobs such as child care that communities rely on, how would it respond when the labour market tightened and workers left for jobs in the private sector?
Regular public service jobs are not JG jobs.
Quote:The jobs guarantee would need to be restricted to performing work that the community could afford to do without.
The better way to look at this issue is that ALL the nations workers would ALWAYS be employed, with the community being able to decide which work it deems not vital, in any given market condition.
Quote:Starting with workers and designing jobs that match their skills, experience and availability for work would be a huge challenge.
Addressed above, market forces will decide the number of JG jobs at any given time.
Quote:At the People’s Policy Project, Matt Bruenig makes a similar point. Breunig points to the work of Australian political economy student Hugh Sturgess who wrote his 2016 honours thesis on the topic. In the conservative National Review, Theodore Kupfer references both Bruenig and Sturgess in a piece that dismisses the idea as an attempt by Democratic candidates to shore up their progressive credentials.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_... Well of course conservatives - concerned with holding onto
their own 'taxpayer money', while not understanding the concept of 'government money' (which doesn't need 'taxpayer money') - aren't known for their "progressive" economic views.
Forum
Pages: 
