Wray: The Tasks We Want to Contract For

[John Gelles <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	Dear Randy,

	Repair of bridges and roads would not be something
	to be undertaken to rescue people from joblessness.
	It would be done, possibly by deficit spending, with
	contracts that are awarded to top notch firms who
	employ top notch workers.

	If, after necessary deficit or ordinary tax supported
	spending, people were still unemployed, for reasons
	of inadequate aggregate demand or slack in the labor
	market, and we wanted a way to keep their purchasing
	power up and their habits well suited for work, we
	might use a flexible system of employment for all who
	are looking for work.

	               Since such work would be halted
	when slack was taken out of the labor market
	(defined to exclude the flexible ELR), it ought to
	be work we can afford to see halted.

	               In other words, the maintenance
	of their purchasing power and morale is important
	-- and their own direct output is far less important.
	Hence the fear of inflation, etc.

	Remember I'm all for zero-unemployment as a
	matter of law and of right!

	My concern is that we have it -- not a pale imitation
	called "workfare".  Mosler's ELR must be careful never
	to advocate "workfare" over the economic right to
	earn a living (based on automation and real output.)

	John Gelles

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Randy Wray wrote:

> 3. John G. what is "make work"? surveys show many, perhaps most, US
> bridges are dangerously in need of repair. is it make work to put
> people to work to repair them? I find it pretty strange to argue (and
> i don't mean you are arguing this) that local govts cannot find ample
> things that need to be done to keep the reserve army busy for the next
> few centuries. when that is finally done, let us then worry about
> "make work". bread and circuses are a long way down the road.
>
> randy wray