unemployment

[Whitalone@xxxxxxx]

I submitted the following last thursday, but dont know if there has been a system error. Will try again.

In a message dated 3/11/2002 10:39:47 PM Central Standard Time, ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


> >Certainly in Australia, where despite a determined
> >assault in recent years there is still a bit of a
> >safety net in place, a Job Guarantee would be a great
> >deal better than the dole. Since I view the current
> >dole as better than being sold into slavery if you
> >cannot find a job, I don't see how a Job Guarantee
> >can be tantamount to slavery.



I agree that a job guarantee does not necessarily indicate slavery.  However, the vexing question for me has always been what type of jobs. I certainly have great respect for the ELR and other such schemes. Yet I have not heard any particular attention given to the actual jobs that would be available. It has been said, it doesn't matter what kind of job. This ignores a fundamental aspect of work that it is rewarding in ways that go beyond the monetary gain. The type of work offered may be less appealing than unemployment, especially if it means digging holes to bury treasury notes in and digging them up again. The other solution is to work on the many neglected areas of the infrastructure or rehabilitating the environment.  These things are done, however inadequately, by the private sector at wages that are often much higher than a minimal wage rate. For example, what would entice me as a worker to enlist in freeway expansion or development when private enterprises offer rates for this work at wages that far exceed the minimum wage rate? Or why would I offer to be a guide at a museum at minimum wage, when I have no intellectual or personal interest in the items that people ask me about? The bottom line is that perhaps a job that does not enhance my skills or abilities or contribute to a personal sense of well-being is useless in ending the cycle of unemployment. I'd rather be unemployed than working and equally miserable.

In the short-term, whatever that is, it might provide a monetary shock of some sorts. Of more importance is the long-term implications of such a program. Does it provided for long-term growth that is both environmentally and equitably just for all people?

One of the main problems of modern day economics, at least in my mind, is that structural unemployment is becoming a major issue.  The demand is there, but are resources being allocated in the areas that are needed that provide stability among the economic actors? I think not.  Yes, the jobs are there, if one is willing to uproot ones social ties and move.  Probably one of the most cherished values of American history is the concept of family and close personal relationships.  Would not some type of ELR program be better directed toward investing in the natural resources of a particular area? This means using the existing infrastructure, both private and public, to develop, by education, training, etc., the natural resources that exists. So where does government come into the picture? While I have yet to master the concepts, the excerpt from today's mail about Tobin expresses my thoughts...

>He was also, however, a public figure, for a time the most prominent
>advocate of an ideology we might call free-market Keynesianism - a belief that >markets are fine things, but that they work best if the government stands ready to >limit their excesses.

The excesses of a lack of opportunity by private enterprise in employment has many social costs on society. Unemployment is simply a symptom of the disease. Thus perhaps the best solution of an ELR program would be a good mixture of private and public investment in the areas that local consensus would support.  Seems simple in principle.  Of course the idea is to get rid of the underlying belief in economics that unemployment is a form of discipline!

Dr Davidson writes:

>Absolutely correct-- but unfortunately all modern economies from the US down
>ractice the need for a "natural" rate of unemployment in their central nbank
>monetary policies and their fiscal policies.

This barbaric understanding of the nature of consumers and economic policy is a sure sign that any type of ELR program needs to articulate a coherent vision of the benefits and potential downfalls of the policy. Not only to policy makers but the public as well. It has to become part of the local consensus one might say. In principle, I think this can be done.

Scott Simpson
2658 N Tally Ct
Mobile, AL 36606
251-479-7564