Re: unemployment

[Bill Mitchell <ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 15:42 03/21/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> Scott Simpson wrote:
> > 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.<
>
> A job guarantee becomes de facto slavery only when someone cannot choose
> to stay out of
> the program without economic loss. I have discussed this issue at length
> with, among
> others, Mat Forstater and I have never seen him or any other proponent of
> JG/ELR propose
> an income penalty for those who don't participate. On the contrary, I've
> been reassured
> that this is a positive reform, an addition to, not a replacement of,
> welfare programs.
> What remains to be done is a detailed study of existing ELR programs in
> Europe and how
> an implementation of ELR in the States would avoid the drawbacks that
> these programs
> have. But I'm sure that advocates of ELR/JG are underway with such
> studies, and I look
> forward to the results.

Dear Sven
You have not read the literature on the JG in its entirety. While a
difficult issue, my work
on the JG does propose replacing the unemployment benefit (taken in the
Australian meaning
of that word) and all other related benefits with the JG.

You then have a choice if you cannot find work elsewhere.
(a) take the JG which is a living wage with social wage additions similar
to any job (child care, annual leave, superannuation, sickness
benefits etc - like any award position - again using that word in the Oz
context).

OR

(b) find an income elsewhere.

If you are able to work (that is, not too old, sick, mentally disabled or
otherwise) then there would
be no public support if you refuse the JG.

I cannot see that that is remotely akin to slavery. It reflects the
obligation that community benefits
from JG input and government has an obligation to ensure that all people
have work if they want
it. There is nothing in PKT as I read it (conceptual or moral
underpinnings) that says that people
should expect to be supported by others without reciprocating.

I understand that within PKT that several people are uncomfortable with
that and believe people
should have a choice to not work but still be supported. The debate is then
about whether
the government should provide an income guarantee (IG) rather than a JG.
Given the place of
work in our social order, I have preferred to develop a model of the JG and
be very liberal about
what constitutes a job. I also morally don't favour people having a choice
to live off other peoples'
efforts without reciprocating.

So there - from the original developer of the JG.
best wishes
bill


William F. Mitchell
Professor of Economics
Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +61-2-4921 5065
Fax:   +61-2-4921 6919
Mobile: 0419 422 410

http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
http://www.billmitchell.org