Re: unemployment

[larson@xxxxxx]

Bill Mitchell wrote:
> 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.

I have no choice but to acknowledge my ignorance and repent. But before I study
professor Mitchell's work in detail, let me toss in a few brief comments to
emphasize my submission to a higher sequence of knowledge.

> You then have a choice if you cannot find work elsewhere.

And a choice it is:

> (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).

The actual content of the JG job is unclear to me. However, I very much look
forward to reading professor Mitchell's enlightening work hereon. Of course, my
own extensive knowledge of similar programs in Scandinavian countries is in
this context distinctly ephemeral.

> OR
>
> (b) find an income elsewhere.

I do not know if property rights are protected by law in Australia. Nor am I
aware of how solicitation is regulated. But I do know that in countries where
remedies for the inabilities of the weak are held in high esteem, the burden of
finding income in absence of regular jobs is taken off the shoulders of the
uncapable ones. Does not Australia belong to that admirable crowd of societies?
Perhaps professor Mitchell would be so kind and suggest further reading hereon.

> 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.

The judge of that would, of course, not be professor Mitchell, as he professes
himself not with medical science. However, I am sure the federation of
Australia is rife with capable minds who are more than willing to put their
uncompromised skills at the service of the People on this matter. Thus
fulfilling their oath to mankind they can be confronted with a line of
unemployed and by means of thorough examination separate the capable ones from
those in pursuit of dodging work. The former group is then kindly asked (free
to choose, as an alternative to live off the proceeds of thin air, of course)
to spend a full workday's worth of labor as given to them by another group of
high scholars. The latter group is granted the relief of not having to work.
Such procedures have never been employed by any government, anywhere in the
history of mankind.

> I cannot see that that is remotely akin to slavery.

But of course not! Absolute poverty as a consequence of refusing to participate
in a JG program can by no means qualify JG as slavery. A slave has the right to
be fed - that is, in fact, the only right a slave has. An Australian left with
no money after having turned down a JG offer still enjoys the right to vote. So
I agree completely with professor Mitchell: slavery it is not.

> 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.

And if they do not want it, they do not need the money. I'm beginning to
understand.

> 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.

Of course, professor Mitchell is unaware of my recent book. May I humbly
suggest a swap of literature?

> 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.

Now, there is still one tiny little piece in this I cannot really grasp. Of
course, reading professor Mitchell will probably address this matter, but
anyway: is the point that the government should not replace continuously needed
work with JG input? Then, how does one avoid making JG jobs purely artificial?
Or prevent that governments use JG to slash costs in the public sector? Having
seen this as a direct consequence of work-or-starve programs in Scandinavia I
have to ask for guidance to a higher state of knowledge from professor Mitchell
on this matter.

Humbly Keynesian,
/srl

--
Sven R Larson
PhD; Assistant professor of economics
Department of Social Sciences, Bldg. 22.2
Roskilde University
Pb 260
DK-4000 Roskilde
Telephone: (+45) 4674 2910