unemployment

[Whitalone@xxxxxxx]

Sven writes:

>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.

Could you elaborate on the drawbacks of existing programs and how they contrast to the proposed schemes offered on this forum?  Or at the very least provide me with resources that document these drawbacks.

continuing in the same thread warren writes

>elr is at least a monetary issue.  There is no unemployment as we know it without >govt. (monetary) taxation.  Taxation in itself is a case of imperfect competition that >results in excess capacity (unemployment) when 'supply' of the thing needed to >pay the tax is 'restricted.' ..... with the right to tax in one's currency of issue comes >the responsibility to provide the means to obtain the thing needed to pay the tax.'

The issue being discussed is what type of jobs. I am not sure how this response adds anything to the discussion. It seems, however, that you are saying in this response that taxation is the cause of unemployment.  I am not sure this follows as a logical basis for instituting an elr type of program or even follows logically.  At the most basic level for the economic actor, work provides subsistence, not payment of taxes which can be avoided. Surely I have misunderstood your statements above. Thus again, the question is not irrelevant as to what types of jobs will be offered. Perhaps Sven can give more insight into the actual operation of this type of program from his European experience.

At least Mitchell addresses the question directly with regard to the institutional nature of the program and its affect on one social program in most modern states, commonly called welfare in America. The jobs will replace welfare as we know it.

Mitchell writes:

>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.

Okay it seems the debate is about either a IG or JG as described above. I would characterize the present system as IG.  There is an income guarantee below a certain level of opportunity.  It seems to me that a JG would only be equally just in a society where the opportunity is equal.  Of course we know this is nonsense.  Unless such a plan can contrive such equality in opportunity of useful jobs, I don't see how it could succeed.  This goes back to my suggestion of locally supported investments.  One good example here at home.  A local public sponsored aviation school has been for several years existing in impoverished conditions while it trains for productive high paying jobs here locally(Mobile AL).  Thanks to government and local concerns they just opened their new facility this week....increasing the amount of students by 100%.  It just happens that MAE, Teledyne and other aviation companies are located here in need of employees. The demand for the training and those with the specialized job skills are both strong. The point being that elr should provide at the very least, at a fundamental level, training, and then opportunity for growth beyond the program at the local level. Why should this program go on beggardly when the demand is present....Equally important, people are not as mobile as economic models would like to presume! Which goes back to the original question:

Sven writes:

The actual content of the JG job is unclear to me.

And me also....taxation seems to be a red-herring on how to judge such job offers. The types of jobs are very important and should be directed toward developing the resources that are available locally.


And

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.

I believe Sven is advocating that JG jobs would be nothing more than government filling existing or legislated job vacancies in the government.  Please correct me if I am wrong. If this has been the real life model in Scandinavia, then serious questions remain about the types of jobs offered. However, Sven, I would appreciate a more rigorous debate of ideas rather than the emotional tent I read from the above quote.
i understand your skeptical criticism and welcome the discourse.  However, the fact remains that welfare as we know it, or even the elr types of programs as they are presently presented, offer little to future policy prescription at the national level in solving unemployment in today's economic environment.

We can debate the merits of an elr until we are blue in the face, but unless a coherent policy that will gain acceptance locally is presented, we have nothing but theories and discourses. I do not offer my own solution, I am merely working out the possible directions that unemployment policy should take. i would hope that the participants of this forum are equally up to this task.

Scott Simpson