Scott – Various authors have
discussed the question you are interested in as to what kind of jobs a
guaranteed government job program might offer. I suggest you look at the 1998 No. 2 Journal
of Economic Issues; Wray’s 1998 book; the Vol. 11 supplement to Economic
and Labour Relations Review and the papers at the
C-FEPS and CofFEE websites for starters (see, e.g., my paper on Full Employment and Environmental Sustainability
for a Green Jobs proposal). Also
Phil Harvey’s work is good.
Many of us have looked to the successes of the New Deal era WPA type programs
on this topic as well. I’d be
happy to discuss this with you after you’ve had a chance to take a look
at some of the proposals. Best, Mat
-----Original Message-----
From: Whitalone@xxxxxxx
[mailto:Whitalone@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:22
PM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unemployment
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