tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post4740612884025356963..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Neil Wilson — The Job Guarantee: What Will People Do?mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-65184735169287818642017-05-27T06:04:00.466-04:002017-05-27T06:04:00.466-04:00If that means an economy with no reciprocity, with...<i>If that means an economy with no reciprocity, with people just randomly giving stuff to each other in an uncoordinated way, then yes. This is impossible - and desirable why?</i><br /><br />A communist economy is envisioned as a gift economy because goods and services would be produced on the basis of use-value. The economy as we know it is based on commodity production. Good or service X is produced with the intention of selling it, for money or its equivalent. In our current system, the use-value of a good or service is realized after the exchange, or after a series of exchanges. The same would be true of gifts, except that gifts do not require money (or barter) to be exchanged. It is a one-way exchange, without the usual quid pro quo.<br /><br />It is envisioned that the need for money in a communist economy would decline, or take another form. This would occur as people are able to associate their contribution to society to what they receive from it. The more the system is perceived as fair, the easier it is for individuals to accept that their efforts are being recognized and rewarded fairly. It's difficult for us to conceptualize this transition because we are used to treating everything as a commodity, including labour.<br /><br />In a gift economy, people do not randomly give each other stuff. Production is co-ordinated and people continue to work and consume. The key difference is that the metrics we are familiar with (income, price) have been changed. Labour is accounted for but not treated as a commodity. Prices exist and may fluctuate but are initially based on cost estimates rather than exchange value. Under such conditions it is predicted that people will become less concerned about reciprocity and assume that it exists. Perhaps, to use an analogy, in the same way we assume our bank statement doesn't contain arithmetic errors.<br /><br />An important factor will be to what extent our scarcity mindset is alleviated.<br /><br />I can go into greater detail about what might be, as opposed to what is. Suffice to say that the communist vision involves full employment, sharing of labour, reduction of labour, elimination of wages, production based on use-value, and monetary/non-monetary forms of BIG (or B?G). This is a different beast than the use of a JG and BIG to 'reform' capitalism.<br /><br />I'm not as optimistic as you are regarding our future. Then again, I'm a hermit. I know that individuals can be caring and rational. I believe societies have to struggle to achieve those attributes. Chris Hedges writes that our institutions, which safeguard civil society, are rotten. I believe him.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44107531054493641712017-05-27T02:37:27.036-04:002017-05-27T02:37:27.036-04:00Bob:The talk amongst the chattering classes is mos...Bob:<i>The talk amongst the chattering classes is mostly about a BIG. So that presumably is where we're headed.</i><br />I doubt it. Too many level headed clear eyed "Swiss" - even among bleeding hearts. The chattering classes do little but chatter. That's what they do.<br /><br /><i>We could also be headed to a world where "useless eaters" are culled.</i> I very much doubt it, I am quite optimistic, I think MMT & the JG will win, starting in the USA probably. That's where it looks like it is headed to me. <br /><br /><i>Then a communist "gift economy" is impossible.</i><br />If that means an economy with no reciprocity, with people just randomly giving stuff to each other in an uncoordinated way, then yes. This is impossible - and desirable why? - in any foreseeable future or past. Gift economies were all about some kind of reciprocity. Such a thing never existed. The problem is that people think about things completely backwardsly. Primitive "gift" societies did it the right way. <br /><br />Refusing a gift was a major insult, a termination of a relationship. That's what the gov does to the unemployed. They are asking to be taxed-in-real-terms, to give a gift of their labor to the gov, to subsidize the gov and get government brownie points for it. In spite of the fact that this kind of gift-giving is what makes the whole monetary economy go round, the gov insanely refuses. (Because it is corrupted by the dudes who monopolize the brownie point supply - which they receive for the really crappy, often poisonous gifts they give to the gov)<br /><br /><i>It could be right around the corner or it could be that society does not want to help the homeless.</i><br /><br />Most people do want to do something about it. Something of prime importance is brainwashing people into forgetting that there was no homelessness during the postwar full employment era, and a bit afterward, varying by country. The problem is that if you believe in absurdities, you can commit atrocities. Not meanness or cruelty, which is a comparatively trivial problem, but delusion. But every minute that people wake up brings a better future closer.<br /><br />I went rather too far above - it was late, and I was tired. I shouldn't caution people about mischaracterizing positions and then do it myself. I wrongly over-opposed Tom's assessment. I am trying as usual to sketch the MMT logic more clearly imho than usually done. But the usual MMT position is more like - none of them are for BIGs - (because there really isn't anything good about it that couldn't be done better in another way, and it is very dangerous in many ways) - but they oppose it or not in varying measures, without a strong party line against it. <br />And I have to apologize to Dan Lynch or the others- not completely wrong about everything - I agree with the criticism of Ralph's "do it thru private employers" somewhere. <br /><br />But my basic point is that people work hard at making imho ridiculous, far-fetched criticisms of the JG - the normal thing that always works well - while they blithely reject any criticism of the truly far-fetched "income guarantees for nothing and chicks for free." All the JG criticisms I've seen were decisively refuted in theory and practice long ago, and are begging for lampooning.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44467595826454535472017-05-26T11:04:10.881-04:002017-05-26T11:04:10.881-04:00It could be right around the corner or it could be...<i>It could be right around the corner or it could be that society does not want to help the homeless. Is it really just a cost issue?</i><br /><br />Mean-spirited.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22627477681829733942017-05-26T08:38:28.166-04:002017-05-26T08:38:28.166-04:00It could be right around the corner or it could be...It could be right around the corner or it could be that society does not want to help the homeless. Is it really just a cost issue? Marginalized people have next to no political power, resulting in a lack of political will to implement traditional solutions like affordable housing.<br /><br />Food is a special case in that it is perishable and there is an abundance of it. Enormous quantities of edible food end up in the dumpster.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-43893624088269459082017-05-26T06:25:00.068-04:002017-05-26T06:25:00.068-04:00With the Tiny House movement and 3D printers capab...With the Tiny House movement and 3D printers capable of building concrete shells for houses in hours a basic shelter guarantee could be right around the corner and absolutely no one could object that we 1) dont have the space or 2) dont have the materials<br /><br />I know plenty of people who can afford much larger houses thinking about downsizing to much much smaller houses. There are a significant number of people questioning the whole "personal castle" way of living that became popular. A lot of those folks are having trouble selling their mansions.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82737130647177149792017-05-26T04:02:52.283-04:002017-05-26T04:02:52.283-04:00You seem to have no doubt whatsoever that BIGs can...<i>You seem to have no doubt whatsoever that BIGs can work, that they are not shit.</i><br /><br />I have no doubt that the status quo doesn't work and is shit.<br />The talk amongst the chattering classes is mostly about a BIG. So that presumably is where we're headed. We could also be headed to a world where "useless eaters" are culled.<br /><br />I'm open-minded about the experiments that will be attempted.<br /><br /><i>That people don't like a BIG or insist on reciprocity is not the MMT reason against BIGs & UBIs. The MMT reasoning is that they are impossible, because reciprocity is logically necessary, not just something people like or don't like.</i><br /><br />Then a communist "gift economy" is impossible.<br />What is currently possible: a less-than-big BIG, known as welfare.<br /><br /><i>By the way, I am all for nonmonetary "BIGs". But if something can be safely provided by BIG income - then make it free. If not, a BIG is just a way of enslaving the people who are providing that good.</i><br /><br />In Canada we have food banks. Canadians can become homeless and destitute but thanks to our "basic food guarantee" they won't starve. Perhaps the next great leap forward will involve a basic shelter guarantee. No money required.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-28936333609395500062017-05-26T03:36:43.420-04:002017-05-26T03:36:43.420-04:00Bob: The BIG sounds so nice at first. But it is a ...Bob: The BIG sounds so nice at first. But it is a return to the womb fantasy.<br /><br /><i>Maybe we need to return to the full employment policies of the past.</i> <br />Yup. They are good because they worked. They made sense. The BIG doesn't and won't. I'm sort of agreeing with you. Subject it to the test of experience, the test that BIGs never pass and JG always do. MMT provides logical reasoning for this empirical observation. You really think you're being open-minded? You seem to have no doubt whatsoever that BIGs can work, that they are not shit.<br /><br /><i>My "job" is to post comments at Mike Norman Economics. I've been doing this for years, yet I'm still waiting for my first paycheck. Is the delay due to implementation issues, or are my rights being violated?</i><br /><br />Take it up with Mike - did he promise you $? What I am saying, what others have said long before is that if a government issues money, backs it with taxes, it is lunacy to not offer people a way to get money, to pay the taxes. "Primitive" pre-monetary societies understand this logic fine. That's why they don't have unemployment. Moderns never stop and sit on a log and think, so they become suckers. If your government doesn't offer you a job and insists on its money being a necessity of life, you have a perfect moral right to fight back, even "steal" from it, because a manifestly insane law has no moral force behind it.<br /><br />That people don't like a BIG or insist on reciprocity is not the MMT reason against BIGs & UBIs. The MMT reasoning is that they are impossible, because reciprocity is logically necessary, not just something people like or don't like. <br /><br />By the way, I am all for nonmonetary "BIGs". But if something can be safely provided by BIG income - then make it free. If not, a BIG is just a way of enslaving the people who are providing that good.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-91167713543770608742017-05-26T02:27:34.002-04:002017-05-26T02:27:34.002-04:00The richest nation in the world, Switzerland solid...<i>The richest nation in the world, Switzerland solidly voted down a BIG a while ago, although it is probably the nation in the world for best suited for a BIG, where it would do the least damage and might even help for a while. But could it just be that they actually did it for logical long-term thoughtful reasons, that the majority understand economics better than BIG-pushers? The people of Switzerland also just brought their own central bank to heel - for the same reason - go Swiss!</i><br /><br />Must be because the Swiss have full employment and a JG, thanks to their better understanding of economics.<br /><br /><i>Backwards thinking. The BIG is "work-obsessed". Other people's work. The JG is just normal slacker cooperation on a groovy commune.<br /><br />Who is more work obsessed? <br />Someone who trades their labor for someone else's if and when they need or want it? - I'll fix your plumbing if you'll paint my house.<br /><br />Or someone who insists on regularly being waited on by others and doing nothing in return?</i><br /><br />The Swiss. The "pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps" folks. The "I'm alright, Jack" crowd. The people that go on about "dole bludgers". The voting demographic that Neil Wilson keeps writing about, who will reject a BIG because there's a lack of reciprocity. (They will also reject a JG because those are not "real jobs")<br /><br /><i>The second "should be" has nothing to do with MMT. The first "can" is a human right. Thinking that ensuring this right is impossible - rather than extremely easy to execute and entirely beneficial - is lunacy.</i><br /><br />My "job" is to post comments at Mike Norman Economics. I've been doing this for years, yet I'm still waiting for my first paycheck. Is the delay due to implementation issues, or are my rights being violated?<br /><br /><i>Instituting a BIG would convince everyone that it is a piece of shit. Maybe we need to go through that loop one more time.</i><br /><br />Maybe we need to return to the full employment policies of the past. Then someone (preferably open-minded) can come along, declare those policies to be shit, and history can repeat itself.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-9401302363771939182017-05-26T01:43:53.551-04:002017-05-26T01:43:53.551-04:00Bob:The authors of JG schemes tend to be opposed t...Bob:<i>The authors of JG schemes tend to be opposed to a BIG. This is another huge bone of contention.</i><br /><br />Contra Tom, I think this correct. If as is usually agreed on, BIG means "a substantial program that is more than just a new name for welfare". And I think they're right, but don't say it loudly and stridently enough. Practically everyone criticizes our MMT heroes from the right; I elected myself to criticize them from the left long ago.<br />And I think it is important to not mischaracterize the MMT heros positions, as both friends and critics of their positions can. <br /><br />Wray at NEP a few years ago said that the mainstream gets everything (exactly) backwards. I'm christening this Wray's Law. <br /><br />Thinking that the BIG is a "progressive" idea or the JG is "work-obssessed" is pure mainstream economics. Wray's Law in action. <br /><br />The BIG is a piece of shit. At best it does nothing. In reality it would make things worse. Which is why so many plutocrats love it so.<br /><br />The richest nation in the world, Switzerland solidly voted down a BIG a while ago, although it is probably the nation in the world for best suited for a BIG, where it would do the least damage and might even help for a while. But could it just be that they actually did it for logical long-term thoughtful reasons, that the majority understand economics better than BIG-pushers? The people of Switzerland also just brought their own central bank to heel - for the same reason - go Swiss!<br /><br /><i>Perhaps a JG-only approach is the only acceptable approach for our work obsessed culture. </i><br /><br />Backwards thinking. The BIG is "work-obsessed". Other people's work. The JG is just normal slacker cooperation on a groovy commune.<br /><br />Who is more work obsessed? <br />Someone who trades their labor for someone else's if and when they need or want it? - I'll fix your plumbing if you'll paint my house.<br /><br />Or someone who insists on regularly being waited on by others and doing nothing in return?<br /><br /><i>Or maybe it is time to abandon the ideal that everyone can or should be employed at a "job". </i> <br />The second "should be" has nothing to do with MMT. The first "can" is a human right. Thinking that ensuring this right is impossible - rather than extremely easy to execute and entirely beneficial - is lunacy.<br /><br /><i>Doing nothing is the worst possible option.</i> I agree somewhat. Instituting a BIG would convince everyone that it is a piece of shit. Maybe we need to go through that loop one more time. <br /><br /><i>I'm open to all suggestions, "MMT economists" are not.</i> <br />They are open to suggestions. You don't evolve a bulletproof logical theory without testing it. They reject the BIG because they've thought about it. People who support it haven't. As Wray notes, they usually don't even coherently formulate anything. I'd be happy to help anyone go through the arguments - but it would be nice if they came with a truly open mind (hey, maybe I could be wrong - the BIG could be a piece of shit) and argued in a more usual style than say AA or EKH. I mean, at first I thought the BIG could be an improvement on the JG when I was learning MMT. Then I learnt and thought more and realized how wrong I was. <br /><br />&&&&&&&&&&&&&<br /><br />Since the last JG-related post, been writing a long response to Dan Lynch, Kong King & Unknown mainly, who are imho (surprise!) completely wrong about everything, (factually, logically and common sensically) , but this slacker as always has far too much work to do. (What a relief a JG would be!) Will post it soon.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-27155433610250191982017-05-23T21:38:33.787-04:002017-05-23T21:38:33.787-04:00Not only EITC but also other social welfare progra...Not only EITC but also other social welfare programs.<br /><br />Works both ways.<br /><br />It is very difficult to get on social security disability "because there are so many scammers."Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-50018839445693363792017-05-23T21:33:11.139-04:002017-05-23T21:33:11.139-04:00From Wikipedia article:
Millions of American famil...From Wikipedia article:<br /><i>Millions of American families who are eligible for the EITC do not receive it, essentially leaving billions of dollars unclaimed. Research by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Internal Revenue Service indicates that between 15% and 25% of households who are entitled to the EITC do not claim their credit, or between 3.5 million and 7 million households.</i><br /><br />Houston, we have a problem.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32394758347353471862017-05-23T21:21:16.286-04:002017-05-23T21:21:16.286-04:00US MMT economists are OK with a basic income polic...US MMT economists are OK with a basic income policy (transfer payment) that is means-tested rather than universal. <br /><br />The US already has this as the earned income credit<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit" rel="nofollow">earned income credit</a> and welfare/Medicaid for those under a certain income limit. Only low-income people qualify for it. MMT economists are fine with this and would expand it where it is insufficient to address needs.<br /><br />Some factions would either convert the exiting welfare to workfare or a UBI that eliminates other social welfare programs. The US MMT economists are opposed to this. The MMT JG would not impact existing social welfare programs or act against expanding them. It would not be workfare because it is unrelated to social welfare programs, and it would not be a transfer payment because work is involved.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24329321359458550842017-05-23T20:12:38.462-04:002017-05-23T20:12:38.462-04:00Re-read you own post, Tom. MMT economists are all ...Re-read you own post, Tom. MMT economists are all over the place, except that they don't support a pure BIG. It goes without saying that they believe a JG is a superior option to a BIG. Within the MMT community, it is rare to read anything to the contrary.<br /><br /><i>A JG and BIG can co-exist. In fact some MMT economist favor allowing a choice between receiving a BIG and opting for a JG.</i><br /><br />Yet I haven't read anything from Bill Mitchell acknowledging that a JG could co-exist with a BIG. He has written many articles opposing BIG schemes and there's no suggestion the two approaches are compatible or complementary. Likewise for the author of this piece.<br /><br />Maybe it is possible to implement a hybrid system. Perhaps a JG-only approach is the only acceptable approach for our work obsessed culture. Or maybe it is time to abandon the ideal that everyone can or should be employed at a "job". I'm open to all suggestions, "MMT economists" are not.<br /><br />Something will have to give as we move forward. Doing nothing is the worst possible option.<br /><br /><i>What MMT economists oppose is a universal income guarantee (inflationary) and especially one that removes the safety net (anti-progressive).</i><br /><br />We should all be suspicious of the political motivations behind the BIG. Part of its support is coming from the <i>laisser faire</i> crowd.<br /><br /><i>MMT economists oppose providing firms that have a low wage policy (such as Sam Walton stated as Walmart's policy) to receive a subsidy through welfare payments that make up the difference between the compensation paid (wage and benefits) and a living compensation. This would eliminate the class of "working poor" that populates welfare programs and creates a social and economic drag.</i><br /><br />A minimum living wage would address this concern. This would make Ralph's preferred approach non-exploitative as the wage subsidy to a private employer would be the equivalent of that offered to a non-profit/public employer.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83476105128916313722017-05-23T18:14:13.553-04:002017-05-23T18:14:13.553-04:00The authors of JG schemes tend to be opposed to a ...<i>The authors of JG schemes tend to be opposed to a BIG. This is another huge bone of contention.</i><br /><br />No they don't. <br /><br />The contention is that only a JG replaces the buffer stock of unemployed with a buffer stock of employed. Just every child can have a pony if there are enough ponies and every dog can have a bone if there are enough bones; so too, everyone who is willing and able to work can have job if there are enough jobs.<br /><br />This has noting to do with a BIG.<br /><br />A JG and BIG can co-exist. In fact some MMT economist favor allowing a choice between receiving a BIG and opting for a JG.<br /><br />What MMT economists oppose is a universal income guarantee (inflationary) and especially one that removes the safety net (anti-progressive).<br /><br />MMT economists also favor some type of BIG for those who are unable to work. This should also be at a living wage.<br /><br />MMT economists oppose providing firms that have a low wage policy (such as Sam Walton stated as Walmart's policy) to receive a subsidy through welfare payments that make up the difference between the compensation paid (wage and benefits) and a living compensation. This would eliminate the class of "working poor" that populates welfare programs and creates a social and economic drag.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29557287192795351332017-05-23T17:48:32.475-04:002017-05-23T17:48:32.475-04:00The authors of JG schemes tend to be opposed to a ...The authors of JG schemes tend to be opposed to a BIG. This is another huge bone of contention.<br /><br />I'd support a purely BIG initiative as an improvement over the status quo. I'd support a BIG/JG hybrid as well as a JG only approach. Each of these proposals are better than mass unemployment and welfare.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-546197192569406722017-05-23T17:03:56.931-04:002017-05-23T17:03:56.931-04:00IMO, a JG that is in reality a combination JG/BIG ...<i>IMO, a JG that is in reality a combination JG/BIG could well work. My idea is as follows -</i><br /><br />Concur.<br /><br />This fits into my cat 4 in the list above.<br /><br />It would work for more skilled workers that did not wish to go with the base rate for the lowest skilled by giving them some support while angling for a better deal. Unemployment insurance was supposed to take care of this, but that has not always been the case.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-51942684671562680892017-05-23T13:56:41.320-04:002017-05-23T13:56:41.320-04:00Tom,
IMO, a JG that is in reality a combination J...Tom,<br /><br />IMO, a JG that is in reality a combination JG/BIG could well work. My idea is as follows -<br /><br />All people who want a JG, register at the local (un)employment office. They are immediately given a BIG stipend (less than the living wage assuming full time work - perhaps 50% or more). Then a marketplace is developed, where employers bid for these JG recipients (with the proviso that the bid plus the BIG hourly rate be greater than the going living wage). The job fits into a set of categories (e.g. farm labor, office work, etc) and various offers are displayed. JG recipients put down their preferences as to the type of work. The employment office then takes up the offers on a first come first served basis (for the JG recipient, keeping preferences in mind) - highest offers going first. The JG recipient has the choice to accept or not at the offered wage, while the employer gets the person for the day/week - with choice of continuing with the person for a longer period of time. Transport vouchers are also given to the JG recipient to allow them to get to work (this can cover public transit or gas money)<br /><br />All of this has to be done in conjunction with a good public housing program, as well as a back up system for people who are unable/reduced able to work because of disabilities.<br /><br />This in my opinion would be very workable. This really would serve as a buffer stock of employment.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07198667003900590106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-38947299210583906372017-05-23T13:02:49.396-04:002017-05-23T13:02:49.396-04:00The JG provides a minimum living wage for lowest s...The JG provides a minimum living wage for lowest skilled workers and those unfortunate enough to hold a PhD. The private sector is tasked with offering those workers a better deal.<br /><br />Unemployment and employment are permanent from a macro perspective.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-73013071041130633772017-05-23T11:42:54.361-04:002017-05-23T11:42:54.361-04:00I want to expand on my point 5 above about one asp...I want to expand on my point 5 above about one aspect of a JG being the need to provide permanent employment.<br /><br />The JG establishes a buffer stock of employed to replace the current buffer stock of unemployed, the idea being that firms will hire out of the buffer stock of employed as the economy recovers from a contraction that expanded the buffer stock.<br /><br />But some people may never be selected for private employment and remain in the pool indefinitely.<br /><br />So a JG must be designed to provide for this eventuality, too.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-86886472207626200002017-05-23T11:37:56.185-04:002017-05-23T11:37:56.185-04:00You're not doing a JG proposal any favors by r...<i>You're not doing a JG proposal any favors by referring to your clientel as "unskilled".</i><br /><br />Call it lowest skilled workers then. <br /><br />The point is that labor cost is labor time multiplied by "labor power" as output.<br /><br />The lowest skill level has a power output of one, so one unit of labor time multiplied by one unit of labor power is the labor power/time rate of one. This is the base rate of compensation at a "living wage," given costs in an area.<br /><br />Higher skill workers will have a higher output per hour and so can demand a higher wage.<br /><br />An MMT JG sets the base wage for a labor power/time ratio of one at a certain rate of compensation, which then anchors the currency to labor rather than say, a fixed amount of gold or silver.<br /><br />This has the effect of reducing the power of capital to control the wage through influencing the bargaining power of labor, which is the way a buffer stock of unemployed works (against labor).Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-36764563073885226542017-05-23T10:29:30.053-04:002017-05-23T10:29:30.053-04:001. Who is going to design and run it? That is, it ...<i>1. Who is going to design and run it? That is, it is going to be a government bureaucracy within the Dept of Labor, or is it going to be contracted out?</i><br /><br />In the Canadian context, it would be designed by provincial and municipal governments, run by the municipalities and funded by the provinces or the federal government. It would initially provide work in areas deemed to be public services. If that initiative were a success then it could be expanded elsewhere and with different objectives.<br /><br />Politically, this baby will be strangled in its crib before it has the chance to crawl, walk or run.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22318864726572638552017-05-23T10:21:00.402-04:002017-05-23T10:21:00.402-04:00The JG program is aimed at "unskilled workers...<i>The JG program is aimed at "unskilled workers." There are very few jobs now for "unskilled workers" like manning a shovel and digging ditches. Most jobs require at least minimal training.</i><br /><br />Most jobs in an economy are "unskilled" in the sense that they do not require formal education beyond high school. Training is provided on-the-job and/or with a few hours of classroom instruction at most. You learn by doing, which is the kind of experience that employers prefer.<br /><br />You're not doing a JG proposal any favors by referring to your clientel as "unskilled".Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-17425582205744571302017-05-23T08:36:45.037-04:002017-05-23T08:36:45.037-04:00These strength of these factors is magnified in th...<i>These strength of these factors is magnified in the US by the high rates of corporation taxes</i><br /><br />Effective corporate tax rates average around 12% despite a "book rate" of 35%. Many of the largest corporations pay no taxes at all or have a negative tax rate due to subsidies (corporate welfare). There are massive tax credits for "foreign investment" and shelters abroad that eliminate taxation entirely. Apple is in the news because the are bringing back $1B (0.4%) of their 1/4T untaxed overseas cash hoard in a BS PR play.<br /><br />This is the actual product of the US legal and tax system.Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85081793912951902252017-05-23T01:43:22.110-04:002017-05-23T01:43:22.110-04:00"BTW, the job programs during the Great Depre..."BTW, the job programs during the Great Depression also included the employment of artists to decorate public works, etc. Why couldn't street art fit into a JG? A good many people play music with a cup out. Why not include them in a JG?" Acting institution Carl Reiner claims that he and many others got their "ticket" to Hollywood because of federally sponsored art/music/theater programs. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568408482345518809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70469775149106047642017-05-22T23:52:11.949-04:002017-05-22T23:52:11.949-04:00On item 1 of Tom Hickey's "program" ...<i>On item 1 of Tom Hickey's "program" is JG.</i><br /><br />Thinking in the box.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.com