Home
Calendar
Latest images
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Log in
JOB GUARANTEE ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS by Bill Mitchell
There is more to the Job Guarantee than just a Few Blog Posts
Before I wrote blogs I had generated 25 or so years of academic research material – in journal articles, books, book chapters, commissioned reports – hundreds of items of work. That is standard fare for an active researcher chasing competitive grants. That is where one’s contribution to ‘knowledge’ (as far as it is) is to be found. I only started writing blogs as a way of promoting Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to a broader audience that would never read my academic work. I think that has been a successful strategy. But it has also created this ‘new myopia’. People think that the knowledge set available lies exclusively in blogs. It doesn’t. My blogs cut corners in writing style, referencing, and leave things unsaid that a more formal treatment would cover. The aim of the blog is accessibility and to provide an introduction to ideas which will encourage readers to delve further and arm themselves with deeper knowledge so as to promote informed progressive activism. A case in point is recent deliberations about one of my pet topics – the Job Guarantee.
A week or so ago (May 16, 2017), the Washington-based Centre for American Progress published an Op Ed – Toward a Marshall Plan for America.
The CAP says it is “a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization” does not fully disclose its funding sources (shameful) but is known to have close links to the Clinton camp in the Democratic Party and its staff has had considerable overlap with recent Democratic administrations in the US.
The CAP article (cited above) addressed, in part, the vulnerability of people living in the US “who have not gone to college” and as a result of “prudential and ethical” considerations, it concluded that:
… we must do more to create decent job opportunities and secure family situations for all working people facing difficult economic conditions not within their control.
The Report then provided a graphical analysis of where “lost jobs, low wages, high costs, and dimished mobility played a critical role in setting the stage for a narrow populist victory for Trump” and set out a plan to combat these issues.
Their “Marshall Plan to rebuild hard-hit communities through increased economic growth; more jobs with better wages; and rising opportunities and increased security for families” included a range of policy interventions.
Among them was:
We propose today a new jobs guarantee … There is no shortage of important work that needs to be done in our country. There are not nearly enough homecare workers to aid the aged and disabled. Many working families with children under the age of 5 need access to affordable child care. Schools need teachers’ aides, and cities need EMTs. And there is no shortage of people who could do this work. What has been missing is policy that can mobilize people …
An effective employment program would need to provide paid training when needed to allow workers to transition to a designated type of employment … it would not compete with existing private-sector employment … it would provide the dignity of work, the value of which is significant.
All of which I happily read as being a truly progressive contribution (why would I not think that!).
I didn’t read it as being a full operational plan for the implementation of a full-blown Job Guarantee scheme, which lies at the heart of MMT’s macroeconomic stabilisation approach.
I didn’t read the reference to some types of work that would be possible as being a full inventory of Job Guarantee jobs. It was general rather than specific.
The CAP intervention was a blog post not a full blueprint and technical manual on how to design and implement such a scheme.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36071
There is more to the Job Guarantee than just a Few Blog Posts
Before I wrote blogs I had generated 25 or so years of academic research material – in journal articles, books, book chapters, commissioned reports – hundreds of items of work. That is standard fare for an active researcher chasing competitive grants. That is where one’s contribution to ‘knowledge’ (as far as it is) is to be found. I only started writing blogs as a way of promoting Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to a broader audience that would never read my academic work. I think that has been a successful strategy. But it has also created this ‘new myopia’. People think that the knowledge set available lies exclusively in blogs. It doesn’t. My blogs cut corners in writing style, referencing, and leave things unsaid that a more formal treatment would cover. The aim of the blog is accessibility and to provide an introduction to ideas which will encourage readers to delve further and arm themselves with deeper knowledge so as to promote informed progressive activism. A case in point is recent deliberations about one of my pet topics – the Job Guarantee.
A week or so ago (May 16, 2017), the Washington-based Centre for American Progress published an Op Ed – Toward a Marshall Plan for America.
The CAP says it is “a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization” does not fully disclose its funding sources (shameful) but is known to have close links to the Clinton camp in the Democratic Party and its staff has had considerable overlap with recent Democratic administrations in the US.
The CAP article (cited above) addressed, in part, the vulnerability of people living in the US “who have not gone to college” and as a result of “prudential and ethical” considerations, it concluded that:
… we must do more to create decent job opportunities and secure family situations for all working people facing difficult economic conditions not within their control.
The Report then provided a graphical analysis of where “lost jobs, low wages, high costs, and dimished mobility played a critical role in setting the stage for a narrow populist victory for Trump” and set out a plan to combat these issues.
Their “Marshall Plan to rebuild hard-hit communities through increased economic growth; more jobs with better wages; and rising opportunities and increased security for families” included a range of policy interventions.
Among them was:
We propose today a new jobs guarantee … There is no shortage of important work that needs to be done in our country. There are not nearly enough homecare workers to aid the aged and disabled. Many working families with children under the age of 5 need access to affordable child care. Schools need teachers’ aides, and cities need EMTs. And there is no shortage of people who could do this work. What has been missing is policy that can mobilize people …
An effective employment program would need to provide paid training when needed to allow workers to transition to a designated type of employment … it would not compete with existing private-sector employment … it would provide the dignity of work, the value of which is significant.
All of which I happily read as being a truly progressive contribution (why would I not think that!).
I didn’t read it as being a full operational plan for the implementation of a full-blown Job Guarantee scheme, which lies at the heart of MMT’s macroeconomic stabilisation approach.
I didn’t read the reference to some types of work that would be possible as being a full inventory of Job Guarantee jobs. It was general rather than specific.
The CAP intervention was a blog post not a full blueprint and technical manual on how to design and implement such a scheme.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36071
