I was thinking whether this was an alternative/supplement to universal basic income. Also, whenever there is a significant spread between offer and ask prices in a labor market, can't the state bridge the gap?
Unemployed people should not be given a guaranteed job. They should be paid to pursue further education and qualify themselves for a job that's actually useful.
If we removed the food stamps and other benefits given to low pay workers and their employers I doubt.
Just about anything worth doing needs an education of some kind. There are some that don't really need much/any education (sales, etc) but those usually need a certain kind of personality to be effective at. And the few that truly anyone could do without any education and are paying enough to be productive to the society (not funded by tax payer money through various benefits) are very rare.
I see three possibilities. (1) Well-paid cleaners, because cleaning will become necessarily expensive. (2) Workers that do other, much more productive things 95% of the time. (3) Machines.
I assume that the list above is sorted by increased probability, on a 5-year horizon.
Paid education for the unemployed is just going to lead us even deeper into the over-credentialing race. Half the jobs that require Bachelors now don't need much more than a high school diploma, I'm not sure why we'd encourage more of that.
Communism/Socialism/central planning is making a comeback. It is though every generation must personally re-learn all the painful lessons of history. Quite distressing.
Shouldn't we all be working towards automation and no jobs for people? The end goal of capitalism is full unemployment not full employment. All people should not expect any work to do themselves but rather expect work to be done automatically.
How do you sell stuff when everybody is unemployed.
And during the point where everybody isn't quite unemployed why should those working continue to work a full week just to give their output to those not working? Isn't that slavery?
"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment." However, it is economic consensus that inflation is caused by government monetary policy (the "monetarist" view). It is also economic consensus that inflation is destructive and creates unemployment. So if government policy is creating inflation, and therefore unemployment, why would a government "job guarantee" be a sensible response? More alcohol doesn't sober a drunk man; more intervention doesn't balance an economy.
As the article correctly notes, "When inflationary expectations subside, [unemployed] people will get their jobs back." So isn't the most sensible solution to have the government stop inflating the currency? That would solve the "dual problems" without introducing a third. It would also be a fair and honest thing to do. After all, inflation is the government's way of raising revenue by cheating (it's "the hidden tax").
As a side note, it amazes me these antique economic fallacies consistently appear on HN, of all places. They are worse than nonsense, they're dangerous. When practiced, they really hurt people. Yes, they might help a few people - but they hurt far more than they help, and for far longer. Consider the government make-work programs during the Great Depression, which are now credited for dragging out that misery. Please, enough with the junk economics. There are far more fruitful government policy discussions to occupy intelligent minds - increasing efficiency, reducing deficits and debt, fighting corruption, stopping war, to name a few.
I'm OP. I posted this because I discovered this with relation to an article I read about MMT, and wanted to understand exactly what you explained, from a person with your qualifications. Your response would have been so much better had it not contained the judgmental side-note.
I think debating and dismissing old bad ideas is something that every generation needs to do, lest they reinvent it.
My personal belief is that if we stop inflation, it will eliminate the pressure for continuous "growth", because money can now be a store of wealth that no longer leaks value and therefore there will no longer be a need for continuous investment. Perhaps the pace of society can slow down and people can relax. What would your expert opinion on that be?
Your idea is interesting, but there are plenty of justifications given for governments setting positive inflation targets. Assuming they can control e.g. public sector wages and export competitiveness by another means, how do you prevent people being disincentived to spend or borrow money?
Have you considered that people (1) need and want to consume and (2) want to invest into things that bring in more money, and/or other goods?
Forcing people to consume and invest, because else the money will expire, leads to mindless consumption, reckless unwise investment, and the lack of safety nets provided by savings.
When you say economic consensus, do you mean there are testable predictions based on the consensus that have been shown to be reproducible in multiple real world experiments?
Lots of economics seems to me like it's models that appear to work but don't generate testable predictions that turn out to be accurate.
>So if government policy is creating inflation, and therefore unemployment, why would a government "job guarantee" be a sensible response? More alcohol doesn't sober a drunk man; more intervention doesn't balance an economy.
What is the argument you're making here? That if one particular policy causes a problem, then every policy will cause problems?
36 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 98.0 ms ] threadJust about anything worth doing needs an education of some kind. There are some that don't really need much/any education (sales, etc) but those usually need a certain kind of personality to be effective at. And the few that truly anyone could do without any education and are paying enough to be productive to the society (not funded by tax payer money through various benefits) are very rare.
I see three possibilities. (1) Well-paid cleaners, because cleaning will become necessarily expensive. (2) Workers that do other, much more productive things 95% of the time. (3) Machines.
I assume that the list above is sorted by increased probability, on a 5-year horizon.
"Public sector employment subsidies tend to have negligible or even negative impacts at all horizons."[0]
[0]: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9236.pdf
And during the point where everybody isn't quite unemployed why should those working continue to work a full week just to give their output to those not working? Isn't that slavery?
How do you get there from here.
"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment." However, it is economic consensus that inflation is caused by government monetary policy (the "monetarist" view). It is also economic consensus that inflation is destructive and creates unemployment. So if government policy is creating inflation, and therefore unemployment, why would a government "job guarantee" be a sensible response? More alcohol doesn't sober a drunk man; more intervention doesn't balance an economy.
As the article correctly notes, "When inflationary expectations subside, [unemployed] people will get their jobs back." So isn't the most sensible solution to have the government stop inflating the currency? That would solve the "dual problems" without introducing a third. It would also be a fair and honest thing to do. After all, inflation is the government's way of raising revenue by cheating (it's "the hidden tax").
As a side note, it amazes me these antique economic fallacies consistently appear on HN, of all places. They are worse than nonsense, they're dangerous. When practiced, they really hurt people. Yes, they might help a few people - but they hurt far more than they help, and for far longer. Consider the government make-work programs during the Great Depression, which are now credited for dragging out that misery. Please, enough with the junk economics. There are far more fruitful government policy discussions to occupy intelligent minds - increasing efficiency, reducing deficits and debt, fighting corruption, stopping war, to name a few.
Source: Two degrees in economics.
I think debating and dismissing old bad ideas is something that every generation needs to do, lest they reinvent it.
My personal belief is that if we stop inflation, it will eliminate the pressure for continuous "growth", because money can now be a store of wealth that no longer leaks value and therefore there will no longer be a need for continuous investment. Perhaps the pace of society can slow down and people can relax. What would your expert opinion on that be?
Would that period have been worse for the working class if inflation had been higher?
Forcing people to consume and invest, because else the money will expire, leads to mindless consumption, reckless unwise investment, and the lack of safety nets provided by savings.
Lots of economics seems to me like it's models that appear to work but don't generate testable predictions that turn out to be accurate.
What is the argument you're making here? That if one particular policy causes a problem, then every policy will cause problems?
Don't think it actually means any actual knowledge.
The world collapsed ten years ago due to these beliefs. Stop repeating them as though they are actual science. They are not. You wasted your time.
The thing that amuses me about this is that you've probably flown through LAX or LaGuardia and driven across the Triborough bridge.
But sure, "make work".
>Source: Two degrees in economics.
It seems to bear a striking resemblance to theology these days.