This is how it works right now:
>Economy goes south
>You can't get a job
>You demonstrate to Centrelink that you're trying, but can't find work
>Centrelink pays you a meagre amount while you're able to meet their criteria
>You fall into poverty, become unemployable, are more likely to turn to crime, etc.
>When the economy picks up again, you might get a job, but you might not
>Unemployment is a systemic failure, not a personal choice, but you will be judged as if it were your choice
This is how it should work:
>Economy goes south
>You can't get a job in the private sector or traditional public sector
>You go to the Job Guarantee agency (which replaces most of Centrelink's function, along with all the private jobseeker agencies that exist right now) and tell them that you want a job
>Job Guarantee agency arranges a minimum wage job for you, working for your local council
>You earn a regular income and maintain some structure in your life
>When the economy picks up again, you might get a private sector job or you might not; either way you remain constantly employed
>Unemployment becomes a personal choice, not a systemic failure
>>78132105
how the hell would you pay for that
>>78132207
If it could be paid for, would you agree with it?
>>78132105
if the economy has gone south, where exactly is this tax payer funded job? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist. If it did the economy would be, you know, down south. Heard of volunteering? You'll still get bennies doing that but not enough for you, right?
>>78132207
The money that is spend on welfare programs right now
>>78132105
Thanks for the daily dose doc
>>78132105
So the truth finally comes out: Paul Krugman was an Australian all along.
>>78132267
Paying for it is the main issue.
Taking it out of the equation doesn't make any sense.
>>78133068
No, net public spending rises in a downturn because more people are on welfare and fewer people are in the higher tax brackets.
What is currently done as volunteer work is a great example of the kind of work a job guarantee could do.
>>78133350
>What is currently done as volunteer work is a great example of the kind of work a job guarantee could do.
Volunteer work operates on not having to pay the person because it can't be afforded.
Hints in the name.
>>78132105
Job guarentee is m'kay. I prefer UBI though, perhaps with public work projects always employing that you can work long or short term to compliment your UBI.
An interesting article comparing the two.
http://www.dw.com/en/whats-better-an-unconditional-basic-income-or-a-job-guarantee/a-19305445
>>78132207
It wouldn't cost that much more than the current system, especially if done properly, with the guarneteed job doing essential shit that has to be paid for anyway.
>>78133085
Yeah, most people will agree that it's better to spend the money to employ people than to give it away for free.
>>78133258
>le krugman meme
Fun fact: when you hear a new economic idea, it doesn't necessarily come from Krugman. In fact it probably doesn't come from Krugman because Krugman is an idiot.
>>78133344
Paying for it is the easy part. Do it the same way as a national government pays for anything: spend the money.
>>78132105
The one inherent flaw to that is, for an economy to function, there always needs to be unemployed people.
>>78133638
>Paying for it is the easy part. Do it the same way as a national government pays for anything: spend the money.
Wow, its just so simple anon
Why didn't I think of that
Should follow Greece's example and just give everyone public sector jobs.
>>78133584
> I prefer UBI though
To expand on this, Job Guarantee scheme reeks a bit like gommunism to me, especially as modern day crypto-commies (MMT proponents) endorse it. It is a bit authoritarian and I feel it would stifle creativity.
Some unemployment serves a purpose too in capitalist society.
>>78133556
The Australian or British government can afford whatever is for sale in Australian Dollars or British Pounds, including labour. Try again.
>>78133651
I agree, the current system relies on a buffer stock of unemployed labour that the private sector can draw from.
What I'm suggesting is just to replace that buffer stock of unemployed workers with a buffer stock of employed workers.
>>78133690
>muh Greece
This wouldn't work in Greece or any eurozone country because of the fiscal constraints of a government using a foreign currency.
>>78133837
It wouldn't work anywhere.
The "fiscal constraints" you're talking about are not outspending your income by several orders of magnitude until you can't borrow any more.
Could we feasibly afford it? Yes. Would it be sustainable? Fuck no.
>>78133638
And you're an idiot. So the odds are pretty good you're Krugman.
>>78133584
>>78133826
This said, job guarantee would be better than the current welfare system we have. Hell, even when on the doll I supported me being put to work cracking rocks or something.
>>78132207
people eat food anyway to live.Somehow you can find the money, even directing charity to it.
OP's proposal could be modified by making the guaranteed job have below-minimum-wage wage and not be fulltime.
JG' jobs would be restricted by the government to be useful but at the same time not hurt real business with their low wages.
Street cleaning of poor areas, social assistence of weak/old/sick people,surveyllance of zones with high crime(with little power and in collaboration with police), unskilled job in government contract ( example: when building a state school upto 10% of workers could be hired that way).
I am sure the government can find something retarded, socially useful that is worth paying half a living wage when society already had to sustain the individual in some way.
>>78133903
The government's fiscal balance is simply a residual of how much the private sector wanted to save (spend less than its income) over the period. Furthermore no government needs to borrow its own currency back to finance deficits, and no currency issuer will be unable to issue public debt instruments.
>several orders of magnitude [in the context of public spending]
Nice strawman but all I advocated in this thread was to pay minimum wage to anyone who can't find a better job. This would be completely counter-cyclical.
>>78134100
>OP's proposal could be modified by making the guaranteed job have below-minimum-wage wage and not be fulltime.
Whatever wage the JG scheme pays would become the real minimum wage. Right now the real minimum wage is zero.
>>78133584
>>78133826
>>78134052
Thanks for your input.
I think the great benefit of JG over UBI is that it's the perfect stabiliser. UBI pays out to everyone all the time, whereas JG automatically shrinks back in a boom as workers get private sector jobs.
There is also of course the point that JG makes some use of unemployed labour rather than letting it be wasted. On the other hand UBI hopes people will voluntarily do something useful.
Then there is the social aspect of it - mental illness, domestic violence, etc directly or indirectly related to unemployment. UBI doesn't take care of that.
>>78133826
Another thing - I can see why you call MMTers crypto-commies (although I disagree). That said, what do you think of this?
https://beinglibertarian.com/mmt/
tldr: a libertarian realised that MMT is politically/ideologically neutral on its own
This is literally a reinvention of a communist practice. Making up bullshit jobs so that there is no unemployment.
Inb4 people do the made up jobs really badly because they can't be fired.
but my benefits
i have anxiety i need money for my programs
>>78135670
No, creating real jobs so that there is no involuntary unemployment.
Also people could be fired from a JG if they refused to work or whatever.
Got any other strawmen to throw at me?
