|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 18, 2016 23:06:01 GMT
bdm thanks for posting. The Binzagr institute has put forward a plan which varies the JG wage by award, but all MMT economists I have spoken with about it disagree. Bill Mitchell has also written explicitly that varying a JG wage is a bad idea but I can't find the link right now. By and large this type of design issue is one that we would need to debate more closely along with input from MMT economists.
|
|
Senexx
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Senexx on Jan 1, 2017 3:15:33 GMT
It looks like I mentioned it in the other JG thread and not this one but since this is the important/pinned one. I said that I think above the social security payment but below the minimum wage. The following quote from L. Randall Wray seems to have a similar view. That is all I have ever meant by that. IMO the Job Guarantee should be paid at the minimum wage for that kind of work. This will conflict with employers who also seek to employ people at the minimum wage. This conflict can be resolved by limiting the number of hours of JG work a week to less than full-time hours (eg: four days a week when the normal full-time working week is five days a week). This will allow employers to offer something that pays more than the JG: they can choose to offer more hours a week than the JG at the minimum wage, the same number of hours as the JG but a higher rate of pay, or offer casual work on the JG days off paid at the casual loading rate. In all cases, the employer has room to make a better offer than the JG at no extra cost to them. If we assume the standard working week is cut to 35 hours a week, the JG working week would be 28 hours. The minimum wage is $17.70 an hour, so 28 hours of JG work would pay $495.60 a week (less about $27.30 a week tax on the current tax scales). That's not a lot, but it is a lot more than the dole and it is money earned from working. bdm I can accept that.
|
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Jan 2, 2017 3:08:39 GMT
Hasn't it been suggested that the tax free threshold be increased to $40,000 as a result of implementing a Job Guarantee? Therefore the new minimum wage is $40,000 and if companies want workers, they would have to pay higher than the JG wage?
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Jan 5, 2017 11:29:17 GMT
Edwin the specific numbers would need to be worked out at the time the legislation was written. In terms of taxation yes it makes no sense to tax a JG wage but then again we would probably advocate that there is no reason to tax any wage. In terms of actual policy development I think it's more meaningful to use the term "socially inclusive minimum wage" and then use that as the benchmark for determining the actual amount of money to be paid.
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Jan 17, 2017 1:54:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sanderson on Jan 17, 2017 2:28:00 GMT
I think Zoltan nails it:
"...The value of a JG scheme is mainly from a macro perspective as it seeks to act as a stabiliser, it seeks to dampen (or eliminate) boom-bust economic cycles. The JG is nothing but targeted deficit spending (which also sets the price of labour and minimum conditions for workers). It seeks to stabilise demand. It's proposed to be federally funded and locally administered. Different local communities have different imperatives; they may copy one another or do their own thing. The benefits on a micro level will differ. The funder of the scheme, the currency issuer is in no position to micro manage the local administration. I understand people's desire to learn about details, but as far as I'm concerned that is a secondary issue, even if it sounds like a copout. On the micro level the federal funder' only job is to set some ground rules and perhaps determine what work is worthy of payment. That's all. Anyone who thinks that a JG scheme will have equally successful outcomes on the specific micro levels is mistaken..."
I reckon if we spend too much time chewing over the micro issues, we will never convince the great unwashed of the macro benefits; it will consume all the oxygen, making explanation impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Jan 19, 2017 9:33:12 GMT
One of the reasons I started the forum was to provide a spade for detailed discussion that new members of the Facebook group might find daunting. But the appetite for detail is strong At least it provides ample practice to respond to objections
|
|