|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Sept 3, 2016 23:44:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johncitizen on Sept 4, 2016 0:30:19 GMT
"mythfighter" Rodger Mitchell (no relation, I hope)
This just shows he doesn't even understand the job guarantee concept.
About his UBI proposal he says this:
This reminded me of a point Phil Lawn made in the recent episode of Let's Get Fiscal: that UBI advocates don't understand the automatic fiscal stabilisers. They seem to think welfare for the poor is good, but welfare for everyone is better. Why do so many on the "Left" like this idea? This is not what progressive policy looks like!
"Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer" by Dmytri Kleiner
I agree with this article. It refers to Minsky & Kalecki and full employment, which is good, but it would be better if the author had done some direct UBI/JG comparison as solutions to poverty. The widespread enthusiasm for UBI really should be directed toward full employment instead.
|
|
Senexx
Junior Member
Posts: 81 
|
Post by Senexx on Sept 4, 2016 7:25:38 GMT
Furtherfield needs references. By which I mean references for Friedman, Minsky, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Sept 6, 2016 22:20:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Nov 8, 2016 0:35:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Nov 8, 2016 0:37:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Nov 27, 2016 6:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 5, 2016 7:43:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Haines on Dec 5, 2016 23:10:28 GMT
Iain, I can see some sense in Job Guarantee for two reasons: there is work to be done that cannot be done by the private sector, and it is good to keep people occupied. The issue for me is that putting 'money creation' in the hands of bureaucrats is dangerous, as it can quickly lead to pork barrelling and corruption. If the money is given directly to all citizens they can decide how they want to spend their money. Then, if there is work that needs to be done that requires an increase in taxes to fund it, people can vote for the work to be done by voting to pay higher taxes. The government can also borrow from the private sector to fund long-term infrastructure investment. This means government must convince people that what they want to do is in the interests of the community. My preference is for the 'vote' on how to spend new money to be left in the hands of individuals. Also, I believe that there are many things that people can do with their tie that is more fulfilling and socially rewarding than work for work's sake. With a UBI that is set to keep the labour market in balance (including govt jobs), there will be by definition no jobs not filled and no people looking for work. It means that people can choose to undertake the available work or not, and those that choose not to, are then free to pursue whatever other interests they may have without any recriminations from those working, as everyone gets the same UBI, and there are no jobs for them anyway. I don't imagine we will agree on these points  |
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 7, 2016 10:33:04 GMT
Hey Michael, money creation is already in the hands of government.
All government spending is money creation and it is legislation and democratic process that controls how much spending occurs.
All a JG does is put in place an automatic stabiliser for the economy that ensures no one is involuntarily unemployed.
Another way of looking at it is: if the government can target a balanced budget based on legislation, how is it any different to target full employment based on legislation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 7, 2016 10:34:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Dec 12, 2016 5:54:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sanderson on Dec 27, 2016 5:10:42 GMT
I have yet to read or view all the material above, so at the risk of making a dick of myself I make the following comments.
It is my belief that a JG (Jobs Guarantee) and a UGI (Universal Guaranteed Income) are not nor should be mutually exclusive.
We currently have a UGI of last resort, that being our social security and pension systems. They are for all intent and purpose “sit down” money as they do not represent productive enterprise. In its current metamorphose the contemporary system is inadequate, demeaning, and fuels dysfunction.
A JG that is meaningful and productive that has autonomy within defined parameters I see as desirable, indeed a human right.
Roy Morgan Research states that in April 2016 that 11% of the Australian workforce, 1,422,000 people, was unemployed. This is in contrast with the ABS figure of 5.8%.This is a massive waste of human capital and there is no sign that this will change any time soon.
MMT would enable the federal government to introduce a floating productivity linked universal entitlement to a reasonable living minimum national wage (UGI) in return for participation (JG) for a predetermined time in a meaningful productive community enterprise that is designed and operated within defined parameters by the community.
There would be no sit down money, most existing pensions and payments could be eliminated. Everyone will have access to a job that is adapted to individual ability by their community, achieving full employment. Imagine unemployment eliminated, with 1.4 million jobs created.
Because there is a requirement that the community controlled jobs, are meaningful and productive there would be “growth”. There would be an expectation that this would increase organically with time, education, and learned abilities.
Enterprises such as community agriculture, public housing, micro energy grids, elder care, child care, education, health care, and infrastructure would give communities purpose and drive. With the introduction of MMT, private enterprise within communities would be expected to thrive and expand. Life would return to dying communities be it in the remote outback, the rural town, or the city.
Key is that any UGI should rise and fall with national productivity and entitlement is only achieved by spending time in a JG enterprise.
Clearly a lot of detail is not included; however I would like some critical comment.
|
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Dec 28, 2016 12:31:45 GMT
Michael Sanderson,
Why wouldn't a JG and a BI (Basic Income, it's not currently universal because it's means tested and it's not guaranteed because a person on it can be cut off) co-exist?
The JG and BI are two separate payments, think of it as Newstart and Work for the dole. Granted that while on Work for the dole, it's only an extra $20 a fortnight. It shows how the two can co-exist, the JG would pay significantly more than an extra $20. The idea of the JG is that it is voluntary, people who aren't willing to participate in a JG would stay on the much lower BI.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sanderson on Dec 29, 2016 9:19:42 GMT
Edwin
Having grown up in Central Australia I have seen what sit down money does to societies. It is the case all around the country but is particularly amplified in the Centre.
A UGI that comes at no cost to the recipient is none productive and destroys community. Money has no value unless there is productivity. I believe that autonomous community enterprise that trades a predetermined amount of time for a UGI would enhance community, productivity, and be inflation resistant. If one can use that time for greater reward in another enterprise one is free to do so, however you forego the UGI.
There would be nothing stopping an individual that does the time and receives the UGI using free time in another income earning enterprise. The combination of the UGI and the additional income would be subject to the contemporary tax system.
I believe this paragraph below has all the working components:
“With Government money the federal government would be able to introduce a floating productivity linked universal entitlement to a reasonable living minimum universal basic income in return for participation for a predetermined time in a meaningful productive community enterprise that is designed and operated within defined parameters by the community.”
|
|
