Guaranteed Income? How About Guaranteed Job?

NEP’s Pavlina Tcherneva appeared on David Packman’s show yesterday (1/21/2014) discussing job guarantee programs. You can view the video below.

5 responses to “Guaranteed Income? How About Guaranteed Job?

  1. It is a “no brainer”, it is better for the country to have people working and producing than to have “unemployeds” collecting unemployment checks.

  2. I’m curious as to why some people think that the current voting public even wants to provide public funding for more social services like the foster children mentioned in the piece. As MMT makes clear, funding such projects is not a financial problem, it is not a problem of lack of money. It is a problem of political will. The constituencies that have and use their political power do not now and never seem to ever have shown much interest in increasing resources for “those” people beyond that which is needed to shut them up. Without making a JG sound like something that can benefit these favoured constituencies, no Congress would ever vote for it.

    • Things like widespread public education do not come about because the powerful want to provide for the little people. These things come about because communities are capable of coming together behind projects that most of the community believes can and will benefit the members of that community and they use their combined political power to accomplish those projects.

  3. The resistance to this no-brainer proposal would be immense. The business community fears full employment as Dracula does the crucifix. If there are to be jobs, they are to be defined only by the capitalists for whom “democracy” means voting with our pocketbooks. The notion that the way we employ our human resources should be determined by true democracy is for them, heresy – even worse “communism”. Of course communism was tyranny by the state. The free marketers fear tyranny by the citizens.

  4. A thirty second solution to (J)ob (G)uarantee.
    *WHAT IF THE …The Fed Reserve were to become the CENTRAL BANK WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE (CBWFTP) instead of working for the Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) .

    Let’s try this game: Substitute the words “Central Bank Working For The People” (CBWFTP) where ever” Private For Profit Banks” (PFPB) appears.
    ****PFPB have $100 trillion in assets as mortgages on residential and commercial real property (RE) loans. The average compound interest rate is 4% for a term of 36 years. The PFPB would have created that $100 trillion ‘out of thin air’ which would have an attachment that would require $400 trillion to be paid to the PFPB in order for the loan to be paid in full. YES, take away the smoke and mirrors. Now we must replace (reduce to zero ) the initial loan amount by subtracting $100 trillion; leaving a profit,income,taxation from ‘somewhere else’ of $300 trillion. This amount goes as profits to the PFPB. Revenue they may use for their own selfish purposes.

    Why would you not want prosperity for yourselves and your children?
    Why would you not want $300 trillion turned over to Congress, to be used..”to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
    The Federal Reserve would purchase all real estate loans and modify them with terms and conditions, these loans shall be assumable at 2% interest for 36 years. The Federal Reserve would also make available $10 trillion for new residential construction. Also up to $50 trillion available for buyers mortgages.Being an American citizen with an income deems that person as ‘creditworthy’. The real asset value is in the completed product and its land value.
    IF $72 trillion in loans, that would produce $4 trillion a year in REVENUE from taxation.
    How many jobs ?
    What if $1trillion per state being available for infrastructure ?
    ….disaster relief?
    ….renewable energy?

    $2TRILLION a year that that must be distributed via health,education, and welfare programs so that the loans can be paid without causing deflation. $2 TRILLION should be used to create new loans to perpetuate the system.
    What would be the unintended consequence ? Perhaps a need for a larger population? Surely there would be more jobs created than available employable ?

    Share: “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..“,Justaluckyfool.