3 ms·
There are many more economists building on MMT than just them, at many institutions globally. Describing the job guarantee/transition job as equivalent to "wor
by bfdm 4y ago
There are many more economists building on MMT than just them, at many institutions globally.
Describing the job guarantee/transition job as equivalent to "workfare" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the JG. Two ways in which it differs significantly (but not the only ways):
1/ it pays a living wage / socially inclusive wage, unlike most current (un)employment insurance programs
2/ it is non-coercive. You have the promise of that job, not a mandate to perform it. Other social programs remain available for those unable for for a variety of reasons.
- astrange 4y ago> 1/ it pays a living wage / socially inclusive wage, unlike most current (un)employment insurance programs No, it pays minimum wage. (Mosler calls it "non-disruptive wage" because it's not enough to compete with other jobs.) The trick is the marketing just assumes minimum wage will be raised, so they quote that number instead. And of course it never gets raised and you can never be promoted. > 2/ it is non-coercive. You have the promise of that job, not a mandate to perform it. Other social programs remain available for those unable for for a variety of reasons. It's coercive to regular workers because their boss can fire them at any point, safe in the knowledge they'll get a minimum wage job the next day.