3 ms·

If it's for employment or that's part of why this is being considered, I'm not sure guaranteed jobs should be rejected in this case. I'm willing to listen to ar

If it's for employment or that's part of why this is being considered, I'm not sure guaranteed jobs should be rejected in this case. I'm willing to listen to arguments either way. https://theconversation.com/why-a-universal-job-guarantee-beats-the-basic-income-pipe-dream-186793 https://theconversation.com/why-a-universal-job-guarantee-be... Edit: thanks for the replies, I understand the situation a bit better now

Ericson2314 1y ago
The job guarantee is supposed to be federal macroeconomic policy undertaken with ample fiscal space (by the highest level government also in control in the currency). Saddling the heavily budget-constrained MTA with unnecessary labor costs, that ain't dynamic with the state of the economy, isn't it. The MTA is supposed to deliver transit, a narrow task, not do that and manage the economy writ large in unrelated ways Indeed, many job guarantee advocates are careful to distinguish JG jobs from regular government jobs, since they don't want to end up degrading public sector institutional capacity even further.
toast0 1y ago
I don't think this is a job guarantee. If running a train requires two people for regulatory reasons only, and the labor cost is significant, I would expect train service to be less frequent.
gruez 1y ago
>I'm not sure guaranteed jobs should be rejected in this case. 1. as an actual jobs policy it's terrible. It brings an absolute minuscule amount of jobs, and puts the burden on the part of the economy that can least afford it (ie. underfunded transit system). If you want to legislate some jobs into existence, do something like forcing social media companies to hire local content moderators, or hiring elevator attendants. 2. "universal jobs" policy is terrible in general. For one, it doesn't help the disabled or their caretakers. UBI doesn't do a perfect job here either (eg. a special needs kid probably would need way more money than the standard UBI), but at least the disabled person/caretaker doesn't need to waste time on job. For the able-bodied, a "universal jobs" policy isn't great either. If their labor is actually worth something, then they can probably find gainful employment in the private sector. If they can't (eg. they're mentally disabled), then making them to make-work like digging ditches and filling them back again as a condition of getting financial assistance is humiliating and cruel.
Aurornis 1y ago
This has nothing to do a with a universal job guarantee like your article. It only protects one very specific job and the people qualified to do it. Those people are also protective about letting newcomers become trained to have those jobs. They don’t want you or anyone else to be able to go get that job, they want it protected for themselves. Such is the nature of narrow job protection bills like these.

Ericson2314 1y ago

The job guarantee is supposed to be federal macroeconomic policy undertaken with ample fiscal space (by the highest level government also in control in the currency). Saddling the heavily budget-constrained MTA with unnecessary labor costs, that ain't dynamic with the state of the economy, isn't it. The MTA is supposed to deliver transit, a narrow task, not do that and manage the economy writ large in unrelated ways Indeed, many job guarantee advocates are careful to distinguish JG jobs from regular government jobs, since they don't want to end up degrading public sector institutional capacity even further.

toast0 1y ago

I don't think this is a job guarantee. If running a train requires two people for regulatory reasons only, and the labor cost is significant, I would expect train service to be less frequent.

gruez 1y ago

>I'm not sure guaranteed jobs should be rejected in this case. 1. as an actual jobs policy it's terrible. It brings an absolute minuscule amount of jobs, and puts the burden on the part of the economy that can least afford it (ie. underfunded transit system). If you want to legislate some jobs into existence, do something like forcing social media companies to hire local content moderators, or hiring elevator attendants. 2. "universal jobs" policy is terrible in general. For one, it doesn't help the disabled or their caretakers. UBI doesn't do a perfect job here either (eg. a special needs kid probably would need way more money than the standard UBI), but at least the disabled person/caretaker doesn't need to waste time on job. For the able-bodied, a "universal jobs" policy isn't great either. If their labor is actually worth something, then they can probably find gainful employment in the private sector. If they can't (eg. they're mentally disabled), then making them to make-work like digging ditches and filling them back again as a condition of getting financial assistance is humiliating and cruel.

Aurornis 1y ago

This has nothing to do a with a universal job guarantee like your article. It only protects one very specific job and the people qualified to do it. Those people are also protective about letting newcomers become trained to have those jobs. They don’t want you or anyone else to be able to go get that job, they want it protected for themselves. Such is the nature of narrow job protection bills like these.