Lan bermea: Espainian ikasi dute (batzuek!), Euskal Herrian ez!

Euskal Herrian ohiko bla-bla-bla…

Azken eredua hemen: Renta básica, de Alaska a Suiza1

Sasi ezkertiarrak behin eta berriz itzultzen dira ohiko errebindikazioetara: errenta unibertsala, errentaren banaketa, lanpostuen banaketa,…, hots, erlijio zaharrera bueltatzen dira: karitatearen bidez dena birbanatu behar bide da.

(Aspalditik jakin genuen birbanatu barik, aurre-banatu egin behar zela: Birbanaketarik ala aurre-banaketarik?)

Ekonomian hauxe dakigu, oso argi gainera: erlijioa ez da ekonomia zientzia (bai, zientzia!).

Beraz,

(i) Errenta unibertsalaren ordez, lan bermea erabili behar da

(ii) Errentaren banaketaren kontra, errenta handitu behar da, hots, lanpostu gehiago sortu behar dira

(iii) Langabeziaren aurka, lanpostuak behar dira , hots lan bermea

Afera ez datza dagoen ‘tarta’ banatzean, baizik eta tarta hori handitzean.

Euskal Herrian, Europan, Munduan aparteko langabezia dagoenean, lotsagarria da apezño berriek, sasi ezkertiar berriek, planteatzen dutena.

Kontua da apezño berri horiek ez dutela ezagutzen lotsa zer den.

Auzo lotsa sentitu behar dugu!

Izan ere, gure ustez, langabezia gizateriaren aurkako krimena da.

Bibliografia? Aspertu arte!

Hona hemen tanta batzuk:

Espainieraz, lan askoren artean honelakoak:

Siete argumentos contra la Renta Básica Universal y a favor del Trabajo Garantizado

¿Qué es el Trabajo o Empleo Garantizado?

Coste y financiación del Empleo Garantizado

Experiencias internacionales de Empleo Garantizado

El Empleo Garantizado democratiza la economía y la Renta Básica Universal no

El Empleo Garantizado es muy respetuoso con el medio ambiente

Trabajo garantizado: que no haya empleo no quiere decir que no haya trabajo

Syriza estudia aplicar el Trabajo Garantizado en todas las regiones de Grecia

Trabajo Garantizado: hacia el pleno empleo

El Trabajo Garantizado como arma para combatir el capitalismo

Cómo aplicar el Trabajo Garantizado en ayuntamientos y autonomías

Defensores de la Renta Básica Universal, bajad al mundo real

Trabajo Garantizado: aplicación en entidades locales y/o autonómicas

Charla sobre soberanía monetaria y trabajo garantizado

Badirudi espainiar batzuek ikasi egin dutela. Bejondeiela!

Euskaraz, tantatxo batzuk:

Langabeziaz:

Langabezia gizatasunaren aurkako krimena da

Lan bermeaz:

Lan bermea (job guarantee)

Lan bermeaz (job guarantee delakoaz)

Warren Mosler: lan bermea

Maiatzak 1: langabezia eta lan bermea

Randall Wray: lan bermea (job guarantee)

Langabeziaren arazoari erantzuna: lanpostu gehiago

Pavlina R. Tcherneva-k lan bermeaz (job guarantee)

Langile adiskideoi, bihotzez!

Pobreziaren aurka, lan postuak, hots, lan bermea

Lan bermea: historia eta istorioakLangabeziaren kontra DTM

Subiranotasun monetarioa eta lan bermea

Pavlina Tcherneva lan bermeaz (job guarantee)

Langabezia, Gobernua eta lan bermea

Errenta unibertsalaz:

Errenta unibertsala? Ez, lan unibertsala!

Ingelesezko tanta batzuk:

(a) Bill Mitchell:

(i) Full employment via a Job Guarantee2

Gehigarria:

Basic income schemes are vastly inferior to employment guarantee schemes and have no in-built inflation stabilisation capacity.

Please read … – Employment guarantees are better than income guarantees –.”

(b) Pavlina Tcherneva:

(ii) Job guarantee versus basic income3

(iii) “The Job Guarantee” featuring Pavlina Tcherneva4

Gehigarriak:

Job or Income Guarantee? by Pavlina R Tcherneva* Working Paper ..

16 Reasons Matt Yglesias is Wrong about the Job Guarantee vs. Basic ..

Ondorioa:

Lasai, Euskal Herriko sasi-ezkertiarrek beren mitologia errepikatzen segituko dute, erlijioa noski, alegia, karitatea.


Iruzkinak (11)

  • Joseba, hona hemen twitterren bitartez lan-bermeak jasotako kritikak (Garikoitz, ‏@Suagaar). Ikusi https://twitter.com/unai_delburgo/status/737218947557273600. Galdera laburrak, zure erantzunak ere sarean zabaltzeko:

    1) lan-bermeak emandako soldata “prekarioa” izango litzateke? soldata txikia izango litzateke?
    2) estatuak zergen bitartez jasotako finantzazioa gastatuko luke maila jasanezin batean?
    3) enpresari pribatuen onerako izango litzateke lan-bermea? hau da, enpresari pribatuen etekinak handituko lituzke?

    MILA ESKER!

    • joseba

      Kaixo aspaldiko Unai,

      Erantzun (laburrak):

      (0) Poztekoa da bakan batzuk ‘afera horretaz’ arduratzen direla ikustea

      (1) 8/10€ orduko, 8 ordu egunero, 5 egun astean, 4 aste hilabetean. Atera kontuak

      (2) Estatuak lehendabizi gastu publikoak egiten ditu, gero zergak bildu. Lehendabizi ‘tarta’ egiten da, gero tarta partekatzeko zerga progresiboak jartzen dira. Zergek ez dute ezer finantzatzen!

      (3) Keynes-en bitartez, finantza publikoaren bidez, 1930eko hamarkadan ekonomia martxan jarri zen. Orain, antzekoa, ez berdina. Enpresari pribatuek ikusiko dutenean ekonomia martxan dagoela, sektore publikoan langileek onak direla, trebeak direla, badakitela zer egin eta nola egin, inbertsioak egingo lituzkete, baldin eta enpresari horiek ‘azkarrak’ izango balira. Haien esku egongo da erabakitzea.

      Lan bermeko programa ez da arduratzen enpresari pribatuen etekinez, langabezian dagoen jendearen egoeraz baizik.

      (4) Lan-bermea da Diru Teoria Modernoaren zutabe oso garrantzitsu bat.

      Berriz, mila esker!

  • joseba

    Randall Wray-ek: BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) ala JG (job guarantee)?

    Ikus http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/mmp-blog-50-mmt-without-the-jg-conclusion.html

    “Bill Mitchell: “The reality is that the JG is a central aspect of MMT because it is much more than a job creation program. It is an essential aspect of the MMT framework for full employment and price stability.”

    Pavlina Tcherneva: “The JG is not just an afterthought to MMT but a crucial component that has so far offered the most coherent counter-cyclical economic stabilizing mechanism.””
    (…)

    “…if you look back to MMP #30 (http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/01/mmp-blog-30-what-is-modern-money-theory.html) you will see how I defined MMT as an integration of several approaches to monetary theory, including Chartalism, Endogenous Money, Monetary Theory of Production, Functional Finance, Sectoral Balances Approach, and Circuit Theory. Personally, I’d also add Minsky’s Financial Instability theory and probably a few other bells and whistles.”

  • Suagaar says:

    asun dago zuk diozuna ta ezkerrak dionarekin?
    Ezkerra ez du bakarrik lanaren birbanaketari buruz hitzegiten (gaur egun dugun produktibitatearekin ez dago duela 150 urteko lan ordu berberak egitearen beharra).

    Ustet Suitzan enpresa batzuek lan orduak murrizten hasi direla soldata berdinekin ta produktibitatea igo dute gainera.

    Ezkerrak dio estaduak mota guztietako lanpostuak sortu beharko zituela, erizainak, medikuak, irakasleak, suhiltzaileak,europako bataz bestearen oso azpitik bait gaude dugun aberastasuna kontuan hartuta, lan bermean aipatutako lanak ere…

    Ta finantziatzioa? Zergen bidez, hori saieztezina da ta lan bermearen artikuluan dio estaduak ordaindu behar duela bainan ez nola.

    Ta nola ordaindu like hori?
    1. Politika fiskal justuago batekin, Europaren bataz bestea biltzen bakarrik euskadin 5 mila milioi euro gehiago bilduko genitun.
    2. Iruzur fiskalari aurre eginez (erraz beste 4 mila izan daitezke ta posible da oso).

    Horrekin jaularitzak (Espainia baldin bada 200 mila milioi gehiago jaso ditzazke) behar genitun postu guzti hoiek sortu ahalko zituzten publikoki kudeatuta.

    Hau guztia laguntza sozialen beharra jaitsiko zun izugarri, bainan ez dira desagertu behar, oraindik jendea lanik gabe egongo zalako ta errenta duina beharko zutelako bizitzeko.
    Ta errenta miseriazkoa baldin bada, berdinean egongo ziran, hau da edozein lana bilatzearen beharra nahiz ta ez duina izan.

    Lan bermearena oso antzekoa ikusten dut bainan oraindik ez zait argi gelditu nola finantziatuko zan.

    Soldatena? Ba miseriazkoak ahalbidetzen badira soldatak miseriazkoak izango dira, legez ez badira miseriazkoak uzten, lan gehiago sortuko zan oraindik.

    • joseba

      Lasai!

      Hemen dauzkazu 1.509 sarrera DTM zer den eta nola aplikatzen den ikusteko, eta nahi izanez gero, ikasteko.

      Aurrera!

      (Bide batez, blog honetan ez dira onartzen anonimoen iruzkinak: hurrengoan, arren, jarri zure izen-deiturak, jakiteko nor garen!)

  • Suagaar says:

    2) Estatuak lehendabizi gastu publikoak egiten ditu, gero zergak bildu. Lehendabizi ‘tarta’ egiten da, gero tarta partekatzeko zerga progresiboak jartzen dira. Zergek ez dute ezer finantzatzen!

    Zergak finantziatzen dute, estadua etengabe dago zergak biltzen ta bai aurrekontuak egiten dira, baina gero zergen bidez ordaintzen da, beraz bai zergak finantziatzen dutela.
    Ta gauzak martxan jartzeko dirua behar da, zergen bidez biltzen dan dirua, aurretikan bildutakoa, estaduaren aurrezkiak…. ta hori zergak dira.

    Erratea zergak ez dutela ezer finantziatzen ez du ez hanka ta ez bururik, ta errespetu osoz diot.

  • joseba

    Sixteen Reasons Matt Yglesias Is Wrong About the Job Guarantee vs. Basic Income

    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21451-sixteen-reasons-matt-yglesias-is-wrong-about-the-job-guarantee-vs-basic-income

    Here are sixteen reasons why this assumption is wrong.
    MACRO ISSUES
    1. Yglesias may not realize it, but all serious academic support for BIG is based on the idea that many people will quit working (this is considered desirable in order to eliminate bad jobs and ultimately ‘decommodify’ labor; e.g. here and here ). So the goal is to reduce the supply of labor and reduce production.
    2. JG provides a “good job” alternative to people who work in “bad jobs”. When private employers want them back, they have to provide at least the same or better living wage-benefit package and work conditions offered in the JG.  JG sets the labor standard.
    3. Under BIG, production drops, consumption rises, and so do prices. Suddenly, the value of the BIG grant has been eroded. Great success: the poor are still poor.
    4. Under JG, employment rises, socially useful production rises, and (as we have argued many times) some of that production is dedicated to the benefit of the poor, providing goods and services at the local level that the private sector has not provided, and thus it absorbs part of the wage. In other words, both supply and demand rise.
    5. Coupled with its countercyclical mechanism, JG is an inflation stabilizer (not an inflation generator, like BIG). We’ve modeled this many times (see here, here, here). Inflation from other sources is, of course, possible (runaway bank lending, speculation, oil shocks etc.—all are separate issues.)
    6. BIG is not countercyclical. It’s universal, unconditional, but does not fluctuate with the business cycle. JG is a direct response to recessions and expansions.
    7. There is no mechanism by which BIG can ensure full employment over the short or long run. Only the JG can.
    8. In short, BIG doesn’t deal with price (or currency) stability, useful output, or any of the negative externalities from unemployment.
    POVERTY
    9. As Amartya Sen taught us, poverty is not just a function of lack of adequate income.  Providing income alone does not eliminate poverty.
    10. The poor and the unemployed want to work (here, here). And as my work on Argentina showed (9m14s), receiving income is the fifth reason why the poor wanted to work! Why do BIG advocates presume to know what’s better for the poor than the poor themselves?  BIG does little for those who want to work.
    11. There is almost a ‘neoclassical market equilibrating assumption’ behind most BIG analysis that says: “as long as people have cash, the market will magically provide the goods for them, allow them to acquire assets, provide them with the freedom to do what they please, etc. etc.” If the market hasn’t solved these problems now, why would it do so just because people get cash? All structures that marginalize, reduce opportunities, and discriminate remain. JG is not a panacea for all these problems, but it deals with one crucial and systemic aspect of marginalization – the absence of guaranteed decent work.
    12. Amartya Sen also taught us that what matters is not just freedom, but substantive freedom. That is, policy has to 1) recognize what individuals themselves want and value; 2) it must provide these opportunities; and 3) it must remove obstacles from taking advantage of these opportunities.
    13. The JG does precisely that: recognizes many people want paid work, provides the job opportunity, and removes obstacles from taking the opportunity by targeting the jobs to the communities, and providing the very services that one might need in order to take care of these opportunities (education, transportation, care etc., etc.).
    14. BIG may lull the recipients into a false sense of security. Once the BIG grant proves inadequate to liberate the poor from their poverty, and the poor decide to search for better paying jobs and opportunities, they will not be there. Just like they aren’t now.  As research has shown the mark of unemployment is devastating and unemployment breeds unemployability.
    15. Again, many BIG bloggers are not familiar with even the basic BIG literature. There is such a thing called ‘participation income’ and ‘civic minimum’ in serious scholarly work (Atkison 1995 and White 2003, respectively)—an idea that society is built on the principle of reciprocation.  Society provides you with a basic income; you reciprocate by participating in socially-productive activities. This is exactly what the JG does. No matter what Yglesias says, it is not based on the coercion principle of workfare, but rather on the principle of participation.
    16. I find it ironic that we have to debate each other. BIG and JG stand on much the same principles. Let policy provide an opportunity to all to perform socially useful activities on the ‘participation principle’ through the JG, while supporting those who cannot (the young, retired, disabled, with onerous care burden) and we have a stronger, more stable economy that creates socially useful activities that serve the public purpose.
    Yes, sending a check to people is not as “messy,” but let’s stop pretending that it’s a panacea for the fundamental problem of economic insecurity.”

  • joseba

    Zergatik aberatsak zergapetzea? Ez dugu behar haien dirua!

    Why Tax the Rich if We Don’t Need Their Money?

    http://patrioticmillionaires.org/2016/10/04/why-tax-the-rich-if-we-dont-need-their-money/

    “Congress does not need to get money from rich people in order to fulfil its responsibility to do what is in the public’s interest. This does not mean we shouldn’t raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but rather that we should do so for the right reasons; and there are many good reasons. Fundraising for the Treasury just isn’t one of them. Congress is never constrained by the amount of taxes received. So when we raise federal taxes on those with high incomes it should be either to help maintain a strong currency or because doing so serves some benefit to the economy or society – i.e. public purpose and general welfare. More on this in a moment.
    Our collective failure to understand this distinction is undermining our ability to utilize fiscal policy appropriately for the general well being of our nation and the long term health of our economy. It is essential that we regain a proper understanding of our currency in order to avoid the kind of disastrous bi-partisan policy-making that stems from a misguided linkage of federal taxation and federal spending.
    (…)
    The federal government creates US Dollars when it spends and removes US Dollars when it taxes. (…) Our government is not revenue-constrained and Congress knows it. (…)
    (…) the right way to run a sovereign currency:
    first establish what is in the public interest via the democratic process and authorize the spending;
    second, establish the appropriate level of taxation to maintain currency stability and full employment.
    (…)
    A sovereign currency means everything
    Now before I go too far, it is important to draw a clear distinction between a currency-issuer and all other economic entities, whether governments or businesses or households. This distinction is what helps us redefine the purpose of federal taxation.
    A truly sovereign nation is one that:
    1. issues its own currency,
    2. allows the value of their currency to float in exchange with other currencies,
    3. makes no promise of rigid convertibility (such as to gold or another currency at a fixed price), and
    4. does not have debt denominated in a foreign currency.
    By definition, the currency issuer must spend or lend its money into the economy before we can obtain it to pay our taxes. US Dollars can only come from the issuer of US Dollars – other sources are counterfeit. And by definition, such a nation cannot become insolvent or default, unless by choice, since it “owes” only that money which it creates on demand.
    Countries that lose any one of these criteria have imposed restrictions on their ability to use fiscal policy in the national interest and for the good of their people. For example, countries in the Eurozone (including Portugal, Ireland and Greece) gave up full monetary sovereignty. They have become like currency-using states. Their governments must tax or borrow Euros in order to spend them. Now you can begin to understand why Japan has no sovereign debt crisis while Greece does.
    (…) Unfortunately, like those in Galileo’s time who thought the sun went around the earth, we’ve been looking at the process of national currencies the wrong way. This is in part a vestige of a bygone era of fixed exchange rates and gold convertibility (refer to the limiting criteria mentioned above).
    (…)
    Why tax the rich if we don’t need their money?
    If taxation at the federal level simply removes some of the government’s currency back out of the economy after it first spent or credited it into existence, why do we need to tax at all?
    I find it helpful to separate the purpose of currency taxation into two broad categories: i) maintaining a useful currency, and ii) achieving public purpose (which of course includes a healthy economy and stable currency).

    1. Taxes drive the currency
    (…)
    Economist Abba Lerner, who coined the term “Functional Finance”, wrote the following during WWII about how our currency should be managed:
    The first financial responsibility of the government (since nobody else can undertake that responsibility) is to keep the total rate of spending in the country on goods and services neither greater nor less than that rate which at the current prices would buy all the goods that it is possible to produce. If total spending is allowed to go above this there will be inflation, and if it is allowed to go below this there will be unemployment.
    (…)
    This approach makes a lot of sense and we should work to further improve such policies. A federally funded job guarantee to support full employment at all times would be a complimentary spending approach to further help stabilize the currency and the economy.
    (…) the essential point is that some amount of taxes are required to create acceptance of the government’s currency and to help regulate the economy. A combination of tax policies would do this job effectively, and taxing high income earnings at higher rates should be part of that mix.
    2. Taxes express public policy
    This is where we really need to focus our attention if we are to make any headway in addressing the growing inequity in our society. Misguided arguments that the wealthy should “pay for” federal programs only serve to give more power to the wealthy over our government policymakers, artificially restricting spending for public good until tax concessions can be obtained from them. The government doesn’t need their money in order to spend. However, high income earners should absolutely be taxed and disproportionately so.
    There are vital social, economic, and democratic reasons to prevent excessive accumulation of wealth, shape the distribution of incomes, and encourage the kind of economic behavior that promotes sustainable prosperity for all.
    Taxation reduces spendable income and influences economic behavior. As such, it is a tool to express public policy and should be designed to achieve a given public purpose, not as a source of funds for the Treasury. Once the mistaken “pay for” rationale has been removed we can focus on what taxes really do for us. For example, we can:
    tax wages if there is a good reason to lower the spendable income of wage earners;
    tax income at different tiers if there is a good reason to shape the distribution of incomes;
    tax profits if there is a good reason to reduce profits;
    tax some products more than others if there is a good reason to make some products more expensive or discourage their production or consumption.
    With this in mind, we can begin to rationalize the public purpose for increased taxation on the upper end of society. Note that we have moved the debate away from what the rich should pay for and toward a conversation about the kind of country and economy we want. For example:
    Are growing wealth dynasties unhealthy for democracy?
    Does our economy need less debt-fueled speculative investing and more consumption-driven growth?
    Are executive compensation packages and corporate finance practices supporting long term sustainable growth and value for all stakeholders?
    Do billionaires and corporations have an unhealthy influence over the legislative, judicial and executive branches of our government?
    Are wealthy interests controlling, exploiting or otherwise harming our ecological systems that are essential for our long term health and prosperity?
    Do low- and average-income workers have enough take-home pay to live well or are their incomes too small and taxes too high?
    Is finance being used primarily to serve the productive economy and public needs or is it undermining long term economic growth and societal well being?
    These are just a few questions to start our public discourse and many of you will have important contributions to make in your respective fields. Tax policy clearly can’t do everything. We have significant investment opportunities throughout our nation that could serve to greatly improve the quality of life for many people and set a path for our nation’s future prosperity. We can and should be working in parallel to increase funding for such initiatives while also addressing tax reforms that will serve to strengthen our democracy and economy, including ending tax favoritism for investors. Congress needs to sever the link between taxation and spending, and start redesigning fiscal policy – both spending and taxing – in ways that serves to increase the general welfare of all Americans.”

Utzi erantzuna joseba(r)i Cancel Reply

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude