Lan bermea, berriz

Hasierarako, ikus Pavlina Tcherneva lan bermeaz (job guarantee)1

Segida:

The Job Guarantee2

(i) Bost erreforma ekonomiko3

(ii) Lan bermea edo Job guarantee zerrendaren lehena4

(iii) Pavlina Tcherneva eta Jefes izeneko programa5

(iv) Komunitate lokalak6

(v) Irakurgai gehiago7

 

(vi) Enplegu osoa eta lan bermea8


1 Ingelesez: “The Job Guarantee” featuring Pavlina Tcherneva (https://vimeo.com/83813741)

Millions of people in the United States need jobs. Of those fortunate enough to be employed, how many people stay in jobs they hate, exploited by management or doing unconscionable work, because they feel they have no choice? How many are struggling to support themselves on unlivable wages or juggling multiple jobs just to get by? Meanwhile, crucial public services get cut, local infrastructure decays, and people’s basic needs go unfilled. A federally-funded, locally-administered Job Guarantee could change all this almost immediately.

In this video, economist Pavlina Tcherneva of the Levy Institute explains what a Job Guarantee is, why it is a superior macroeconomics stabilizer, and and what we can learn from her research on the Jefes (“Heads of Households”) Program in Argentina. The Jefes Program, in addition to driving an employment-led economic recovery, had radical social and political implications. Many of the jobs created were proposed and organized by the workers themselves, and women were particularly empowered by the program.

This video condenses a lecture Tcherneva presented at a seminar entitled “Guaranteed Income or Employment: Economic Rights for the 21st Century” hosted by the Modern Money Network. You can watch the full lecture here:
youtube.com/watch?v=-3uWDnLVPv8

For further reading, please see:
rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-economic-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for-20140103
levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_12_02.pdf
neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/social-enterprise-sector-model-job-guarantee-u-s.html
modernmoneynetwork.org/seminar-8-economic-rights.html.”

2 Ikus A job guarantee would enable communities to create jobs that fit the skills of local workers: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/the-job-guarantee-video/.

3 Ingelesez: “The reaction to Jesse Myerson’s Rolling Stone piece “Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For” went beyond anyone’s expectation. Many conservative commentators shouted their disgust at his proposals (though not all may have read them), evoking the specter of Soviet breadlines and gulags. But beyond those circles, the article sparked a valuable conversation and even significant backing among Myerson’s target audience of “Millennials.”

4 Ingelesez: “A job guarantee was at the top of his list — something that capitalists should indeed fear and struggling young workers are right to support.

Millions of people in the United States are out of work. Of those fortunate enough to be employed, how many stay in jobs they despise, exploited by management or doing unconscionable work, because they feel they have no choice? How many are struggling to support themselves on unlivable wages or juggling multiple jobs just to get by — at the same time crucial public services get cut, local infrastructure decays, and people’s basic needs go unfilled?

A federally-funded, locally-administered job guarantee could change all this almost immediately.”

5 Ingelesez: “Myerson cites economist Pavlina Tcherneva of the Levy Institute to describe how this program might work. The video above condenses a lecture by Tcherneva explaining what a job guarantee is, its economic impact, and what we can learn from her research on the Jefes (“Heads of Households”) Program in Argentina.

The Jefes Program, in addition to driving an employment-led economic recovery, had radical social and political implications — so radical, the Argentine government had to shut it down. Many of the jobs created were proposed and organized by the workers themselves, and women were particularly empowered. Through Jefes, care work was valorized — and, in some cases like daycare, collectivized.”

6 Ingelesez: “A job guarantee would enable local communities to create jobs that fit the skills of local workers and meet their needs — needs which the private sector may never find profitable enough to fulfill. Workers would then have the choice to refuse exploitative or unconscionable work in favor of better public service employment. This shift of power from private owners to employees would be a significant victory en route to even deeper transformations.

7 Ingelesez: “Further Reading

8 Ingelesez: “ Working for the Weekend. Putting full employment at the center of a new left-wing strategy:

Chris Maisano on why the Left should put full-employment at the core of its political strategy.

Iruzkinak (2)

  • joseba

    Lan bermea eta langile ezgaituak
    Langile ezgaituak edo espezializatu gabeak dira afera.

    Bill Mitchell-en A Job Guarantee ensures there is always a job for the unskilled (http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=34697)

    “Economists often use the so-called Unemployment-Vacancy (UV) ratio, which is the number of official unemployed divided by the number of unfilled vacancies at any point in time, to measure the strength of the labour market. (…) The obvious solution for the federal government is to introduce a Job Guarantee, which effectively ensures the UV ratio for the most disadvantaged workers would be equal to unity. In other words, there would always be a job opportunity available that would suit the most unskilled worker in the nation. That is what today’s blog is about. (…)
    Unemployment dancing to labour demand
    To push the argument that aggregate demand drives unemployment, which is contrary to the mainstream narrative that implicates structural shifts and changes in worker attitude towards leisure, we can explore the relationship between unemployment and labour demand.
    (…)
    The reality is that unemployment is typically an aggregate spending (demand) phenomenon – that is, it reflects a systemic failure to create enough jobs as a result of total spending being below the level necessary to generate sales that will provide jobs for all those who desire work.
    The standard supply-side position – which claims unemployment is the choice workers make when they prefer leisure to work – has been exposed over several decades to be a false depiction of how unemployment occurs.
    (…)
    … The data is from the May-quarter 1979 (the longest coherent vacancies series that is available) to the September-quarter 2016 (that is, the data incorporates the latest vacancy information).
    The correspondence between the two series is striking and the variation in the unemployment rate (turning points etc) is closely associated with the evolution of demand.
    If unemployment rates were the result of supply-changes (such as preferences for work, or welfare benefits etc) then this close correspondence would not occur. The fact is that unemployment is the driven by insufficient demand for labour, which, in turn, is driven by aggregate spending (demand) deficiencies.
    The late Franco Modigliani presented similar graphs for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, which shows that as job availability declines the unemployment rate rises, with the concomitant outcomes that the search process lengthens as does the average duration of unemployment.
    Modigliani (2000: 5) concluded:
    Everywhere unemployment has risen because of a large shrinkage in the number of positions needed to satisfy existing demand.
    Reference: Modigliani, Franco (2000) ‘Europe’s Economic Problems’, Carpe Oeconomiam Papers in Economics, 3rd Monetary and Finance Lecture, Freiburg, April 6.
    Where data is available, you could draw similar graphs for most nations. (…)
    But what about the disadvantaged workers?
    (…)
    A new piece of research released yesterday by the Anglicare organisation (…)
    The research was published in two separate documents:
    1. 2016 State of the Family Report – Positions Vacant: When the Jobs Aren’t There.
    2. Jobs Availability Snapshot.
    The latter report examines how the recent labour market trends:
    … affects the most disadvantaged and marginalised working age members of Australian society.
    It refutes the idea that:
    … people without work are entirely responsible for their own circumstances, and that they could and should try harder and more successfully to get a job.
    Its “target group … is people who have extra barriers to entering the work force due to low levels of skills, experience or qualifications. That may because they grow up with ill heath, a history of trauma, poor literacy, or family dysfunction, or because the industry they have worked in all their lives has disappeared.” (…)
    In the face of an overall jobs shortage, increased training merely shuffles the unemployment queue. I use the – 100 dogs and 94 bones parable – to make that point.
    The main reason that the supply-side approach is flawed is because it fails to recognise that unemployment arises when there are not enough jobs created to match the preferences of the willing labour supply. The research evidence is clear – churning people through training programs divorced from the context of the paid-work environment is a waste of time and resources and demoralises the victims of the process – the unemployed.
    Imagine a small community comprising 100 dogs. Each morning they set off into the field to dig for bones. If there enough bones for all buried in the field then all the dogs would succeed in their search no matter how fast or dexterous they were.
    Now imagine that one day the 100 dogs set off for the field as usual but this time they find there are only 94 bones buried.
    Some dogs who were always very sharp dig up two bones as usual and others dig up the usual one bone. But, as a matter of accounting, at least 6 dogs will return home bone-less.
    Now imagine that the government decides that this is unsustainable and decides that it is the skills and motivation of the bone-less dogs that is the problem. They are not “boneable” enough.
    So a range of dog psychologists and dog-trainers are called into to work on the attitudes and skills of the bone-less dogs. The dogs undergo assessment and are assigned case managers. They are told that unless they train they will miss out on their nightly bowl of food that the government provides to them while bone-less. They feel despondent.
    Anyway, after running and digging skills are imparted to the bone-less dogs things start to change. Each day as the 100 dogs go in search of 94 bones, we start to observe different dogs coming back bone-less. The bone-less queue seems to become shuffled by the training programs.
    However, on any particular day, there are still 100 dogs running into the field and only 94 bones are buried there! (…)
    Why the Job Guarantee should be part of the solution
    (…) The scale of the problem we are discussing is massive. There are more than 2 million people in Australia without enough work in a labour force of just 12 million.
    That is in excess of 16 per cent of the available labour force is being wasted.
    Extra training, limited job creation, and viable income support measures, as recommended by the Report, are an inadequate response to the scale of the disaster before us.
    The first major intervention should be the announcement by the Federal government of a Job Guarantee, which would unconditionally provide a minimum wage job to anybody who could not find work elsewhere.
    The Job Guarantee wage would allow the recipient to enjoy a socially-inclusive existence and would be accompanied by social wage measures, including subsidised childcare, public transport, and education.
    For people unable to work, income support should ensure a similar socially-inclusive existence is possible.
    The Job Guarantee has to be designed in a way that the jobs on offer are available to the most disadvantaged workers in the labour market.
    In a sense, the UV ratio for the most disadvantaged becomes unity. That is, there would always be a job match for every unemployed, low-skilled worker.
    At higher skill levels, there would be some mismatch in the type of work offered by the Job Guarantee and the worker seeking the job. However, typically persistent unemployment is confined to the lower skilled workers and high skilled workers often can transition between jobs using redundancy payouts.
    But in a deep recession, where private investment collapses, more skilled workers might find themselves subject to what we call skill-based underemployment if they sought work within the Job Guarantee.
    Of course, the government has the fiscal capacity to ensure that no recession ever deepens to the point that skilled workers find themselves unemployed for extended periods of time.
    Conclusion
    The Anglicare Report is very valuable because it sheds light on problems that the aggregate data shields.
    (…) when you dig down deeper, as the Anglicare research shows, the disadvantaged face much tougher times in a recessed labour market.

Utzi erantzuna joseba(r)i Cancel Reply

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