Pavlina Tcherneva eta lan bermea (job guarantee)



  1. THE JOB GUARANTEE: WHAT, WHY, HOW (short video, 14min): 


  1. Reorienting Fiscal Policy: A Bottom Up Approach {pdf}
  2. Full Employment: the Road Not Taken {pdf}
  3. What is MMT and Why is the Job Guarantee Crucial to the Project


  1. Alternative Fiscal Policies: Why the Job Guarantee is Superior
  2. (NYTimes) Keep Unemployment From Mushrooming With Preventative Policies
  3. If ARRA was designed as a Job Guarantee, it would have created 20million living wage jobs
  4. The Job Guarantee is Not Workfare 


  1. Beyond Full Employment: What Argentina’s Plan Jefes Can Teach Us about the Employer of Last Resort {pdf} Summary of the features of JG/ELR, the Argentina program which the government modeled after our ELR proposal, How it behaved as a JG/ELR
  2. Poverty, Joblessness and the Job Guarantee
  3. Women Want Jobs, Not Handouts (HuffPo)


  1. Completing the Roosevelt Revolution: Why the Time for a Job Guarantee has come {pdf}
  2. The Social Enterprise Model for a Job Guarantee in the United States {pdf}
  3. Full Employment through Social Entrepreneurship: The Nonprofit Model for Implementing a Job Guarantee


  1. The Job Guarantee: Delivering the Benefits that Basic Income Only Promises”,
  2. 16 Reasons Matt Yglesias is Wrong about the Job Guarantee vs. Basic Income
  3. Guaranteed Income? How about Guaranteed Jobs (10min video)
  4. Income for All: Two Visions for a New Economy (video/panel discussion)

(for more on JG vs UBI, see research and media links)




  1. (NYTimes) Benefits of Economic Expansions Increasingly going tot the Top
  2. Reorienting Fiscal Policy: A Bottom Up Approach


Iruzkinak (8)

  • joseba

    Randall Wray: The JG / ELR and Real World Experience

    “Pavlina Tcherneva and I visited a number of Jefes projects and conducted interviews with about 100 participants (mostly women) and their supervisors. Just to quickly summarize our main findings, we found that when we asked “would you prefer to receive the benefit of the Jefes program but stay at home,” every single one, without exception, said that they would not want to sit at home and that they preferred to go to work. When asked “why”, the most common responses were that 1) they felt (or would feel) useless sitting at home, 2) they felt like they were helping the community when they were working, 3) there is dignity in working, 4) they were meeting their neighbors and 5) they were learning new skills. Note that our findings are consistent with survey data from other studies, which indicate that participants are highly satisfied with the program because they feel they “can do something”, they “help the community”, they “work in a good environment” and they “learn”.“

  • joseba

    Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?
    An old idea for preventing poverty and fighting recessions is gaining traction once again.

    “The specific aim of the proposal is to boost the employment rate for prime-age workers without a college diploma, and to keep it high. Right now, that would mean creating more than 4 million jobs—a number that would surge during a recession. Assuming that those jobs would pay $15 an hour plus benefits, the program would currently cost something like $158 billion a year—again, a number that would surge during a recession. “This is approximately one-quarter of Trump’s proposed tax cut for the wealthy on an annual basis,” the report notes.
    (Bilioi amerikar bat = mila milioi europar)
    “The idea itself is a very old one, with proposals for it extending back for hundreds of years. A number of Renaissance humanists pushed cities to provide work for the impoverished, for instance. Here in the United States, during the Great Depression, Huey Long argued for confiscating fortunes and incomes above a certain limit and using the money to ensure every American had work. With World War II raging, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a “second bill of rights,” including a jobs guarantee. “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made,” he said. Martin Luther King Jr. famously supported one too. “We must develop a federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all, so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened,” he said.”“

  • joseba

    Mark Paul, William Darity Jr. eta Darrick Hamilton-en Forget a Higher Minimum Wage—Here’s a Better Way to Help American Workers
    A federal job guarantee would reinvigorate American infrastructure and ensure that no workers go home in poverty.

    “Many mainstream economists say that the U.S. economy has fully “recovered” from the Great Recession. (…)

    Yet economic security bypasses far too many Americans. For instance, despite a low unemployment rate of 4.3 percent, job seekers still outnumber job openings by the millions, and many prime age workers (25-54) are still outside the workforce. The unemployment rate for black workers (7.5 percent) remains well above any level that could be characterized as full employment.
    The unevenness of the recovery no doubt led to the frustration that boiled over in the 2016 election and led to the unexpected victory of President Donald Trump. Yet the “solutions” offered by the Trump administration are likely to tilt the field yet further in favor of the wealthiest Americans. Despite their promises of thinking big—25 million new jobs and 4 percent GDP growth—it’s unlikely that these claims will materialize.
    Instead, America needs a bold alternative policy that is inclusive and progressive, rather than one that further moves us towards deeper inequalities.
    One such bold policy is a federal job guarantee.
    The idea is straightforward: the government would ensure that everyone have access to a job with non-poverty wages and benefits, including health insurance.
    Similar to the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression, a job guarantee would provide socially useful goods and services, and much needed investment in both our physical and human infrastructure. While the history of New Deal employment programs brings forth images of bridges, roads, dams, and national parks, a modern-day job corps can do even more and aid us in creating a cutting edge 21st century economy. Undoubtedly physical infrastructure investment is important, especially given the United States’ infrastructure D+ grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Beyond traditional infrastructure, the program can be mobilized to speed the transition to a green economy; provide for our human infrastructure by, for example, dignifying child care and elder care work with a formal wage, rejuvenate and reinvent the postal service with postal basic banking services, and invest in the human spirit via arts and cultural services.
    The benefits of such a program are wide ranging, reaching far beyond those directly employed by it. Everyone will benefit from improved infrastructure and better child care. Our crumbling infrastructure alone costs businesses and the country billions a year, not to mention the average American family loses about $3,400 in disposable income per year from infrastructure-related problems. By eliminating low-wage jobs, we can reduce dramatically the $152.8 billion per year the public spends in supporting low-wage employment. And the savings gained from mobilizing the workforce to push us toward a resource conserving, green economy could extend across generations.
    The job guarantee, moreover, could solve another problem beyond unemployment: working poverty.
    Having a job is not enough to exit poverty. Many are condemned to poverty despite working full time. A 2016 study by Lonnie Goldman indicates that millions of Americans involuntarily work part time as their employers cut corners—and benefits—to boost their profits.
    The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), minimum wage laws, living wage ordinances, Medicare and Medicaid, Supplemental and Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP), and others have profoundly increased the economic well-being of millions of hardworking Americans. But these programs have proven far from sufficient to ensure that all hard-working Americans do not go home in poverty.
    For example, while the EITC has been shown to reduce poverty, economist Jesse Rothstein’s work found that part of the subsidy is captured by employers as the program puts downward pressure on wages. By subsidizing low-wage employment rather than eliminating poverty-level wages, the EITC marginally improves living standards, bypassing the millions who remain unemployed.
    The current $7.25 federal minimum wage also falls far short of lifting millions of Americans out of poverty, or, worse, does not address the millions of workers who are unemployed or discouraged from looking for work altogether. At that level, no minimum wage employee can meet their basic needs, including affordable housing. Even if policymakers and activists achieved their goal in the “Fight for $15” movement, the mandated wage floor will not protect those without a job or those whose employers hire them for such limited work hours that they cannot escape poverty.
    A guaranteed jobs program, however, would solve this conundrum. By setting the entry wage at $24,600 a year, the poverty line for a family of four, a job guarantee program could provide a path out of poverty for millions of Americans. The program could offer full-time or part-time work – whatever fits the workers’ needs. In addition, the program would provide adequate health care coverage and other benefits for all full-time workers, comparable to benefits offered to civil servants.
    The idea of guaranteed jobs has been around for nearly a century, dating back to Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth Plan, but our path towards inequality and political tides seem to be bringing the idea back in vogue after a long hiatus. Current variations on the proposal range from the Jobs for All Act introduced by Congressman John Conyers, to those put forth by Philip Harvey, Pavlina Tcherneva, Bill Black, Stephanie Kelton,  L. Randall Wray, and Matt Forstater. The Jobs for All Coalition has been a vigilant advocate of the job guarantee for many years..
    While politicians on both sides of the aisle are campaigning for both job creation and infrastructure building, the conventional approach of trying to incentivize the private sector to hire more workers and invest in our public infrastructure will fall far short of what could be achieved with a federal job guarantee. For instance, the Trump administration’s proposed $1 trillion infrastructure plan includes the infusion of $200 billion into transportation projects over the next 10 years, with the remaining 80 percent relying largely on tax incentives and tax breaks attempting to bribe, coerce or cajole private firms foreign entities (including foreign governments) to stimulate domestic employment and build our crumbling infrastructure.
    Such privatization will transfer and subsidize vital public assets to private and foreign entities at prices and wages below market rates. Giving away these assets amounts to a wealth transfer from the U.S. public to private business owners, who are accountable to corporate shareholders and profit maximizations as opposed to the American electorate and the general welfare. Moreover, the indirect job creation resulting from private tax incentives are less permanent, and more prone to simply serve as substitutes for workers that otherwise would have been hired based on the firm’s employment horizon, instead of direct hiring under a federal job guarantee.
    The time has come for a federal job guarantee. The creation of such a program would allow the nation, finally, to meet its obligation under the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 (popularly known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act). The Act mandated the government target a zero percent unemployment rate by 1988. And the political support? A 2016 study by the Kinder Institute at Rice University found that 76 percent of people thought “[t]he government should see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job.” Seems that most folks agree with the “right to work” in the most judicious sense of the phrase.”

  • joseba

    P. Tcherneva-ren Unemployment: The Silent Epidemic


    This paper focused exclusively on the costs and propagation mechanism of unemployment to identify one key aspect of this macroeconomic phenomenon—it behaves like a disease. We developed a key rationale for implementing a job guarantee by illustrating how it meets the two equirements for disease intervention: preparedness and prevention. In a sense, the job guarantee is a targeted preparedness response that thwarts many of the large csts of unemployment.

    A job guarantee is by no means a panacea to all the complex socioeconomic problems that have been brewing for decades. Instead it is an expedient and direct method for dealing with the vile effects of chronic unemployment. Its preventative features include, but are not limited to, curtailing the contagion effect of mass layoffs, stabilizing spending patterns at the bottom of the income distribution, and reducing the existing outsized real and financial costs of unemployment on individuals, their families, and the economy.

    The above findings strongly suggest that providing jobs to the unemployed for their own sake is a worthy policy objective. The job guarantee is uniquely suited to not only prevent the costs of unemployment, but to also bring positive multiplier effects that emerge from the socially useful output, enhanced human capital, and increased public goods provided by the program. The job guarantee could prevent many of the scaring effects on individuals and their families, as well as the social squalor that comes with joblessness.

    Furthermore, the program can potentially offer considerable state relief in terms of real and financial resources by reducing homelessness, poverty, and recidivism. The direct employment method improves the life chances for the hard to employ and the ability of job guarantee participants to
    transition to other forms of employment (private, nonprofit, or public) as compared to those of the unemployed.

    It also offers a road to participation. One existing job guarantee proposal (Tcherneva 2006) essentially marries the employer of last resort (Minsky 1986) and basic participation income (Atkinson 1996) proposals.

    While participation is often considered necessary because of the reciprocity principle that usually informs some versions of the basic income proposal, participation is also important because it has been found to be a key social determinant of social and health equity (Whitehead et al. 2016).

    In sum, the job guarantee is a policy response whose merits include much more than its macroeconomic stabilization features. It is, in a sense, a method of inoculation against the vile effects of unemployment.

  • joseba

    Pavlina Tcherneva: enplegu osoa enpresari sozialen bidez, lan bermea martxan jartzeko mozkin gabeko modeloa

    Full Employment through Social Entrepreneurship: The Nonprofit Model for Implementing a Job Guarantee

    Piena occupazione attraverso l’impresa sociale (Parte 1)

    Piena occupazione attraverso l’impresa sociale (Parte 2)

    Politiche fiscali alternative: perché il Programma di Job Guarantee è più efficace

  • joseba

    Steven Hail
    A Just Social Wage and a Job Guarantee

    “The real value of this minimum social wage should be set immediately at a level which restores to the low paid their fair share of national income distribution, accounting for increases in both the cost of living and the benefits of technological change and rising labour productivity over the past half-century. It should not be seen as a mechanism to keep wages down, as is the case with the threat of unemployment at the moment. Instead, the goal should be to raise the relative wage of the low paid, and by doing so to engineer a much greater degree of income equality (Mitchell 2013).

    Any inflationary consequences should be negated by an increase in tax rates on those at the top of the wealth distribution, to create space for the low paid to spend more out of their higher incomes, without pushing the economy beyond its productive capacity. A movement towards a more progressive tax system, such as the one which existed fifty years ago, alongside a radical increase in real minimum wages rates, supported by a job guarantee, would play a major part in a transition to a future of sustainable prosperity (Tcherneva 2015).”


Utzi erantzuna

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