Job guarantee, aka, lan bermea versus oinarrizko errenta unibertsala

Oinarrizko errenta unibertsaleko abokatuak Euskal Herrian: ELA, LAB, PNV, EH Bildu, eta ekonomialari gehienak gehi progreak eta kazetariak.

Bill Mitchell-en UBI advocates ignore the dynamic efficiencies of full employment


(i) Beste behin lan bermeaz1

(ii) Oligarkek badakite zertan ari diren, kontsumoa alokairu minimoan2

(iii) Aspaldiko kontua3

(Ikus, besteak beste, ondoko linkak ere: Lan bermeaz (job guarantee), hitz batzuk eta Euskal Herriko faltsukeria batzuk (4))

(iv) Garapen ekonomikoa, enplegu osoa, eta lan bermeko abantailak: efizientzia dinamikoa eta inflaziorik eza4

(v) Japoniako langabezia

Employment pressures create positive forces for change in Japan

The Japanese labour market is, on the face of it, doing well at present. On the face of it, refers to say highly visible statistics like the official unemployment rate, which is now at very low levels (2.2 per cent in May 2018).

The following graph shows the evolution of the Japanese official unemployment rate since January 2007 to May 2018.

One might conclude that the Japanese labour market is near to full employment and there is no doubt, that is certain skilled occupations, there are labour shortages emerging.

But two things (at least) tell us that there is still scope for improved labour market outcomes in Japan.

The first, which I won’t analyse in this blog post is the fact that wages growth is still subdued in Japan. That is hardly consistent with a very high pressure situation.

Second, while the official unemployment rate is low other, broader measures of labour underutilisation present a different picture.

For example, in Japan, the labour market is segmented between regular and irregular employment – sort of the division we use in the Anglo world between permanent and casual jobs.

Regular jobs come with superannuation and tenure while irregular jobs offer low pay, poor working conditions and precarious tenure arrangements.

The following graph shows the rise in irregular workers as a percentage of total employees since 1984. Note that up until 2002, the data was annual (February observations), then quarterly observations began in the March-quarter 2002, which explains why the line gets less smooth after that.

The point is that there has been a dramatic rise in the incidence of irregular work5.

But as labour market pressures mount in Japan, positive impacts in policy development are finally starting to address the problems of irregular work that were overlooked when unemployment was about 5 per cent.

The … graph shows the evolution of the unemployment rate in Japan since January 2007 until May 2018 (latest data). The unemployment rate now at 2.2 per cent and it was last at this level in mid-1992 as the massive property market crash began6.



(1) The point of all this is that establishing high pressure labour markets brings about more than just workers who want to work having jobs.

(2) It brings other major benefits that workers can enjoy and forces firms and governments to manage their affairs differently from when there is entrenched unemployment.

(3) The UBI proponents never really understand that point as they continue to surrender to the proposition that mass unemployment is inevitable and all the governments should do is keep people alive with some guaranteed income.

(4) All these dynamic efficiency gains are then not realised and capital has the run of the field.


I have written about the concept of dynamic efficiency before. The most recent blog post on this theme was – The ‘truth sandwich’ and the impacts of neoliberalism (June 19, 2018) – which examined how social mobility across generations has been declining as a result of the decades of entrenched unemployment driven by neoliberal austerity biases. I also outlined the proposition in this blog post – US labour market reality debunks mainstream view about structural impediments (January 15, 2018). The point of all this is that establishing high pressure labour markets brings about more than just workers who want to work having jobs. It brings other major benefits that workers can enjoy and forces firms and governments to manage their affairs differently from when there is entrenched unemployment. The UBI proponents never really understand that point as they continue to surrender to the proposition that mass unemployment is inevitable and all the governments should do is keep people alive with some guaranteed income. All these dynamic efficiency gains are then not realised and capital has the run of the field.

I was thinking about this topic again today as tonight I am speaking at a Politics-in-the-Pub event in Newcastle on UBI versus Job Guarantee.

Well the topic I was given was the ‘advantages’ of a UBI. But, I indicated I would only accept the invitation if the broader issues were included including the superiority of the Job Guarantee as a buffer stock price stability mechanism.

One of the major characteristics of the neoliberal period has been the abandonment or rather perversion of the concept of full employment.

Even so-called progressives claim we have moved beyond a time when everyone who desires a job can have one and so they – in neoliberal surrender mode – think they are being innovative by advocating a basic guaranteed income solution.”


The CEOs from Facebook, Tesla, Virgin and Slack among others are also calling for a BIG.

Curious that. The progressives cosying up with the oligarchs.

These oligarchs suppress wages and working conditions but they are apparently starting to realise that the deregulation that has impoverished millions of workers and improved their company bottom lines is also undermining the ability of consumers – yes workers earn wages and then consume them – to buy all their fancy products.

Solution – give these characters a minimum income to keep them consuming. Never mind about their dignity as workers etc.

I have found it strange that progressive Left types and Greenies have got cosy with these free market business oligarch types (who actually don’t like free markets in general, just the bits, like occupational health and safety standards, that impact on their bottom line).

The progressives say – just because the CEOs like it doesn’t mean that it is a bad idea. Really? The next word that comes to mind is ‘naivety’. The next two ‘in spades’.

The motivations of the CEOs in this regard is not to create sufficient, well-paid jobs.

They don’t want governments to use there fiscal capacity to ensure there are enough jobs.

They just want to maintain people who are being left behind as ‘consumption units’ to make sure they can keep buying their stuff.

But even then that doesn’t work because the sort of BIG stipends they propose are too low for mass consumption to continue without further credit expansion.

That lock-in, vicious cycle – suppress real wages and employment, push credit onto workers instead to maintain consumption, bankruptcy, house loss, crisis, public bailout, continue – is the exemplar of the neoliberal period.

Privatise the massive speculative gains while they are there but when the whole show collapses turn to government for the bailout, just to start again.

So with realisation crises becoming more frequent, the neoliberals turned their attention to new ways to create surplus value and profit.

The BIG push from the CEOs is part of that narrative. They are mountebanks not progressive saviours.

Given they will use all their influence to lobby outcomes that perpetuate the trends they think will benefit their vested interests, how can so-called progressives think, for one minute, that a BIG will launch a new era of liberation for creative spirits?

And if, perchance the people rise up and start to reverse the neoliberal onslaught of societal oppression, to demand better working conditions and wages as well as a BIG, then why wouldn’t they also demand an end to the era of austerity-created mass unemployment?

Which would then militate against one of the basic motivations (and lies) that are advanced for the BIG – that there will never be enough jobs to go around so an alternative avenue to income distribution (the BIG) must be implemented.”


Among the many relevant articles I have written about this topic, here are three, somewhat recent ones:

1. Basic income guarantee progressives cosy up with the worst CEOs in the world (April 4, 2018).

2. A basic income guarantee is a neo-liberal strategy for serfdom without the work (April 5, 2017).

3. Why are CEOs now supporting basic income guarantees? (March 28. 2017).

See other entries under the – Job Guarantee – category of my blog.

To summarise (and see the blog post US labour market reality debunks mainstream view about structural impediments (January 15, 2018) for more detail), dynamic efficiency arises when cyclical upgrading gains are enjoyed as a result of the government establishing high pressure labour markets – that is, true full employment.

The evidence is that when the economy is maintained at high levels of employment, workers in low paying sectors (or occupations) also receive income boosts because employers seeking to meet their strong labour demand offer employment and training opportunities to the most disadvantaged in the population.

If the economy falters, these groups are the most severely hit in terms of lost income opportunities.

Upgrading also focuses on the mapping of different demograp eta hic groups into good and bad jobs. The groups who experience the greatest relative employment gains when economic activity is high are those who are stuck in the secondary labour market, typically, teenagers and women.

While these groups are proportionately favoured by the employment growth, the industries with the largest relative employment growth are typically high-wage and high-productivity and employ mostly prime-age males.”


Expansion is therefore equated with ladder climbing whereby males in low-pay jobs (as a result of downgrading in the recession) climb into better jobs and make space for disadvantaged workers to resume employment in their usual sectors. In addition, favourable share effects in predominantly male industries provide better jobs for teenagers and women.

So there are many benefits from growth which spread out across rising participation, rising wages, rising hours of work, rising employment and falling unemployment.

This is the prima facie reason why governments have to do everything they can to prevent a recession from occurring and quickly moving to stimulate an economy where non-government spending is faltering.

This also relates to the concept of a skills shortage and structural mismatch, where the requirements of available unfilled jobs do not match the available skills of the unemployed.

Unsurprisingly, analyses of skills shortages by industry and governments invariably consider the issue from the perspective of business and profitability, which places the emphasis on containment of labour costs both in terms of wages and conditions, and hence, whenever possible, externalising the costs associated with developing the skills firms require in their workers.

Within this context the notion of structural unemployment arising from so-called ‘skills mismatch’ can be understood as implying an unwillingness of firms to offer jobs (with attached training opportunities) to unemployed workers that they deem to have undesirable characteristics.

Indulging in prejudices against this and that cohort is easier when there is mass unemployment. There are plenty of idle workers to choose from and firms can pick and choose at will.

When labour underutilisation is high, firms can easily increase their hiring standards (broaden the desired characteristics they demand from workers) and the training dynamism driven by labour shortages is lost.

Then we observe, in a static sense, ‘skill mismatches’ which are really symptoms of a ‘low pressure’ economy.

But, when the labour market is tight, the willingness of firms to indulge in their prejudices is more costly. If vacancies run ahead of the available labour, then firms have to scramble to get labour and offer training with job slots to keep their enterprises functioning.

Thus, one of the advantages of maintaining full employment is that it introduces a dynamic efficiency into the economy.

Firms have to be continually offering training and skills development as they create new jobs because otherwise they will not maintain market share.

Workers are molded to the needs of the job with appropriate skills on an on-going basis.

Firms cannot afford to indulge in irrational prejudice. Disadvantaged groups rise with the tide.

With mass unemployment, firms get lazy and refuse to offer on-going training. They then cry out that there are skills shortages when, in fact, all they are saying is that they cannot be bothered laying out the resources to train their workers in job-specific skills.

And finally, this also bears on the advantages of introducing a Job Guarantee.

While conservatives are continually extolling the primacy of market forces, they actually express a fear of letting market forces work when it comes to providing advantages and opportunities to the most disadvantaged workers in our communities.

The critics prefer to keep this disadvantaged cohort suspended in a void of joblessness and cycle them through clearly irrelevant training programs.

They seemed to distrust the ability of the private sector to structure interesting and attractive jobs to lure workers away from Job Guarantee positions.

Remember, that the Job Guarantee, which forms an integral part of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), provides buffer stock employment to anyone who wants such a job at any time at any fraction of a working week.

It is an unconditional fixed wage offer to anyone by the Government. That is a very powerful aspect of the proposal as it means the Government ‘hires off the bottom’ rather than the top and can never be a source of inflationary pressure.

Further, the private sector can employ the JG workers any time they choose. All they have to do is provide a better ‘market’ opportunity.

That would encourage dynamic efficiencies because the incentives would be there in the private sector to improve productivity and on-the-job training to ensure that the wages paid were profitable.

Proponents for the introduction of the UBI or BIG fundamentally fail to see the advantages of these dynamic gains.

That is why progressives should always be pushing governments to create high pressure labour markets, which we know generate all these spin-off gains to workers, in addition to reducing unemployment.”


Historically, irregular jobs were secondary jobs, supplementing income from the main job. But that situation has now shifted as irregular jobs are increasingly becoming the norm not the exception.

While neoliberals (and many economists) claimed this trend was a reflection of choices being made – I guess you have heard about the “work-life balance” story that these characters perpetuated to make this trend seen reasonable – there is now growing awareness that growth rates rely on viable growth in consumption expenditure.

Consumption is the largest component of national expenditure and hence GDP. Viable consumption growth must come from real wages growth and not from pushing more credit down the throats of increasingly casualised (irregular in Japan) workers.

In Japan, it is clear that the trend to irregular work has undermined consumption growth and will in the future require much higher public retirement support given that only regular workers have access to reasonable pension prospects upon retirement.

On January 5, 2016, the Japan Times Editorial – Plight of irregular workers – note dhtat a survey by the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry on “diversification of employment forms” in Japan, found that many of the irregular workers were part-time (69 per cent) and 11.9 per cent were “People 65 or older”.

The latter group are increasing as firms re-employ previously full-time regular workers on lower pay and conditions, once the compulsory retirement age.

The Editorial said that:

Businesses in general have been turning more and more to irregular workers as easy-to-hire and easy-to-fire manpower that they can use to fit their needs.

The survey also revealed that 48 per cent of irregular workers wanted full-time regular jobs but could not find them.”

Segida, ingelesez:

So it quite a historical moment that economic growth has generated sufficient growth in jobs to bring the unemployment rate down to 25-year lows.

The result is that the lack of equity in irregular jobs is now becoming more visible.

The Financial Times article (July 4, 2018) – Japan’s long-hours culture is changing regardless of Abe’s bill – reported on the case of a truck driver in Japan who was forced to retire (by compulsory age laws) after working for decades in the same job.

The shortage of truck drivers in Japan motivated his company to immediately re-employ the driver under an irregular contract with lower pay and the other benefits he had enjoyed for years missing.

The case led to a Supreme Court challenge, which gained some public attention.

There have been several recent cases of a similar ilk adjudicated by Japanese courts.

This Japan Times article (June 24, 2018) – Two Japan Supreme Court cases clarify when discrimination against fixed-term workers is OK – provides detailed analysis of the cases.

The article says that:

June 1, 2018, is a day that will go down in Japanese labor law history. A single day saw two verdicts from two similar cases handed down by the Supreme Court, both based on the 2012 amendment to the Labor Contract Law.

The Supreme Court basically ruled that any “irrational disparity between two groups of workers doing the same job” is invalid under the law.

The truck company was thus violating the law.

Principle 1: The judicial framework set up by the legislators can reverse the trends against workers from the ‘market’.

Which is what we argue in our latest book – Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World (Pluto Books, 2017).

But there is a further demonstration of how state intervention can deliver progressive outcomes for workers in the face of neoliberal type trends.

On June 29, 2018, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded to the growing outcry over the trends towards irregular work and the inequities that arise by getting new labour legislation passed by the Diet (Japanese Parliament).

The workplace changes are designed to change the overall culture of the labour market in Japan amidst controversy over whether the correct data had been used etc.

The Japan Times article (April 6, 2018) – Labor reform bill passed by Japanese government despite opposition criticism – tells us that the legislation has “three pillars”:

Setting a legal cap on overtime work; ensuring equal treatment for regular and nonregular workers; and exempting skilled professional workers with high wages from working-hour regulations.

I won’t analyse all the components. The overall result is a mixed bag for workers and progressive groups and unions have clearly been against these elements.

I am referring here to shifts in overtime arrangements and the changes to professional labour markets, which may (and probably will) lead to some workers still doing overtime but not being paid at higher rates.

There could also be some capital-labour substitution arising from the overtime arrangements as firms further investment in capital to help overcome the shortages of labour in certain areas.

But the major progressive element in the legislative package, is that the legislation seeks to reduce the wage and condition differentials between regular and irregular jobs to better improve outcomes for those at the bottom of the labour market.

The law guarantees equal pay for equal work and will certainly improve wages for non-regular workers.

The truck driver in the case mentioned above was doing exactly the same job the day after he was forced to retire and then rehired under an inferior, irregular contract.

While I think the new legislation is not progressive overall, what this demonstrates is that the legislative fiat of the national government can shift outcomes for disadvantaged workers in a favourable direction.”

Iruzkinak (1)

  • joseba

    Bill Mitchell-en The plaintive, I just want to do my art
    Today is Wednesday and only a few observations today as I want more time to write other things. Last night, I gave a talk at a Politics-in-the-Pub event in Newcastle, which is a monthly gathering held at a local hotel and attracts an audience of around 80 people or thereabouts. These are people who purport to be active politically and progressive in bent. The topic was Universal Basic Income and Automation, although it was really a general discussion of UBI, and, with my appearance, a comparison with the Job Guarantee. It was a revealing evening really because the discussion indicated that major policy issues are debated in public and among progressive people without the provenance of ideas being understood or how things fit together in a system. Quite dispiriting really. So I thought I would explore the appeal – I just want to do my art, which was one statement last night in support of a UBI.
    My career in self-published poetry
    Here is my first self-published poem:
    William Mitchell, July 25, 2018.

    I want to receive a guaranteed minimum income for that exploration into the depth of creativity, to help me sleep for the rest of the day.
    Yes, l’art pour l’art
    Truth in the single word.
    An autotelic excursion into the self.
    How can that not be more valuable than working in a state-funded job helping aged people deal with their lives or providing contributions to society via environmental care work or whatever?
    How does it not justify me being able to access the food produced by hard-working and low-paid farm labourers?
    How does it not justify being able to buy clothes produced by low-paid factory workers?
    And so it goes.
    The famous Robert Owen campaign “Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest” doesn’t cut it anymore – I just want to do my art!
    Self. The neoliberal icon.
    There is no collective. Just me and my art.
    “I just want to my art” (quote from last night).
    And while I am entranced with my own poem, just make sure that the rest of you go to work to produce things that will allow me to eat, have a roof over my head, drive my car, sip coffee in street side cafes, buy artistic supplies, guitar strings, new amplifiers – never mind that people have to work to provide those goods and services.
    No, I just want to do my art!
    Margaret Thatcher declared Society was dead. And with that the neoliberals went crazy pursuing an operational meaning of that declaration, false in construct though it was.
    So all these individuals emerged thinking that they were the centre of the universe until, of course, they needed others.
    Downplay Society and the need to make any contribution to it, on the one hand; but then put the hand out to Society when you need to eat.
    But, my art, it might be highly marketable and I can use the UBI to further my entrepreneurial ambitions. I heard that last night.
    Oh yes, all these budding entrepreneurs just needing some time and public support to unleash their innovative souls onto the market.
    It sounded to be a similar argument that the banksters make in times of crisis and plenty. Leave us alone, deregulate, get out of our business so we can be entrepreneurs and privatise the returns, but when we f*@k up, we demand you socialise the losses.
    The UBI ‘I just want to do my art’ entrepreneurs sound just like that.
    Aspirational petty capitalists who want public support just in case they don’t cut it in the profit-making world.
    As to art for art’s sake, I prefer the interpretation of the French writer who wrote in her letters to Alexandra Saint-Jean in on April 19, 1872:
    L’art pour l’art est un vain mot. L’art pour le vrai, l’art pour le beau et le bon, voilà la religion que je cherche.
    The English-version is available HERE (the reference is at top of page 242).
    Of course, this view is highly contested and the ‘I just want to do my art irrespective of whether anyone else benefits from it’ gang, would prefer the 1876 offering by the the French poet Théophile Gautier in his work – Mademoiselle de Maupin:
    Il n’y a de vraiment beau que ce qui ne peut servir à rien; tout ce qui est utile est laid, car c’est l’expression de quelque besoin, et ceux de l’homme sont ignobles et dégoûtants, comme sa pauvre et infirme nature …
    Or any utilitarian concept of art is wrong because beauty is not useful and useful is ugly, as it reflects the venal, selfish motives of people.
    Beauty is sufficient in its own existence, like my new one-word poem “. Not!
    The command of facts at the event was also missing in many instances.
    For example, one hostile audience member (hostile to a Job Guarantee), who continually interrupted claimed that the recent Finnish UBI experiment was going for 10 years and was already successful.
    I had pointed out that the program, which began in early 2017, will terminate at the end of 2018 because the Finnish government had received considerable opposition from citizens who resented people receiving public handouts when they could work to receive an income.
    We haven’t got analytical data yet from the experiment (to be released next year) but the decision to prematurely stop funding the scheme is evidence that the Finnish government did not believe they could sustain it politically.
    I would note that the Finnish experiment, whatever the final statistics tell us, does not tell us what the consequences of a true UBI would be – it was too limited, mean-spirited and short-term.
    But even at the small scale that was implemented, the public hostility was significant, particularly among trade unions and social democrats (for different reasons).
    At first it was reported that 70 per cent of the public were in favour (theoretically) but when told that income taxes would rise to “pay for it” (Finland doesn’t have its own currency), only 35 per cent remained in favour at the inception (Source).
    I also heard last night stuff about the Job Guarantee being just about forcing people to take ‘shit jobs’ and it was just ‘Top down control’ and all the rest of those arguments that seem to recycle every few months whenever employment guarantees are proposed.
    This cycle continues, unabated, even when proponents point out clearly the falsehoods in the claims that drive it. Denial is strong to evidence.
    I noted that we are compelled to stop at red lights as part of being members of a community. Mr Finnish-expert piped up and claimed people didn’t stop at red lights. Maybe, but most do accept the ‘top down control’ as part of membership to a greater collective.
    The Job Guarantee is coercive but so is life in a world of others.
    Many attendees last night wanted to deny the fact that the UBI was fundamentally an individual concept that fitted perfectly with the neoliberal elevation of the self and its denial and active attacks on the collective.
    There was a self-styled socialist trade union member on the panel with me. He barely talked about unemployment and the need to create jobs so that workers would be aligned more strongly against capital.
    He thought UBI was a good idea and even though it has neoliberal overtones it could work to help people.
    I thought it was simply unbelievable that a trade union official would advocate a policy that basically amounted to a surrender to one of the most basic neoliberal ideas – that unemployment is inevitable and the government can do nothing to arrest it.
    So progressives get duped into believing that governments can do nothing about unemployment, that robots are marching down the streets absorbing all our work, and that the only solution is for government to hand out cash to those affected via a UBI.
    The progressive challenge should be to demand governments use their fiscal capacity to generate sufficient jobs, given that most of the unemployed indicate, when asked that they want work not idleness.
    The trade union guy then waxed lyrical, sounding progressive to himself I am sure, by saying that we need to “tax the rich to fund the UBI”.
    Yep, we got onto that one.
    So, the rich are so important that without their cash the government is unable to provide services to the rest of us. That is what this narrative purports. A redux of the Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged setting where the top-end-of-town have all the means (and create them) and the rest of us are just parasites living on the largesse and generosity of the rich.
    Ever heard of a currency-issuing government? They issue their own currency. They spend that currency into existence. They have no financial constraints.
    I pointed out that we might want to tax the rich to reduce their power or to stop excessive consumption or other purchasing capacities, but we should never construct an argument that the government needs their money in order to fund a UBI or any other spending initiative.
    The ‘tax the rich’ narrative is so entrenched in progressive Left thinking and is like blinkers on a horse that stops them seeing the real options.
    The inflation argument in favour of the Job Guarantee and against the UBI is difficult to articulate in this sort of gathering but I did anyway.
    The point is that policies interact within an economic system with consequences.
    Most UBI proponents have no clear understanding of how price stability can be achieved – for example, understanding that the government has two options: (a) run an unemployment buffer stock to suppress wage demands; or (b) run a buffer stock of jobs where the government buys any idle labour that wants to work at a fixed price.
    Some in the audience had clearly never considered any of the inflationary aspects of this debate.
    Once you understand them, then you are left with the realisation that if a government chooses the UBI path, then they are operating in a NAIRU (unemployed buffer stock) world and that while the ‘I only want to do my art’ gang might receive their UBI, workers who had eschewed the UBI, will be made unemployed, if spending pressures build up in the economy and the government seeks to stabilise inflation via policy tightening.
    In other words, unemployment continues to be used a policy tool rather than being seen as a crucial policy target. The UBI fits nicely, in other words, into the neoliberal world.
    Progressives should never surrender to this view and, instead should always push for full employment.
    Oh and when I returned home last night, I read that the Job Guarantee is, apparently, just a reductionism.
    Meaning it reduces a complexity to some simple fundamental constituents.
    Sure enough.
    Mass unemployment is the result of insufficient jobs due to insufficient spending.
    Want to reduce it?
    Create some jobs.
    Who might do that?
    The non-government sector might but the evidence that they are not is manifested by the mass unemployment. So QED there.
    Who else might?
    Well, there is only one other sector left – the government sector.
    Can it create jobs?
    Immediately, upon an announcement by the Prime Minister or whoever.
    Go on national TV on night and announce that the income support agencies are closing and anybody who wants a job at a socially-inclusive minimum wage can go down to the same office tomorrow morning and sign up. Wages start flowing immediately even if work takes a bit longer to assign.
    That is reductionism.
    The commentator was intending the description to an insult – to make out how crude I was in my thinking, so lacking in erudition, so simplistic.
    But, in fact, it is a spot on assessment.
    If you have people seeking work, then it is an very easy problem to solve – create the work. There is no shortage of productive things to do in Society. The unemployment is because there is a shortage of funding to undertake those productive endeavours.
    The government has all the funds it needs to overcome that shortage.
    The fact that mass unemployment remains is because the government has chosen for political reasons to not exercise its capacity and create the jobs.
    It is an expression of ideology not complexity.
    And before we get too complex here is my second self-published poem:
    I am
    Go figure how deep and profound and beautiful that is! Wow! On Fire!

Utzi erantzuna

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