
Job guarantee - hliyan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee
======
nonidentified
This is a common economic fallacy.

"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a
sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment."
However, it is economic consensus that inflation is caused by government
monetary policy (the "monetarist" view). It is also economic consensus that
inflation is destructive and creates unemployment. So if government policy is
creating inflation, and therefore unemployment, why would a government "job
guarantee" be a sensible response? More alcohol doesn't sober a drunk man;
more intervention doesn't balance an economy.

As the article correctly notes, "When inflationary expectations subside,
[unemployed] people will get their jobs back." So isn't the most sensible
solution to have the government stop inflating the currency? That would solve
the "dual problems" without introducing a third. It would also be a fair and
honest thing to do. After all, inflation is the government's way of raising
revenue by cheating (it's "the hidden tax").

As a side note, it amazes me these antique economic fallacies consistently
appear on HN, of all places. They are worse than nonsense, they're dangerous.
When practiced, they really hurt people. Yes, they might help a few people -
but they hurt far more than they help, and for far longer. Consider the
government make-work programs during the Great Depression, which are now
credited for dragging out that misery. Please, enough with the junk economics.
There are far more fruitful government policy discussions to occupy
intelligent minds - increasing efficiency, reducing deficits and debt,
fighting corruption, stopping war, to name a few.

Source: Two degrees in economics.

~~~
hliyan
I'm OP. I posted this because I discovered this with relation to an article I
read about MMT, and wanted to understand exactly what you explained, from a
person with your qualifications. Your response would have been so much better
had it not contained the judgmental side-note.

I think debating and dismissing old bad ideas is something that every
generation needs to do, lest they reinvent it.

My personal belief is that if we stop inflation, it will eliminate the
pressure for continuous "growth", because money can now be a store of wealth
that no longer leaks value and therefore there will no longer be a need for
continuous investment. Perhaps the pace of society can slow down and people
can relax. What would your expert opinion on that be?

~~~
late2part
I feel your own response to the response would have been so much better had it
not contained the judgmental opinion.

------
pg_bot
I don't understand why it is so difficult to kill bad ideas. You can't just
magic your way to full employment, the economy does not work that way.

"Public sector employment subsidies tend to have negligible or even negative
impacts at all horizons."[0]

[0]: [http://ftp.iza.org/dp9236.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp9236.pdf)

~~~
jackhack
Communism/Socialism/central planning is making a comeback. It is though every
generation must personally re-learn all the painful lessons of history. Quite
distressing.

~~~
gibbitz
The WPA and it's role in coming out of the depression are also lessons from
history that people need to re-learn. Everything in moderation.

------
yosito
Unemployed people should not be given a guaranteed job. They should be paid to
pursue further education and qualify themselves for a job that's actually
useful.

~~~
grepthisab
Surely there are many “actually useful” jobs that don’t require further
education?

~~~
doikor
If we removed the food stamps and other benefits given to low pay workers and
their employers I doubt.

Just about anything worth doing needs an education of some kind. There are
some that don't really need much/any education (sales, etc) but those usually
need a certain kind of personality to be effective at. And the few that truly
anyone could do without any education and are paying enough to be productive
to the society (not funded by tax payer money through various benefits) are
very rare.

~~~
nine_k
Who would sweep floors then?

I see three possibilities. (1) Well-paid cleaners, because cleaning will
become necessarily expensive. (2) Workers that do other, much more productive
things 95% of the time. (3) Machines.

I assume that the list above is sorted by increased probability, on a 5-year
horizon.

------
paulus_magnus2
(Based on my experience) the best form of job guarantee is another 10-20
employers willing to hire me.

------
ikeboy
How productive is a worker you can't fire?

~~~
thebigspacefuck
Maybe they are only paid if they are productive?

------
cryptoz
Shouldn't we all be working towards automation and no jobs for people? The end
goal of capitalism is full unemployment not full employment. All people should
not expect any work to do themselves but rather expect work to be done
automatically.

~~~
UncleSlacky
Agreed, but what happens to all the unemployed people who don't own capital?
The end goal IMO should be communism, not capitalism, e.g.:
[https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2015/mar/18...](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2015/mar/18/fully-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment)

------
gruez
sounds great, until automation takes over and there aren't any jobs in
government that can productively done by humans

~~~
chx
Absolutely. It'll happen just after the paperless office happens.

~~~
ebiester
You say that, but the average office has significantly reduced its paper usage
over the last two decades.

------
thebigspacefuck
The military's always hiring.

~~~
Retra
Only if you're young and healthy.

------
bobthechef
After all, people are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

