A post by Paul Krugman got me thinking... why do we allow unemployment at all?
Paul Krugman has been ruminating a lot about inflation- why it went up, and why it is back down. One insight is that, asssuming that interest rate increases are supposed to work by raising unemployment, they have not evidently accomplished anything, yet inflation is back down and has been at 2-3 % for the last year, on a month to month basis. Perhaps the rate increases operated through other channels, like dampening the real estate market or general confidence. Or perhaps the rate increases had as much inflationary as deflationary effect, which is to say none at all, and our current state is simply due to the working-out of all the supply chain disruptions, emergency federal spending, and opportunistic profit-making brought on by the pandemic. As was, incidentally, supposed by the MMT school from the start.
But why make workers the focus of inflation policy in the first place? And why use unemployment as the index of inflation-fighting effectiveness? Why have unemployment at all? Unemployment is a central and classic feature of capitalism, certainly not of our natural state. Chimpanzees never experience unemployment- there is always something to do. But when it comes to capitalism, once workers have bought into the labor-rental scheme, they are dependent on the specific employer for pay, and on the employer class as a whole for the existence of a labor market. While employers like nothing better than to "discipline" workers with the prospect of sleeping on the streets, we can do better.
 |
| The Phillips curve, of unemployment related to inflation (the non-accelerating inflation rate level of unemployment, or NAIRU). A somewhat mythical and protean concept that used to be taken as a "law" of economics, that low unemployment drives higher inflation, via hotter labor market and wage increases. Even the Fed doesn't take this seriously any more. |
Capitalists manage to pay themselves pretty well, to the point that our whole economy and social life (and politics) has been deranged by whole new classes of super-rich and their lackeys. So an allergy to income is not generally the problem- merely parting with money to pay others fairly. It is clear from the recent minimum wage increases that paying the lower end more has very little inflationary effect- it is peanuts on top of peanuts. But is immensely meaningful for those on the receiving end.
Similarly, the provision of a job guarantee, (as previously posted), thereby eliminating involuntary unemployment, would help workers on the low end of the scale with much greater security. The government would be the employer of last resort, at a decent wage, offering a wide range of work, from street cleaning and park maintenance to non-profit collaborations and technical operations appropriate to whatever skills are on offer. Looking around the country, there is no end of work that needs doing. The Great Depression, which gave us so much innovative legislation, also gave us a model of public works and public jobs programs- something well worth learning from and using on a permanent basis.
Such a job guarantee would automatically provide a floor for the minimum wage, (and also a floor for work conditions, hours, and benefits), and replace most unemployment insurance and other benefit programs. If a person didn't want the jobs offered, they could take a lower basic welfare-type income. But the work would not be designed to either onerous or easy- the point is to get some useful work done for society, and take in the bottom level of the labor market as needed from fluctuations in the private market. It is an insurance system, just as we have for health, for property hazards, and, as embodied in the Federal Reserve, for the banks and US capitalism writ large. Such a guarantee of work is, I think, far superior to the current unemployment insurance system, which is grudgingly funded by employers, pays people to not work, which is morally perverse and heavily abused. Private employers would naturally be able to bid workers off the system with higher pay.
Such a system would have little effect on the Fed's interest rate policies, (assuming they are effective in the first place), since unemployment is really just an index of economic activity, not the point of interest rate increases. Economic slowing would be reflected in higher numbers of people thrown into the job guarantee, and presumably getting lower (but still decent) pay. (A pay scale that would, incidentally, be more anti-cyclical than current policies.) And would be reflected in a myriad of other slowdowns that would contribute, if needed, to inflation control.
The irony is that welfare reform of the last few decades focused relentlessly on "work requirements", and of the decades prior to that on "job training". The latter was a boondoggle, and the former forced the poor into appalling, coercive, and low-paying jobs- the very bottom end of the capitalist system. Which was the design, no doubt. I can imagine that capitalists would yell "communism" about a program where governments give decent work with decent income and benefits to anyone willing to work. Well, if that is communism, we need more of it.
Unemployment is currently used as a potent weapon- both by capitalists, given its dire consequences, and paradoxically by unions as well, which walk off the job and strike as a way to pressure employers who may find it inconvenient to hire scabs in a short time. A job guarantee could transform such conflict by taking the most dire consequences off the table. Everyone could maintain their livelihoods, and negotiations could proceed with less drama and coercion. And that is what our society should be about, promoting freedom and civility by removing forms of unjust and pernicious coercion, whether political, criminal, military, or economic.
- Bill Burns and Russia.
- Some statistics.
- When insurrection becomes policy.
- Think of the children...
