Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction.

This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.

But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.

View on HN

Yes, semantics can be fun...

As for the implementation, I am partial to the proposals of MMT economists like Bill Mitchell. They boil down to an arrangement where certain institutions - mostly local and regional government and non-profits, but the details vary - can post jobs. Those jobs will administrated by the institution itself with minimal central oversight. However, funding comes from the central (monetarily sovereign) government at an hourly wage that is fixed by law.

So it is simply an offer that you can take or not. If there is nothing that you like, don't take anything. The theory is that there are so many useful things that could be done once money stops being the limiting factor, it's extremely unlikely this would happen.

Basic income advocates like to say that it allows you to do whatever work you want to do. Well, the Job Guarantee intends to allow essentially the same freedom as long as what you want to do provides some public benefit.

That said, there are other proposals for how to generate infinite demand for labor at a fixed price, e.g. this one: http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-in...

Having a job is a privilege. just think of all the people who need one but don't have one.

> I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction.

In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com