Full employment and ecological sustainability: comparing the NAIRU, Basic Income, and Job Guarantee approaches

Will the internet, robotics and artificial intelligence mean a ‘jobless future’? A recent narrative, endorsed by prominent tech-billionaires, says we face mass unemployment, and we need a basic income. In contrast, this article shows why the law can achieve full employment with fair incomes, and holidays with pay. Universal human rights, including the right to ‘share in scientific advancement and its benefits’, set the proper guiding principles. Three distinct views of the causes of unemployment are that it is a ‘natural’ phenomenon, that technology may propel it, or that it is social and legal choice: to let capital owners restrict investment in jobs. Only the third view has any credible evidence to support it. Technology may create redundancies, but unemployment is an entirely social phenomenon. After World War Two, 42% of UK jobs were redundant but social policy maintained full employment, and it can be done again. This said, transition to new technology, when markets are left alone, can be exceedingly slow: a staggering 88% of American horses lost their jobs after the Model T Ford, but only over 45 years. Taking lessons from history, it is clear that unemployment is driven by inequality of wealth and of votes in the economy. To uphold human rights, governments should reprogramme the law, for full employment, fair incomes and reduced working time, on a living planet. Robot owners will not automate your job away, if we defend economic democracy.

Download Full-text

Full Employment, Unconditional Basic Income and the Keynesian Critique of Rentier Capitalism

Basic Income Studies ◽

10.1515/bis-2019-0015 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Alan Thomas

Keyword(s):

Welfare State ◽

Full Employment ◽

The State ◽

Political Resistance ◽

Basic Income ◽

Capitalist Class ◽

Policy Proposal ◽

Inflationary Pressure ◽

Demand Pull ◽

Employer Of Last Resort

AbstractThis paper compares and contrasts the basic income proposal with the alternative policy proposal of the state acting as employer of last resort. Two versions of the UBI proposal are distinguished: one is hard to differentiate from expanded welfare state provision. Van Parijs’s proposal is radical enough to qualify as major egalitarian revision to capitalism. However, while it removes from a capitalist class the power to determine the terms on which others labour, it leaves this class in place and able to exert other powers that distort the macro-economy. These include pecuniary emulation, demand pull inflation, and political resistance to full employment so that the rentier class does not have to contend with entrepreneurs *and* the working class over the distribution of the productive surplus. The state as employer of last resort proposal addresses these deeper issues while also claiming that inflationary pressure will undermine the UBI alternative.

Download Full-text

Ingreso básico y pleno empleo: Lecciones de Polanyi, Keynes y Minsky

Ola Financiera ◽

10.22201/fe.18701442e.2016.23.55308 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 9 (23) ◽

Author(s):

Mario Seccareccia

Keyword(s):

Labor Market ◽

Full Employment ◽

Income Policy ◽

Basic Income ◽

Market Mechanisms ◽

Half Century ◽

Great Transformation

The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the literature on guaranteed income policies as promoted by both mainstream and heterodox economists over the last half century and to offer a critique on the basis of what can be described as a Polanyian perspective going back to Karl Polanyi’s assessment of the Speenhamland system in his celebrated 1944 book, The Great Transformation. While supporting the principle of universal basic income as a means to re-embed the capitalistic labor market so as to better meet the needs of the whole community, it is argued that a guaranteed income policy without also a societal commitment to full employment may trigger labor-market mechanisms that could prevent the societal re-embeddedness from actually occurring.

Download Full-text

Trading off Income and Health?: AIDS and the Disability Grant in South Africa

Journal of Social Policy ◽

10.1017/s0047279405009293 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 35 (1) ◽

pp. 3-19 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

NICOLI NATTRASS

Keyword(s):

Full Employment ◽

Health Sector ◽

Drug Resistant ◽

Basic Income ◽

Trade Off ◽

Unemployment Rates ◽

The Public ◽

Highly Active ◽

Disability Grant ◽

The Cost

Despite high levels of unemployment, South Africa's welfare system is premised on full employment: only those who are too young, too old or too sick to work qualify for social assistance. A government committee recently recommended the introduction of a universal Basic Income Grant (BIG) to address this hole in the welfare net. Now that highly active antiretroviral thereapy (HAART) is being rolled out through the public health sector for people sick with AIDS, the case for a BIG is even more compelling. People sick with AIDS qualify for a disability grant. The HAART rollout offers them the chance of restored health – but it comes at the cost of losing the disability grant because they will be deemed well enough to work. Given South Africa's high unemployment rates, many will not be able to find work, and hence will face a trade-off between health (taking HAART) and income (keeping the disability grant). This could undermine adherence to HAART and/or reduce the effectiveness of the treatment by compromising the nutritional status of patients, thereby facilitating the growth of drug-resistant HIV. Introducing a BIG could help resolve this unintended tension between health and welfare policy.

Download Full-text

Reconciling the Policy Goals of Full Employment and Ecological Sustainability

Frontier Issues in Ecological Economics ◽

10.4337/9781847205476.00023 ◽

2013 ◽

Keyword(s):

Full Employment ◽

Ecological Sustainability ◽

Policy Goals

Download Full-text

Borgerløn: Kan det nu betale sig?

Politik ◽

10.7146/politik.v21i3.113011 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Kristian Kongshøj

Keyword(s):

Labor Market ◽

Market Segmentation ◽

Economic Feasibility ◽

Ecological Sustainability ◽

Basic Income ◽

International Debate ◽

Individual Level ◽

Labor Market Segmentation ◽

Income Model ◽

The Individual

The idea of basic income has been revitalized in the international debate as a solution to certain problematic trends, including labor market polarization or segmentation. This paper discusses two dominant issues in the debate, namely financing a basic income, and its ability to alleviate labor market segmentation. This means that the normative logics behind basic income with regard to justice, liberty and ecological sustainability will not be discussed. Following insights from the most recent international debate, the paper discusses the dilemma between the adequacy or generosity of basic income on the individual level, and its economic feasibility via taxation. A low or partial basic income model in combination with traditional income benefits could be feasible within the framework of existing tax levels. However, the paper also concludes that segmentation in terms of inequalities in exit and voice opportunities on the labor market is not solved by basic income by itself. Particularly low or partial basic income models may even support such inequalities.

Download Full-text

Evaluating Basic Income, Basic Service, and Basic Voucher for Social and Ecological Sustainability

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su12208348 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (20) ◽

pp. 8348

Author(s):

Sophia Seung-Yoon Lee ◽

Ji-eun Lee ◽

Kyo-seong Kim

Keyword(s):

Social Protection ◽

Social Benefits ◽

Ecological Sustainability ◽

Basic Income ◽

Basic Service ◽

Middle Way ◽

Policy Ideas ◽

The Social ◽

Transition Set ◽

Ecological Transition

This paper discusses the restructuring of the social protection system in the changing labor market by comparing and critically reviewing policy ideas of Universal Basic Income (UBI), Universal Basic Voucher (UBV), and Universal Basic Service (UBS) with a focus on how the Social and Ecological Transition (SET) can be achieved. UBS is a concept often paired with UBI, and UBV is considered a middle way between UBI (cash) and UBS (in-kind). This study first analyzes Korea’s basic income, basic service, and basic voucher cases, according to Bohnenberger’s nine types of social benefits through Standing’s policy evaluation principles. Additionally, we evaluated how each of the benefits included in basic income, basic service, and basic voucher can contribute to social and ecological sustainability in the Korean context. Through this evaluation, to pursue SET in the future, what kind of policy efforts should be accompanied with basic income through a Korean case analysis was discussed. The paper focuses on Korea in particular, as all three policies have been initiated here.

Download Full-text