Job Guarantee Versus Basic Income Guarantee

Job Guarantee Versus Basic Income Guarantee

…..The experiment was the Speenhamland system, which was implemented in England 1795 and dismantled in 1834, was intended to make sure that country laborers had enough income to live. It was intended as an emergency measure to help the poor when grain prices had risen sharply due to meager harvests. The justices of Berkshire decided to offer income support to supplement wages, with the amount set in relation to the price of bread and the number of children in the household, so that the destitute would have a minimum income no matter what they earned.

Even though it was never codified as law, the Speenhamland approach was adopted in country towns all across England and in a weaker form in some factory towns. It was widely seen as a “right to live.” It was neither universal nor consistently implemented, but it nevertheless appears to have been fairly widespread. It reached its peak during the Napoleonic Wars, and was wound down in many small towns before it was effectively abolished by the new Poor Law of 1834. Not surprisingly, the Speenhamland system existed in its strongest and most durable embodiment in areas where the threat of violence by the impoverished was real. But another reason it lasted as long as it did despite the costs it imposed on local landlords was it kept the poor in place with their wages fixed at a bare subsistence level. Rural property owners wanted to keep workers from decamping to towns and cities in search of better paid employment. A smaller pool of local laborers would lead to higher wage levels.

Karl Polanyi explains how a well-indended program over time proved damaging to the very group it was intended to help. And it is critical to keep in mind that Polanyi is acutely aware of how treating labor and land as commodities is at odds with the needs of society……

Pavlina räägib väga hästi töö garantiist ja tingimusteta sissetuleku garantiist.

Kui tingimusteta põhisissetulekut rakendada nö täie rauaga, et inimesed elavad ära selle sissetuleku eest ega pea töötama, siis see viib mitmete probleemideni minu arvates. See muutub kiiresti inflatsiooniliseks, kus raha antakse “mitte millegi eest” inimestele.

Sellised jutud ei ole pädevad, et meie tootlikkus on juba piisavalt kõrge ja võiksimegi vähem töötada. Töönädalat saab lühendada sellisel juhul.  Soome plaanitav versioon sellest viib firmade subsideerimiseni. Samuti ei ole see  “helikopteri raha”.  See on halb idee ja põhiliselt pušivad seda mitte-majandusinimesed.

Mis puudutab väljaandeid nagu Jacobin, siis see on kapitalismi vastane ja nende eesmärk võibki olla süsteemi lammutamine.


About Kristjan

Defitsiidi terrorismi vastase pataljoni eriüksuslane (finantsignorantsuse vastu võitlemise osakond). Treening: MMT, postkeinsism, Tartu Ülikool Majandusteadus
Rubriigid: English, Estonian. Salvesta püsiviide oma järjehoidjasse.

Lisa kommentaar

Täida nõutavad väljad või kliki ikoonile, et sisse logida: Logo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Google+ photo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Google+ kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Twitter picture

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Twitter kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Facebook photo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Facebook kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )


Connecting to %s