What if we could stop exploiting people and cut unemployment at a stroke?

This sounds good on paper from Mr Mcduff,  but as the article points out "Slack labour markets also mean employers can get away with high rates of wage theft.". So why would they(the employers) change the rule that are bad for them with out State intervention? As we all know self-regulation is a joke that doesnt work.  

Isn't this a form of UBI, where everyone gets that base rate and then extras on top for doing needed skills in society   : "Rather than going to the jobcentre to jump through hoops in order to qualify for an income that barely enables people to subsist, people will simply be offered a job and paid at a “base wage”."?


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/03/stop-exploiting-people-cut-unemployment-job-guarantee-underwritten

Rather than going to the jobcentre to jump through hoops in order to qualify for an income that barely enables people to subsist, people will simply be offered a job and paid at a “base wage”. Employees are hired “off the bottom”, unlike programmes that aim to stimulate the economy and create jobs in the private sector, which usually take the most-skilled first. The jobs would be designed around the work that needs doing in our society but which the private sector sees no profit in doing. wrote:

...

While many JG advocates claim it is in opposition to other kinds of poverty-reduction policies, there are also ecumenical types who see it fitting in with other potential reforms such as a universal basic income, with UBI and JG programmes being complementary rather than oppositional. This is a sensible approach. It is a rare economic policy that can work by itself, rather than as part of a series of reforms. Both of these policies challenge the received wisdom of the economic status quo, and it’s this broad approach that’s needed as much as any individual policy suggestion. wrote:

The idea of "social work" has been, and is still advocated, for many year.
In the 2015 election, for instance and if I remember correctly, it was one of the Labour intentions to offer anyone a guaranteed job after two year on the dole.
It is easy to think at unemployed doing something as better than then "doing nothing" but it is a false impression.

What the future hold for us all is the disappearance of jobs.

Work that can be done, proficiently, by a gang of people forced into doing it is actually not that common.

When I was enslaved in the Community Work Placement program, our gang in theory should have been used to clear public land (actually we ended up working for the direct profit of the provider and its minions).
We did it but very inefficiently and to the detriment of better way of proceeding.

In principle it is the same pernicious inefficiency present in autocratic society, under communism for example, where everyone MUST work. A lot of useless activities, lots of corruption and a pro-active anti-efficiency tendency at all level of state structure (as the function of those in charge of it implementation would be jeopardised).

UBI in it simplicity and reliance on the recipient to think at ways of improving themselves is infinitely better.

Brutus wrote:where everyone MUST work.

....apart from those who can afford not to work  

The jobs would be designed around the work that needs doing in our society but which the private sector sees no profit in doing.

What is this work that "needs doing" and that people on benefits would be forced into doing? In the main literature on the JG the phrase "voluntary participation" is bandied about and it is stated that it wouldn't be workfare, but I don't believe it.  

Following the link the author provides to Pavlina Tcherneva, one of the main proponents of this scheme:

The Job Guarantee is the next step in completing the Roosevelt revolution.

projects include eel  and herring monitoring, building hiking trails, cleaning parks, removing trash — all low-cost, low-tech, and high-labor-intensity tasks that bring many environmental and social benefits.  And they literally only require gloves, fishing nets, and rakes. The work is flexible and year-round.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21451-sixteen-reasons-matt-yglesias-is-wrong-about-the-job-guarantee-vs-basic-income

JG is a direct response to recessions and expansions.

Are we expected to believe that this person is so economically illiterate that they don't know that recessions and expansions are deliberately engineered by the "too big to fail" banks?

The most illlogical statement made is this one:

Providing income alone does not eliminate poverty.

Well, it at least eliminates the threat of starvation doesn't it?

Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Economics at Bard College, Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute, and Senior Research Associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability. Her research expertise is in: fiscal and monetary policy, direct job creation, and the economics of gender.

As an "assistant professor of economics" I do wonder why she fails to mention the vast Ponzi scheme that the central banks inflict on us all.

From Absolut's post:

Providing income alone does not eliminate poverty.

Is this a roundabout way for the author to suggest that people are in poverty because of poor financial management It tends to suggest that poverty is intrinsic and that those in poverty have themselves to blame

A flawed argument and definitely not logical.

im aware of a work for your benefits in the early century

some of the older end had spoken of cleaning the rds of ice and snow and cleaning the streets for your benefit payments

https://thelearningprofessor.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/work-for-benefits-some-lessons-from-the-1930s/

https://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/1930s-means-test.html

@Admin

yes, some of my elders have also spoken of this. They see 'work for benefits' schemes as justified because of this 'tradition'.

My counter argument to them is that the labour of unemployed people is the same value as that of any other person (we are not 2nd class citizens). If there is work to be done then the incumbent of the role should be paid the appropriate (NMW/living wage) rate for doing it.

Some members of the older generation (daily fail readers) think that unemployed people are not worth the same as those who work, and it is therefore justified to treat their labour as worth less than that of a person doing the equivalent job.