I was asking about the opportunities for ex-offenders, and more specifically for the rapidly increasing number of people who have been convicted of a sexual offence which drastically limits their chances of any job at all. Many SOs are highly skilled/highly educated people who are forced to either spend many years unemployed, in occasional menial tasks or attempting some form of self-employment (the prospects for which are severely blighted by such a publicly-accessible label as “former SO”). The JG is touted as “jobs for all” when, truthfully, most employers – private or public – could not even be paid to take on anyone convicted of a sexual offence.

In my case, I have not worked since 2010 and I see no possibility of that changing. I have a friend in a similar position: formerly, he was a top professional classical musician, arranger and teacher; now he picks up occasional work in house painting. So this problem is related to the JG, but is more about societal attitudes to people within one highly-stigmatised category who would, in all likelihood, be the largest group to be excluded from any JG opportunities.

Well not as bad a chance as you might think. Firstly, as I said above, a proper JG should be tailored to the individual. Secondly a JG naturally boosts the ENTIRE economy (indeed this is its primary purpose). Since JG wage earners spend their money, which creates more demand for goods and services, which in turn boosts the income of the entire private sector. In meeting that demand, the private sector hires more staff, including many professional people such as yourself. Thus a JG is a very clever macroeconomic tool. See more here…

http://elliswinningham.net/index.php/2016/12/06/job-guarantee-understanding-fundamental-concepts/

…and nice short video here…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=187&v=eec9iFfmxbw

The JG is tailored to the individual, so hopefully it would be far from awful, but something you would want to do. yes the work would be in sectors that the private sector sees no profit, but there’s more to life than profit and the bottom line is society will benifit from JG worker’s contribution. That fact alone – that people will see their locality being improved by JG workers – kills the resentment they might feel towards the scheme if recipients just got a check in the post for doing nothing. A critical problem with UBI.

I don’t know enough about the law, but feel surely its a big mistake excluding ex-offenders from society. This US article specificaly states it would be open to offenders… https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/federal-job-guarantee-universal-basic-income-investment-jobs-unemployment/

Since my release from prison in 2017, apart from looking for paid work I’ve tried the following and been permanently excluded from them:
– a poetry reading group in my town library (vulnerable adults present, in the form of elderly people)
– a talking newspaper for the blind (they won’t take anyone who can’t provide references)
– becoming a member of the Green party (no former offenders wanted)
– taking adult education classes with the leftish Workers’ Education Association (no former offenders wanted)
– going to church (no former offenders of my specific kind wanted)

It would be lovely to think a JG might work, but it would not for the rapidly-increasing number of former offenders in my particular category, which you can easily work out. Also, it sounds far too much like forced labour for my liking. I’ve done the awful jobs. I prefer not working at all.

The government. And with open arms. That’s because a JG, with emphasise on the word “Guarantee”, is open to anyone who wants one Thus it assures that NO ONE will be denied access to a job if they need it, just like no one can be denied a visit by the fire brigade in case of fire.

See faq here… https://www.pavlina-tcherneva.net/job-guarantee-faq

Why not test both ideas simultaneously by issuing fully funded per capita grant’s to state and local governments, letting them decide whether to use the funds for one, the other or both?

I would prefer that we eliminate payroll taxes and increase Social Security and Medicare benefits, making the latter universal and expanding the former by lowering the retirement age to 60. Combine this with a federally funded and locally administered job guarantee with a $15 wage and with federal incentives for local and state LVT to replace all other taxes and to fund a Ctizen’s Dividend.

Such a combination policies would probably lead to trully full employment and be the type of agenda that gives the left a real chance at political success rather than the usual implosion.

Re the above claim that JG workers would displace regular workers, that is BOUND to happen to some extent: it happens with most employment subsidies. So the important question is: exactly how much displacement is there? Displacement can be minimised by keeping JG jobs relatively short term: employers value PERMANENT skilled employees, not temporary low skilled employees. I explain that in more detail here:

http://kspjournals.org/index.php/JEPE/article/view/1237

Re the possible inflationary effects of JG, that depends on how generous the wage is: clearly if it’s too generous, the regular jobs market will be starved of job applicants, which would be inflationary.

Re “the fiscal cost could be daunting”, well that would certainly be the case with the latest Levy Institute JG proposal: that involves a wage DOUBLE the existing minimum wage. Barmy.

“People need time to search for jobs they are prepared to accept…” Actually the average unemployed person spends very little time per week job searching, thus a JG job (certainly a part time one) is perfectly compatible with job searching.