There is a reason I published a new post in the economic questions series this morning, about the work and thinking of Viktor Frankl. As I note in that post, Frankl's argument was that the purpose of life is to secure meaning. The corollary is that the creation of meaningless work is contrary to the creation of well-being, and that requiring people to undertake such work is harmful.
I thought of Viktor Frankl's logic this weekend when reflecting on the job guarantee, which some claim is an inherent part of modern monetary theory. The “jobs” that the job guarantee would supply are, according to its proponents, ones that the market would not create. It is an important part of this theory that the employment created by the job guarantee should not disrupt the workings of the market.
I do, however, have significant difficulties with this idea. That is because if the work in question is not understood in the way in which most activity in society is currently valued, and is necessarily different from that which is most commonly undertaken, the risk that this work will be seen as meaningless is high. The consequence would be that those offered it would not identify with that work, or see it as worthwhile, but would instead see this part as a construct intended to punish them for their perceived worthlessness.
I understand all the logic that those who promote the job guarantee use. I am aware that they are trying to remove from economics the currently commonplace idea that a pool of unemployed labour can be used as the balancing item in the economic equation to deliver the economic equilibrium that economists, and so politicians, desire. However, as I have pointed out, I think a proper use of fiscal policy could achieve that goal in better ways. And, when I say “better”, what I mean is that meaningful work could be created in long-term programmes that are intended to deliver valuable resources for the benefit of society on an ongoing basis, rather than as an economic afterthought to be undertaken if there is nothing else for people to do.
The psychology of the job guarantee does, therefore, matter to me. I cannot avoid the feeling that if it were to be in operation, those offered this work would feel it to be meaningless, with all the consequences that Viktor Frankl describes, and that, to me, might be the greatest objection I have to the policy. Economics is not just about creating work, balancing equations, and keeping the fiscal system in balance. Economics is about delivering meaning to people. That is what a politics of care is about. That is what politics would do if it put people at its heart.
I recognise that it could be argued that the job guarantee could provide work when all else has failed, but my belief is that properly understanding MMT should put us in a position to do so much better than this. To suggest, through this policy proposal, that what can only represent the failure of fiscal planning is at the epicentre of MMT does, therefore, represent a serious error of judgement in my opinion, and a policy mistake in itself.
There is a massive opportunity to do better than this and create meaning in the process. This is why I do not think that we need a job guarantee.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There’s a lot I don’t understand about JG, to be honest. But to me it’s like looking through the wrong end of the telescope. There’s so much need crying out to be met in our society. Can’t we just get on with that?
But we do currently have once again the ridiculous situation where desperately needed newly qualified healthcare staff and teachers can’t get jobs because of budgetary constraints. I believe Scotland guarantees newly qualified teachers one year’s work. We could do with something similar for the rest of the UK, especially given most now accrue substantial debt to train for such roles.
I have come to the view that a JG is consistent with a centralised form of state which fraught with the risk of descent into a bureaucratic/technocratic form of government. The literal adoption of MMT economics into political economy would result in a dominant state and passive, subservient and dependent civil society. This is the opposite of a vibrant, empowered civil society operating on the basis of “subsidiarity”. The principles of “community wealth building” (CWB) are critically important as they mean that state created money is retained and recycled at local level, empowering communities to take control of job creation at ground level. CWB also is a means of increasing the “multiplier effect” of central government spending with potential benefits in terms of fiscal policy and deficit management,
I think that your conclusion is far atoo strong.
MMT is a description of how money works, not a blueprint for a particular political system. It does not require a dominant state or a passive civil society. It simply makes clear that a currency-issuing government has far more capacity than is usually admitted.
What follows from that is a matter of political choice.
That capacity could be used in highly centralised ways, but it could equally be used to empower local decision-making, support community institutions, and enable subsidiarity. In fact, removing artificial financial constraints can make decentralisation easier, not harder.
So the risk you describe is real in any system. But it is not a consequence of MMT. It is a question of how power is distributed and exercised.
I think you gave missed my point Richard. There are folk in the MMT community who deny the role of wealth funds, pension funds and some even deny the need for saving. They view the state as the creator of money and the provider for society. That is what I mean by a literal translation of MMT into a political economic model.
Let’s agree, Jim, that there are those in the MMT community who talk total drivel and who do not understand what it is all about. They are like Pete Hesgeth, followers of a false image of what they claim to believe in.
Thank you, Richard. You identify a crucial point that tools are not solutions in themselves. A neat rationale rarely addresses the complex and messy business of being human!
Interesting. I guess what we need are a set of appropriate policies to create full employment. We also need a better ‘welfare’ system which supports people who for whatever reason are not working. Another set of policy initiatives should be to enable people to get appropriate training. As for job guarantees, I recall being on various schemes in the past where you could be employed for say a six month period. Although useful in that you got an income and they were meaningful, and provided some status they usually did not lead to a permanent job. Its probably the case that you need a range of short-term temporary, training activities and other schemes to enable people to get meaningful work. What we do not want are low grade training or making people work on things like picking up litter to qualify for benefits!
@ Peter Wills
I think when you refer to “people who… are not working” you probably mean people who are not in paid work. There is a big difference.
Correct!
As you are probably aware, a job Guarantee scheme has been designed by Oxford University and trialled in Austria to some success
https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/worlds-first-universal-jobs-guarantee-experiment-starts-in-austria
JG in Austria
https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/austrian-government-commits-50-million-to-rollout-job-guarantee-scheme-in-budget
https://oms-inet.files.svdcdn.com/production/files/Marienthal-job-guarantee-policy-briefing-FINAL-Sept-23.pdf
Interesting figures from ACAS here
https://www.acas.org.uk/a-third-of-workplace-sickness-absence-is-due-to-stress-anxiety-depression-or-other-mental-health
I cant imagine that being in a ‘make work’ would do people much good
The challenge of course is to create jobs that people will queue up to do
“The challenge of course is to create jobs that people will queue up to do”
This is what the US Federal government did with the WPA during the Depression.
From Wikipedia: “The Works Progress Administration (WPA; from 1935 to 1939, then known as the Work Projects Administration from 1939 to 1943) was an American New Deal agency that employed millions of jobseekers (mostly men who were not formally educated) to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads. It was set up on May 6, 1935, by presidential order, as a key part of the Second New Deal.”
A clear and demonstrative example of the coercive power of the state in action as distinct from that of private capital deciding what is a jobs that it is prepared to pay for in order to extract profits.
Thanks John. That is something I might uses in an upcoming essay if you don’t mind
As I look out of my window I see a local furniture factory closing with the loss of 300 jobs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqw9947d28o
At the “job centre”, my neighbours will join a queue for scarce or non –existent jobs in the local area and will jump through hoops and be threatened with sanctions in return for limited financial support.
They will be excluded from employment due to a system failure. We agree here that this reflects structural issues such as regional imbalance, skills mismatch, inadequate investment, and failures in both public and private sector demand, and that full employment should be an economic priority.
Using fiscal policy directly to sustain high levels of employment by investing in public services, infrastructure, the green transition, and care are the answers to these failures but they take time and do not guarantee that work will be available immediately.
So would it not be possible and a reflection of a caring society in the short term for those who arrive at the job centre after Easter to be offered a choice of socially valuable temporary paid work in the local area rather than leave them waiting for system change?
Worthlessness comes from being stigmatized as unemployed. Surely in addition to fundamental changes we can also advocate for a system in which meaningful work could be offered which delivers valuable resources for the benefit of society and purpose for the individual?
In a just society, perhaps the government would consult those furniture factory employees and discuss whether they might like to take it over and run it as a co-operative venture. If the employees needed some financing the government could lend the money.
It is amazing, the arguments some will come up with to avoid a caring society, the most common “who will pay for it” we are now seeing raise its ugly head again here in Canada now that the New Democratic Party has elected as its leader, a person who proclaims socialist policies. I have no doubt we will be treated to much gnashing of teeth and wailing from the mainstream media.
As Richard points out elsewhere, the government doesn’t have to run everything – even in a socialist country. Marx thought the state should wither away. While that’s not likely, we certainly don’t need the state involved in manufacturing hoola hoops or chocolate bars except in the area of regulation. As for essentials such as energy and transportation, there is room for local government participation along with co-operatives.
I’m not sure that just because a job is not valued enough to be created by society, it will not be considered worthwhile or meaningful by those doing it (that’s how I’ve understood your point, correct me if I’m wrong).
For me the Job Guarantee would be for jobs that are of value to society, but of a nature that, essentially, the more people doing it the better. For example, on a weekly basis, I take a litter picker and black sack on my dog walk. Every week the bag is full and there is plenty of litter I’ve missed. My point being, litter picking is a job that always needs doing, and pretty much, the more people are doing it the better. It’s something that has a clear value for society, and honestly provides me with more value and feeling of contribution than my actual job. I’m sure there are plenty of other things that can be done to essentially, “just make things nicer for everyone”, that would be ideal for a Job Guarantee.
I guess the counter argument becomes about whether these should be Job Guarantee jobs, or just Public Sector jobs, by my (limited) understanding is that as these jobs will just be done more and better the more people are doing them, they are Job Guarantee jobs rather than being a fixed number of vacancies.
Maybe I’m naiive, but that’s my take.
There is such a lot that needs doing in this country – and much of it will be hard work. Part of making things happen will be to ‘ennoble’ the work to be done – to raise its status and the pay. Amongst the carers of people we need a land army too – to clean it up and make it good again, free of the profit motive of contracting out so that the worker is employed for peanuts.
Yes. Ennoblement is a better narrative than “entitlement”, “economics”, or similar.
The JG would set a baseline which the private sector would have to compete against. If a private company can’t get above that base line, then they are failing to be competitive in a free market, that is one that includes people, by ennobling those people they employ.
The Austrian experiment suggests it is cost neutral, so the taxpayers money argument is answered.
It is a way to transition to better treatment of people
Doesn’t the minimum wage do that already?
I think you are confusing issues
Minimum wage is not a living wage
Minimum wage is not stabilising the economy, addressing inequality, controlling inflation or providing people with a living wage.
Full emoplyment would do that. A JG, by definition, cannot. It is designed to pay low wages.
How bout a wee Poll Question:
What is your view on the Job Guarantee as a core policy within MMT?
Options:
Strongly support — essential for price stability and full employment
Support with reservations — good in principle but needs significant design adjustments
Neutral / undecided
Oppose — not necessary or potentially counterproductive
Strongly oppose — incompatible with effective MMT implementation
#MMT
Noted
In the normal job selection process, first a job is created and then the matching system looks for people to match to that job. Once you get to the margins you end up with jobs that cannot be filled and people that cannot get jobs.You have a matching problem.That can only be resolved a little bit via training, job redesign, sanctions, etc. and you always end up with a list of vacancies and a list of people who want a job.Always.The job guarantee is different.You take the person as they are and you find/build a job for them as they are.You are guaranteeing a match because you are helping the person to become employed as a function of the programme. Coming up with jobs is part of the process.Think of a bespoke suit made specifically to fit from a selection of templates, rather than trying to squeeze into an off the peg affair.The result is that the list of people who want a job becomes empty. That is the key difference that makes a Job Guarantee a Job Guarantee.Standard employment, workfare schemes, and even normal public sector employment can only provide people for the jobs.It takes a Job Guarantee to provide Jobs for the People.
I admire your fantasies.
But I think they are just that.
The JG could not work, imo. Everything you say confirms that. Your claims aren’t as absurd as those of neoliberalism, but nor are they realistic. You assume super human ability to create work, which may never happen, for those unknown. I would prefer training for all for work that does exist.
The point of the jg is to respond to changes in unemployment automatically, hence automatic stabilise. The thought that fiscal policy can respond in real time, respond at all when politics is injected, or know the current value of inflation is for the birds. As it stands the inflation figures are a year, or more, out of date – with a job guarantee you get inflation indicators from yesterday as people join or leave the scheme. Fiscal injections are realtime to prevent business cycles from their inevitable conclusion, I suggest you read John T Harvey’s latest book.
As Warren Mosler says it doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than the unemployment it replaces. Of course if you have a proposal for another automatic stabiliser then please bring it forward, present a paper and let the MMT community assess its merits. Until you have a viable alternative perhaps you shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You suggest “ The point of the jg is to respond to changes in unemployment automatically, hence automatic stabilise. The thought that fiscal policy can respond in real time, respond at all when politics is injected, or know the current value of inflation is for the birds.“
The idea that there could be jobs aBailable automatically is for the birds, I am afraid. The logistics of that make no sense to me. And I have explained the deeply personal and fiscally damaging consequences of it being assumed to be so.
If you’re a dyed in the wool Marxist, Socialist, Libertarian or Anarchist who really doesn’t like the idea of governments of nations as a concept, you’re going to object to a fix that allows nations to continue with governments operating an existing mixed economy.
It does look like we’re going to have to have yet another round of daft extremist philosophies defeated at the ballot box before sense prevails. It’s always the way.
Ultimately those on the Left objecting to the JG don’t believe people should have to work for a living. That’s what it boils down to.
They have the inconsistent position of wanting to pay people off because we have a surplus of workers, but wanting open borders because we haven’t got enough workers for an ageing population.
The reason they don’t like the JG is because it highlights the inconsistency between those two viewpoints very clearly.
If you have an individualistic philosophy that believes in completely open borders and not having to work for a living, then you’re going to pull out all the political stops to head off the one system allows a stable mixed economy without poverty.
Kester
Yoiu are writing nonsense now.
Please do not discrdit MMT.
You are, very seriously.
How do I know? I am not a Marxist, Socialist, Libertarian or Anarchist and object to the JG simpoly because it’s a theory that cqnnot deliver and much better policy options are available, as I have explained, and these much better respect the needs of those unemployed, as I have also explained.
You are now banned
Richard
PATRICIA PINO MMTUK.ORG 31 MARCH 2026
THE JOB GUARANTEE: A RESPONSE TO RICHARD MURPHY
AI Summary:
1. The Job Guarantee isn’t optional in MMT:
if the state imposes taxes payable in its currency, it must guarantee access to the work needed to earn it.
2. Complexity isn’t a deal-breaker. (cf NHS; Education; etc)
Decentralised, locally delivered JG models already exist (Argentina, India) and work at scale.
3. The JG anchors inflation via a fixed wage floor, not by solving every price pressure.
Private employers must pay above it to attract workers.
4. Stigma?
Compared to unemployment—with its income loss, exclusion, and deskilling—guaranteed work is a better floor.
5. Fiscal policy and investment are vital but can’t eliminate all mismatches.
The JG is person-led, catching those left behind by project-led approaches.
6. Evidence asymmetry:
we have real-world JG programmes showing results.
The claim that broader fiscal policy alone can end unemployment is still theoretical.
7. Meaning isn’t fixed to markets.
JG programmes (e.g., Austria) show participants gain purpose and wellbeing—institutions can create recognition, too.
#MMT
I wuill be reposting that article, with permission, tomorrow and will comment on it then.
For me the full article perfectly addresses any and all criticisms, I wish I could have been as authoritative and associate as Patricia was.
[…] This is an interesting response by MMTUK to Richard Murphy’s rejection of the Job Guarantee. […]