Thread by @MarkVinPaul

A bit late here (had shoulder surgery), but @MattBruenig wrote a worthwhile piece on how we structure unemployment insurance. You should read it.

Shockingly, I do take issue with this passage. peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/07/23/thi…

Matt, as I'm sure you all know, dislikes the JG. He prefers some a UBI.

But I want to point out 3 things:
1) There are different ideas on how to structure a JG

2) There are many different forms of structuring a UBI too.

3) He often talks about these policies in isolation

Large umbrella terms like JG and UBI allow for large coalitions to form and seemingly agree, when often the coalitions have fairly different ideas (resulting in many claiming the UBI has tons of bi-partisan buy in for instance).

Anyhow, here Matt falsely claims that many on the left are arguing that unemployed workers displaced as progressives seek to fundamentally restructure our economy would like to place these workers in min wage jobs.

Matt's assumption is that JG advocates wouldn't support *complementary policies* for workers during transition periods, such as those outlined in the Medicare for All bill (HR 676).

I for one have written and worked on bills to provide workers a just transition.

dataforprogress.org/memos/a-histor…

It also fails to recognize that other's who have worked on the JG outline a jobs ladder.
cbpp.org/research/full-…

Matt sees the JG as little more than workfare. I strongly disagree. Instead, the JG can help fundamentally rebuild our communities and our economy, while providing meaningful work and dignity to those who are unemployed.

BUT Matt and I do share many goals. One is reducing the degree of commodification in the economy. Another is reducing work hours and reliance on paid employment for one's livelihood.

These goals could be achieved to a degree in a larger progressive agenda that provides universal economic rights. A JG, coupled w/ a reasonable NIT and a revised national unemployment system, could deliver.