One concern with a job guarantee being proposed in isolation is that opponents clearly attempt to paint the policy as workfare and, possibly worse, right-wing advocates or implementers of the policy would attempt to introduce it in that pernicious form rather than in the way that the job-guarantee advocates clearly intend, which is as a job with minimum wage and basic conditions attached. There is no doubt that the job guarantee, as intended by modern monetary theorists, is very different from workfare.
Many appear to object to the notion of an unconditional basic income. In particular, of those who would prefer to remain in a job, many seem to resent the thought of others opting out of a job and still being guaranteed an income. Here, I want to consider this attitude in the case of a 'job or income guarantee' (JIG), a policy that would give everybody a guaranteed job if they wanted one, or a basic income if they didn't. Newer readers can find earlier posts on this topic in the 'Job & Income Guarantee' category.
Some may feel that a post on economics might be in order. Perhaps a comment or two on the "Positive Money" proposal that has recently been explained in plain language? But it's hard to care about economics some days. So instead I migrated to YouTube and began listening to Peter & Kerry who, according to the Guardian (here), is the band "least likely to split an infinitive". That seems pretext enough for featuring them in a post.