Their framing of waged labor as central to human dignity relies on a neoconservative devaluing of feminized unwaged labor and tropes of ‘family values’

The guarantee of an income through a job is the first step toward the elimination of the welfare mess.44 Job guarantee theorists do not base their case for a federal jobs program on economic or other technical arguments alone. From Minsky onwards, JG advocates have also been especially concerned about the political feasibility of their preferred employment policy. Although they devote considerable attention to the technical macroeconomic argument for their employment-focused approach to labour market regulation and social welfare policy, they do so within a framework constrained by what they believe is possible in a political economy where the taxation of wages represents an important source of government revenue (or, at least, is perceived to by voters). This leads many JG thinkers to take a rather disapproving view of cash transfer programs, especially “welfare.” 45 In short, they proceed from the belief that social policy needs to be justified to the broader electorate, many of whom do not wish to see their “tax dollars” redistributed to those not engaged in waged labour. In this way, JG advocates often mirror discourses that stigmatize “welfare,” in the process framing unwaged social reproductive labour as outside the definition of “work.” JG theorists’ problematic centring of paid work and critiques of “welfare” have received little critical attention. In Minsky’s writing in particular, there is an underlying connection between concerns about political feasibility and a normative belief about the supposed importance of “earned” income. For example, Minsky argues that: Thoroughgoing reform [of employment and social welfare policy], based upon an understanding of how our economy works and principles consistent with human dignity and independence, is needed. The principles that should underlie the reform are an affirmation of both the dignity of labor and the social value of receiving income as a right because it is earned. Thus, thoroughgoing reform requires the manipulation of the economy so that there are jobs for all—the young, able-bodied adults, the handicapped, and the aged.46 Minsky further contends that “earned” income reinforces the behavioural rules of a capitalist economy by rewarding effort and generating labour discipline, whereas welfare payments potentially undermine such qualities and create dependence on “unearned” income, which is, additionally, inflationary and destabilizing, according to this argument. Moreover, because similar beliefs about “welfare dependency” and the stigmatization of welfare recipients are widespread throughout the working (and voting) public, social welfare policies must justify themselves on these terms. The “average taxpayer,” according to this reasoning, must perceive a material benefit from social policy and feel as though their prudent labour market behaviour is rewarded beyond the wage. They should see their taxes pay for programs beneficial to themselves and others engaged in paid employment.47 That JG theorists’ ostensibly rational economic and political critique of cash transfer programs might reinforce the social stigma attached to welfare does not seem to be considered. The conceptualization of welfare as a problem—indeed, as a “mess”—among JG writers is embedded in a producerist view of the economy and the place of paid employment within it.48 Minsky, Wray, Kelton, and other JG writers frame “productive” labour as central to human dignity and use this framing to build a normative foundation for their arguments in favour of full employment and welfare reform. However, the ways in which they position waged labour as central to both human flourishing and sound economic policy also obscure the vital contributions of unpaid social reproductive labour to capitalist economies, as well as the ways in which capitalist market exchange fails to register the value of unwaged work.49 As Nancy Fraser argues, the realm of production remains structurally dependent on “the hidden abode” of largely feminized and unpaid reproductive labour.50 Indeed, as many feminist political economists demonstrate, a central point of political contestation is precisely how the lines of demarcation are drawn between production for exchange, waged labour, and market commodifcation on the one hand, and social reproduction, unpaid labour, and decommodification, on the other. Melinda Cooper, for example, has shown how neoliberal policymakers have often utilized neoconservative “family values” discourse as part of their push for free market reforms. According to Cooper, the neoliberal marketization of ever-greater areas of social life crucially depends on shifting caring responsibilities into the space of the family—the site of unpaid reproductive labour.51 As governments of various political stripes impose austerity on public services, more of the work of social reproduction is offloaded onto “the family.” Minsky’s case for a “welfare policy” focused centrally on increasing labour force participation has unfortunately contributed to this general thrust towards valorizing paid employment at the expense of a critical feminist approach to the relationship between paid and unpaid work, and the decommodification of social supports necessary to more equitably redistribute the labour of care.