They have to specify [] – otherwise mutual exclusivities make effective planning impossible.

So much of the JG - its cost, its effect on the economy and (for the purposes of this chapter) its political sustainability - depends on the kind of work JG workers would perform. Advocates have set out the criteria for jobs provided by the JG. These are: 1. They must produce output of social benefit. 2. They must require low or general skills, have low capital costs and be commensurate with payment at the minimum (per Chapter 3, sub-minimum) wage. 3. They must be distinct from the rest of the public sector. 4. They must be buffer stock employment - it must be ultimately a matter of indifference whether the job is performed or not, so that workers can move between the JG and regular employment at will. It is undeniable that a government could offer a job to anyone and that a great deal of socially beneficial work is currently undone. However, it is not clear that a government could address both problems with the same solution. This chapter proposes that the JG is faced with an “impossible quadrilateral” (see Figure 1, below) that prevents these criteria from being met simultaneously. It will examine the tensions and contradictions along the axes of the impossible quadrilateral. These can be divided into three overarching tensions: (1) many suggested JG jobs require skills that are not commensurate with the minimum wage; (2) most social needs are ongoing, so should not be addressed through short-term jobs provided in a countercyclical fashion; and (3) it is difficult to keep the JG and the mainline public sector distinct. The kind of jobs JG workers perform is not just an administrative question, but bears on the political sustainability of the program. Even if the macroeconomic concerns surrounding the JG are unjustified, the program will only last as long as there is political support for it. Figure 1: Illustrative depiction of the “Impossible Quadrilateral” Social benefit Low or general skills Buffer stock employment Distinct from public sector 42 1. The Impossible Quadrilateral: “Social Benefit” vs. “Low Skills” JG jobs are minimum-wage jobs - and must, therefore, be commensurate with payment at the minimum wage. They must require few specialist skills and little training. Many, if not most, of the jobs suggested by Wray (1998: 142-143) and others do not meet these criteria. “Companions to the elderly [and] orphans, the bedridden, and the mentally or physically disabled”, “public classroom assistants” and “day care assistants” (for example) are not the type of work that can be done without training, and workers generally have to go through criminal background and character checks to determine whether they are suitable to work with vulnerable people. Wray (ibid.) goes on to exclude most work in education and care work (and infrastructure) because they are too skilled, implying that JG workers in these fields would instead staff lowresponsibility assistant and administrative positions. Other JG supporters cite largescale public infrastructure projects among examples of the kind of work a JG could perform (Gordon, 1997; Forstater, 2005). Beyond the previously mentioned objections, construction work is a potentially unsafe work environment, particularly to untrained workers, and poor construction quality poses a hazard to future users. Many of the jobs proposed for the JG have a wide range of possible safety issues, both for the workers and the public. For example, Cook, et al. (2008: 134) suggest that JG workers could “support […] alcohol free zones” and staff “community patrols”. It is not clear what this would entail, but to have JG workers enforcing public safety in any fashion would require giving them training in dealing with potentially aggressive or erratic individuals, while still leaving open the (possibly significant) risk of physical injury. It is possible that the JG would allow workers to refuse certain jobs, though, as Sawyer (2005: 240) notes, this is not stated. That JG advocates would even suggest such work is an indication that they do not appreciate the obstacles it present