4 ms·
>Replacing welfare/etc with a policy like a Basic Job (basic income but you need to work for it) might. So you think we should have make-work programs? How ab
by Arizhel 10y ago
>Replacing welfare/etc with a policy like a Basic Job (basic income but you need to work for it) might.
So you think we should have make-work programs?
How about this one: we'll have a giant factory, making shipping crates out of wood. On one side of the factory, workers will toil away all day long nailing together boards into shipping crates. These crates will be transported to the other side of the factory. In there, the crates will be disassembled, so that the boards can be recycled. These boards will then be transported back to the other side of the factory, where they'll be assembled into shipping crates.
Why do you think this is a better system than just giving out free money? What exactly is being accomplished here?
What I described is exactly what happened in Soviet times, where they had exactly the "Basic Job" system you advocate.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI think that we should use the Basic Job to provide all the valuable government services that left wing types want to provide by overpaying public sector unions. E.g., child care for working women, infrastructure, that kind of thing. We could probably make it revenue neutral if we replaced overpaid unionized public sector workers with basic jobbers at $7.25/hour. But yes, even the system you describe would be better than a basic income. It would cost a lot less money because very few people would participate in it. The problem with the soviet system was not the basic job. It was the lack of anything else.