4 ms·

Why can't we have a Basic Job Guarantee? Perhaps it's just part of the protestant work ethic we Americans are marinated in but I think most people actually do w

Why can't we have a Basic Job Guarantee? Perhaps it's just part of the protestant work ethic we Americans are marinated in but I think most people actually do want to do productive work. Being unemployed or on welfare just plain old doesn't feel good. Of course some people are fine lounging but I think they're probably a minority.

twblalock 10y ago
How would you achieve this? I can only think of a few ways: - The government can force companies to give jobs to people they would not otherwise hire - The government can invent unnecessary jobs and then hire people to do them. (The jobs would have to be unnecessary in order to be invented, because if they were necessary, they would already exist.) Both of these solutions are terrible, and I can't think of any others that are qualitatively different -- you either put people in existing jobs or create new jobs. The point of UBI, according to most of its proponents, is that it deals with a future of automation in which many people will not be able to find work.
- colorint 10y ago
  Are all social services unnecessary because they're created ex nihilo by the government? Most job guarantee programs involve looking at something like that, as well as things like art grants and infrastructure and maintenance and so forth.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  It would be the second and even though they may not be necessary, they would still be beneficial. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_732.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_732.pdf The rest of the world is finally catching up the advantage we made for ourselves post-WWII and combining that with technological change we're going to be facing a labor market with a lot of (at least frictionally) unemployed people. In that case you do what FDR did and hand them a shovel and tell them to improve their community.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Basic mechanization makes it hard to put a lot of people to work physically, but there's all sorts of things that can be done that improve the world in small ways. Here's a dumb one: end "Adopt a highway" and pay people to clean up along roads.
- abecedarius 10y ago
  You're equating not-done-in-the-market with unnecessary. Public goods are hard to fund via markets -- for instance, if the U.S. military vanished tomorrow I don't think it'd be replaced by corporations competing to sign you up for defense against invasions by offering the best service at the lowest price. (This also shows a downside of governments providing public goods: we in the U.S. are buying way more "defense" than optimal.)
Animats 10y ago
We did, once. It was called the Works Progress Administration. It built roads, civic projects, and most of those art deco post offices that are still around.[1] The program was quite successful. It ended because WWII eliminated US unemployment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

twblalock 10y ago

How would you achieve this? I can only think of a few ways: - The government can force companies to give jobs to people they would not otherwise hire - The government can invent unnecessary jobs and then hire people to do them. (The jobs would have to be unnecessary in order to be invented, because if they were necessary, they would already exist.) Both of these solutions are terrible, and I can't think of any others that are qualitatively different -- you either put people in existing jobs or create new jobs. The point of UBI, according to most of its proponents, is that it deals with a future of automation in which many people will not be able to find work.

colorint 10y ago
Are all social services unnecessary because they're created ex nihilo by the government? Most job guarantee programs involve looking at something like that, as well as things like art grants and infrastructure and maintenance and so forth.
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
It would be the second and even though they may not be necessary, they would still be beneficial. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_732.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_732.pdf The rest of the world is finally catching up the advantage we made for ourselves post-WWII and combining that with technological change we're going to be facing a labor market with a lot of (at least frictionally) unemployed people. In that case you do what FDR did and hand them a shovel and tell them to improve their community.
maxerickson 10y ago
Basic mechanization makes it hard to put a lot of people to work physically, but there's all sorts of things that can be done that improve the world in small ways. Here's a dumb one: end "Adopt a highway" and pay people to clean up along roads.
abecedarius 10y ago
You're equating not-done-in-the-market with unnecessary. Public goods are hard to fund via markets -- for instance, if the U.S. military vanished tomorrow I don't think it'd be replaced by corporations competing to sign you up for defense against invasions by offering the best service at the lowest price. (This also shows a downside of governments providing public goods: we in the U.S. are buying way more "defense" than optimal.)

Animats 10y ago

We did, once. It was called the Works Progress Administration. It built roads, civic projects, and most of those art deco post offices that are still around.[1] The program was quite successful. It ended because WWII eliminated US unemployment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration