3 ms·

It's interesting that your other posts are so libertarian but here you're essentially proposing what the USSR promised its citizens. http://www.departments.buc

It's interesting that your other posts are so libertarian but here you're essentially proposing what the USSR promised its citizens. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.h... (Article 40)

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I'm proposing a form of help which is fairly cheap (some of the work is stuff the govt would pay for anyway) and has good incentives [1]. For this reason, basic jobs would be a great substitute for unemployment, welfare, etc. Just because I generally want the government to do less doesn't mean that I don't want them to do things efficiently and with as few unwanted side effects as possible. The fact that the USSR did it doesn't make it bad policy - that's the reverse Mussolini fallacy. It would also not be a bad thing to make the trains run on time. [1] For comparison, unemployment insurance creates bad incentives. Rather than looking for work, the woman described in this article went on vacation while collecting unemployment. Replacing unemployment with a "basic jobs" program would prevent this.
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  After 20 years working as an office flunky for Boeing, I'd take a vacation, too...
- Retric 16y ago
  There is zero incentive to stay unemployed because you get the same money regardless of age or employment. Chances are she would have taken the same vacation, and then gotten a lower paying job sooner. PS: It's also a smaller paycheck than SS or unemployment so it's harder to get by without a job.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    It's a disincentive to work because of diminishing marginal utility - your second $10,000 of income is not as valuable to you as your first $10,000 of income. If the second $10k/year is less valuable to you than leisure, you will avoid work. If she got neither unemployment nor basic income, but only basic work, the taxpayers would not have been forced to pay for her vacation.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I'm proposing a form of help which is fairly cheap (some of the work is stuff the govt would pay for anyway) and has good incentives [1]. For this reason, basic jobs would be a great substitute for unemployment, welfare, etc. Just because I generally want the government to do less doesn't mean that I don't want them to do things efficiently and with as few unwanted side effects as possible. The fact that the USSR did it doesn't make it bad policy - that's the reverse Mussolini fallacy. It would also not be a bad thing to make the trains run on time. [1] For comparison, unemployment insurance creates bad incentives. Rather than looking for work, the woman described in this article went on vacation while collecting unemployment. Replacing unemployment with a "basic jobs" program would prevent this.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago
After 20 years working as an office flunky for Boeing, I'd take a vacation, too...
Retric 16y ago
There is zero incentive to stay unemployed because you get the same money regardless of age or employment. Chances are she would have taken the same vacation, and then gotten a lower paying job sooner. PS: It's also a smaller paycheck than SS or unemployment so it's harder to get by without a job.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  It's a disincentive to work because of diminishing marginal utility - your second $10,000 of income is not as valuable to you as your first $10,000 of income. If the second $10k/year is less valuable to you than leisure, you will avoid work. If she got neither unemployment nor basic income, but only basic work, the taxpayers would not have been forced to pay for her vacation.