A basic job system and a basic income system do not have the same effect in terms of replacing current 'wealth transfers' (what a ghastly term for such a dispar

A basic job system and a basic income system do not have the same effect in terms of replacing current 'wealth transfers' (what a ghastly term for such a disparate set of social policies and programs). 16% of US government spending is on pensions (by the posters own source). Those people need money to live. Unless you expect them to work until they die / become disabled, then they are not covered by the naive model of a basic job system. Indeed the basic job model completely ignores 52 million people who are not in the workforce or disabled (by their own numbers). Many of these people require government money to live as well. It is worth noting that in (small) trials in canada it was overwhelmingly students and parents that stopped working (and that is out of the labour force) and in much smaller numbers than the author suggests (although admittedly this may be because they knew the program was temporary). Most of the costs and benefits involved in a welfare system are not present in this model. The suggestion that the only value people receiving welfare create is the occasional one in ten million great work is frankly shockingly old fashioned. It is as if 300+ years of political philosophy have simply passed the author by. To say the least you need to think about the effects on child care, students, crime rates and all the latent costs that a lack of financial freedom creates.