4 ms·

I think you've set up a dichotomy where you can have the PWA or basic income. The best approach would be both: a basic income to provide people enough to survi

I think you've set up a dichotomy where you can have the PWA or basic income. The best approach would be both: a basic income to provide people enough to survive (probably not so comfortably, but...). From there, you could have a PWA that focuses on infrastructure that features a strong training component and pays well, or you strike out on your own.

crdoconnor 12y ago
Politically it kind of is a dichotomy. I see very little hope for Basic Income politically because the A) protestant work ethic is too deeply embedded in American culture and B) for many Americans the only outcome they would notice would be very high inflation. I'm not against the very idea of it and if there were a referendum for it tomorrow I would almost certainly vote yes, but I honestly think that its basic presumptions are wrong: * The the labor market today is allocating people to jobs efficiently. * That as a society we don't have enough useful work for everybody to do today. * That the government wouldn't efficiently allocate resources if it were to create jobs.
- orangecat 12y ago
  That as a society we don't have enough useful work for everybody to do today. I believe this is largely true today in the context of people who are currently unemployed, and will only be more so in the future. That the government wouldn't efficiently allocate resources if it were to create jobs. You think it would? Look at military contracts, where it's more important for every member of Congress to be able to point to jobs "created" in their district, than that we actually get functional projects at reasonable costs.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >I believe this is largely true today in the context of people who are currently unemployed, and will only be more so in the future. Poverty is on the increase, our infrastructure is not only crumbling it is currently inferior in many ways to some third world countries like China. We have budget cuts for science and NASA not because they've run out of useful work, but because of a political imperative that we should create as many unemployed people as possible through budget cuts. >You think it would? It already did in the 1930s and I am confident it would again. >Look at military contracts, where it's more important for every member of Congress to be able to point to jobs "created" in their district, than that we actually get functional projects at reasonable costs. If we had an alternative working job creation program Congressmen wouldn't try and ram through military contracts to create jobs in their district instead. Meaning less military bloat and more infrastructure spending. Sounds good to me.

crdoconnor 12y ago

Politically it kind of is a dichotomy. I see very little hope for Basic Income politically because the A) protestant work ethic is too deeply embedded in American culture and B) for many Americans the only outcome they would notice would be very high inflation. I'm not against the very idea of it and if there were a referendum for it tomorrow I would almost certainly vote yes, but I honestly think that its basic presumptions are wrong: * The the labor market today is allocating people to jobs efficiently. * That as a society we don't have enough useful work for everybody to do today. * That the government wouldn't efficiently allocate resources if it were to create jobs.

orangecat 12y ago
That as a society we don't have enough useful work for everybody to do today. I believe this is largely true today in the context of people who are currently unemployed, and will only be more so in the future. That the government wouldn't efficiently allocate resources if it were to create jobs. You think it would? Look at military contracts, where it's more important for every member of Congress to be able to point to jobs "created" in their district, than that we actually get functional projects at reasonable costs.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >I believe this is largely true today in the context of people who are currently unemployed, and will only be more so in the future. Poverty is on the increase, our infrastructure is not only crumbling it is currently inferior in many ways to some third world countries like China. We have budget cuts for science and NASA not because they've run out of useful work, but because of a political imperative that we should create as many unemployed people as possible through budget cuts. >You think it would? It already did in the 1930s and I am confident it would again. >Look at military contracts, where it's more important for every member of Congress to be able to point to jobs "created" in their district, than that we actually get functional projects at reasonable costs. If we had an alternative working job creation program Congressmen wouldn't try and ram through military contracts to create jobs in their district instead. Meaning less military bloat and more infrastructure spending. Sounds good to me.