Ms. Smith is confused. Income "top-ups" are not a GBI. Means-tested anything are not a GBI. Using the "the Speenhamland System" as an argument against the GBI s

Ms. Smith is confused. Income "top-ups" are not a GBI. Means-tested anything are not a GBI. Using the "the Speenhamland System" as an argument against the GBI shows a serious misunderstanding of what a GBI is. For a GBI to work, it'd have to be: - national - otherwise you would get strange arbitraging behavior - unconditional - available to all adults The idea is that you get the minimum (let's say 22k a year if we started one now), then you work to get even more money. It's enough to live on. To not starve. To pay rent. If you want to live well, you try to get a job if you can. It would have to replace nearly all of the current welfare state (except maybe disability - 22k may not be enough for the seriously disabled), and not just be another program. I'm also confused about her confidence that there's "so much work to do." Automation is on the march, and will continue (I'm sure Smith is very familiar with Autor / McCaffee / Ford and friends.) Many of the jobs that one might envision (and that still exist) are jobs that no one wants to do in today's world in any case. They aren't pinnacles of dignity and pride; they're soul-crushing, meaningless, repetitive, and body-destroying. The sooner we automate them, the better. No one will miss doing them. A jobs guarantee also puts us right back in the workhouse / make work mindset. "People need a sense of purpose and social engagement. Employment provides that. History is rife with examples of the rich who fail to find a productive outlet and and whose lives were consumed by addictions or other self-destructive behavior." Yes, many people would do drugs and play lots of video games. I think it's short-sighted to believe we can stop that (and as things like VR improve, we'll probably get to the point of wireheading.) Many others would spend time with their friends, make art and music, etc. I think pre-emptively assuming that most would just be loafers is falling to the same thinking trap that has sustains ideological wonders like the Protestant work ethic and modern Social Darwninism. There are other ways to encourage "purpose." A jobs guarantee is, and will hopefully remain, a non-starter. Machines will free us from work; then we'll have to find our own purpose.