[chadwickthebold]

To be clear, this article is advocating forcing people in poverty into gig economy jobs where there have been issues of low pay, terrible working conditions, and few if any employee protections. As a civilized country we should not demand that people give up their basic rights to earn a living.

[pjc50]

Yeah, it's worked out pretty badly in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_...

(the latter is particularly odious; having been told by a court that it owed people £130m in back-dated benefits, the government retroactively changed the law to avoid paying them. This is almost certainly a human rights violation but that litigation has not finished yet).

[crystalmeph]

Yeah, making people work for free at for-profit businesses is not a valid precondition for welfare. I didn't see that in this article though.

There has to be a social safety net, but I think it's a valid goal to encourage welfare recipients to work if they are able. One thing we should definitely do is reform the "vertical cliff" of payments, where once you make above a certain threshold, you stop receiving all benefits. That's a definite disincentive to get a better job past a certain point.

[pjc50]

The article talks about work requirements, but does not specify a minimum wage or minimum effective wage. Is someone who is signed up for one of these task apps but only given one hour work a week "working"?

Not to mention that the flood of workers forced into this position will necessarily bid down the hourly rates.

[yummyfajitas]

Of course it will bid down hourly rates. That will increase demand for such services, thereby allowing more people to enter the workforce [1]. Unemployed workers get jobs, consumers get more services - a win for everyone!

[1] It's interesting how the gig economy can reduce sticky wages, making inflationary stimulus unnecessary.

[maxerickson]

So why not better regulate the gig economy?

[yummyfajitas]

This is an extreme misrepresentation of the article. Anyone who doesn't want to work is free to stop telling the welfare office they want work but can't find it.

No one is forced to do anything.

[astazangasta]

I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That is a force, the force of starvation.

[yummyfajitas]

People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds?

I totally missed that part of the article.

[yequalsx]

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. I think it doesn't make sense in terms of overall societal emotional well being.

[yummyfajitas]

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people.

If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy.

We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work.

The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed."

Did you read it?

I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there.

Welfare recipients are disgruntled people who are unpleasant to be around?

I thought they were just regular folks who were down on their luck, who wanted to work but are unable to find a job.

[yequalsx]

Forcing people to do work they don't want to often times leads to disgruntlement. It appears that you are purposefully misreading what I wrote to come up with the last rhetorical question you made. Such tactics are not conducive to proper discourse.

Great to write on paper that we will exempt those who are mentally/physically unable to work. Then we will end up with a bunch of edge cases that force a government agency to be created that will end up drawing up rules/regulations in order to arbitrate these decisions. We will employ enough people in order to process/monitor all exempt people. It would in my opinion just be better to ensure a base level of existence regardless of ability.

I've met a number of welfare recipients who don't want to work and it is a good thing that they aren't working due to their toxic personalities. Then there are people who are on welfare who are great to be around. It's a sufficiently large group that you'll find all kinds.

In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don't believe that every person who can be employed can find work. I don't think anyone really believes that it is always the case that the number of people who wants jobs is less than the available number of jobs. Even if the system proposed is enacted then some people will still not be able to find work since there aren't enough jobs for everyone. We will add another layer of bureaucracy to ensure that those who claim they can't find work really can't find work. This already exists to some extent with unemployment benefits but would need to be expanded to really make sure no one is taking advantage of the system.

[creshal]

> If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy.

Exactly. So why "rethink the entire safety net, affecting nearly every federal entitlement program, so that it is oriented around the gig economy"?

The gig economy isn't going to change the fundamental problem that there is not enough work, there won't ever again be enough work, and we can't centre our measurement of human worth around work. If we just keep pretending that's not the case we'll either end up with bullshit jobs that create no worth and are subsidized by the companies offering them (at best just a more convoluted form of benefits, paid by corporations directly); or with even more working poor that have a job and still depend on government benefits. Or both.