[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.

[yummyfajitas]

I attributed to you a common left wing position on welfare recipients. It appears I misunderstood you - apparently you don't believe welfare recipients are just regular people.

If a person chooses to be toxic to those around them, why is that a behavior that should result in us giving them money?

Lets make this concrete. Consider a racist who chooses to be an asshole to every non-white person around them, and who also lives in a very diverse area such as Silicon Valley or NYC (and refuses to move to a very white area). They are also sexist to all the women who choose to work outside the home as well. Their voluntarily chosen behavior patterns leave them unemployable.

Why is this person deserving of free money taken from productive people of color who choose to pleasantly work for the benefit of others?

(I have of course chosen this person to be as offensive to left wing sensibilities as possible.)

In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don't believe that every person who can be employed can find work.

I do actually believe vastly more people could be working than currently are, because I used to live in India and I saw vastly higher labor utilization. There are a huge number of jobs that simply don't get done in the US.

E.g., I have a maid clean my flat twice a month, but I'd like it done twice a week (or daily, like most Indian professionals do). However, labor is simply too scarce in the US for that to be reasonable. Perhaps some of those welfare recipients who are "great to be around" can find me and help me out, should we implement the author's proposal.

However, if such a proposal only puts half the people on welfare back to work, that's still a good outcome.

[yequalsx]

Now you are being deliberately inflammatory. Clearly I indicated that one finds all types of personalities amongst poor people. I explicitly state this in my third paragraph. What then is your goal with your first sentence? It is evident you are not interested in an intellectually honest discussion. Your tactic belongs on an extremist political blog where the goal is to demonize and distort contrary opinions.

In your sixth paragraph you again deliberately distort what I wrote. It is not reasonable to believe that number of potential workers < number of available jobs at all times. Nowhere is it implied that more people can't be employed than currently are. There is a difference between more and all.

You are not rich enough to afford someone to clean for you as frequently as you like so you conclude labor is way too scarce? A solution you endorse is to force people to service your needs in exchange for welfare benefits. In essence to perform labor at substandard prices. Perhaps you should just make more money so that you can afford the market rate for the labor you want. Just get a better paying job or create more utility for society. As it currently stands the market doesn't think you provide enough value to justify compensating you enough to sustain the lifestyle you want.

Creating a system of forced labor does not make for a reasonable solution and would lead to the country being a worse place to live.

[yummyfajitas]

Clearly I indicated that one finds all types of personalities amongst poor people. I explicitly state this in my third paragraph.

I acknowledged that I misunderstood you in the very comment you replied to. I explicitly acknowledged both your belief in the existence of toxic welfare recipients (in paragraphs 2,3 and 4) and those that are "great to be around" in paragraph 8.

Apart from explicitly acknowledging and responding to your points, what else can I do to make you believe I'm not "demonize[ing] and distort[ing]" your opinions?

There is a difference between more and all.

I explicitly acknowledge and address this point in my last sentence.

You are not rich enough to afford someone to clean for you as frequently as you like so you conclude labor is way too scarce?

Scarcity is when we don't have as much of something as we want. So yes - labor is scarce.

A solution you endorse is to force people to service your needs in exchange for welfare benefits.

On the contrary, I'm proposing forcing fewer people to service the needs of others. Currently I'm forced to service welfare people's needs; but if a welfare person has a toxic personality and is unwilling to work, I'd like to end that use of force.

Also, as far as paying market rates for labor, this article (and me, in agreeing with it) is explicitly advocating that we bring wages closer to market. Again, did you read it? It proposes making information more available (by helping welfare recipients access the gig economy) and reducing subsidies that shrink the labor force (via workfare requirements).

[yequalsx]

<i>...apparently you don't believe welfare recipients are just regular people.</i>

I explicitly stated that one finds all types of people amongst welfare recipients as it is a sufficiently large set of people. The statement that I apparently don't believe welfare recipients are regular people is inflammatory. The wording you used seeks to paint me as someone who doesn't think poor people are "regular folks". (Using the colloquial definition of this phrase.)

Yes labor is scare in the strict meaning of the phrase. Labor is way too scarce? Hardly can this be concluded because you can't afford to pay people enough to do the work you want.

[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.