[pjmorris]

Agreed.

I tend to think a job guarantee would work better than UBI: have the government provide a job to anyone who can't find one somewhere else, something like what was done in the 1930's in the US. Come up with a list of things needed (can you think of anything that needs fixing?), and pay people a living wage and benefits to take care of those things. Call it 'Universal Basic Work.'

Beyond spending government money to take care of the country and beyond providing those hired with enough to take take of themselves, it'd force private employers to pay and provide benefits at least as well as the government UBW jobs if they want to hire employees.

I further imagine that a person making enough to get by would be less prone to being hopeless and frustrated, supporting social cohesion. And that there's a dignity in that both for the individual and the community they are a part of.

[JKCalhoun]

I like the idea of Universal Basic Work because, like you state, I think from work comes a sense of self-usefulness, utility and ultimately perhaps dignity, self-esteem. I don't see any of that from UBI.

[elevatortrim]

Not sure if that would work better:

1. The idea behind UBI is that it is near-zero effort, the cost to operate UBI should be minimal. UBW cannot be low overhead I suppose. 2. What motivation do I have to do the work if I can’t get fired?

[neilwilson]

You have to work if you want to get paid. Otherwise you will get fired. The obligation of the state is to provide you with a guaranteed alternative job offer, not a guaranteed income.

It’s up to you if you take up the state’s offer or not.

The UBI removes the motivation to work and turns everything into volunteering. The result is a rise in the “reservation wage gap” - the amount the private sector has to pay to get people to work for them.

The reservation wage gap with a job guarantee is near zero - which is more economically efficient.

Additionally the job guarantee acts as a powerful spend side automatic stabiliser that is temporal and spatially efficient - which removes the need to manipulate the base interest rate allowing it to return to its natural rate of zero. This allows permanent cheaper mortgages and business loans.

[xyzzy123]

One issue is that there's X% (debatable) of people who can't work for reasons that are complex or hard to explain. For many, even if they are physically able, you kinda don't want them to.

I mean, people who will create negative utility in a workplace or cost more in supervision expense than you get from them as output.

They create hazards for others by being drunk or on drugs on the job, or by harassing or bullying others, injuring themselves or others, causing personality conflicts or dramas due to trauma or unresolved mental health issues etc. I don't mean this as a value judgment, it's just like some people really aren't in a place in life where they can function well in work settings.

I'm not sure how you "guarantee" something that is dependent on complex situational decisions.

[neilwilson]

That confuses two points. Employees sell labour hours. At the basic living wage those hours are interchangeable between all people offering them. Even to the extent of age or infirmity. That’s what “unskilled labour” means.

The conversion of those hours into labour services is why the private sector is allowed to profit. If they want “better quality hours” then they have to bid up the price of those hours.

That should be market determined, rather than being administratively set as the gap between unemployment benefit and the minimum wage. You’ll be surprised how well the private sector can use hours once they see people doing the basics of turning up on time and doing something.

When we sentence offenders to “community service” we give them a job as rehabilitation, along with all the support mechanisms to straighten out lives. If we can do that for offenders, we can do that for everybody.

[pjmorris]

> UBW cannot be low overhead I suppose.

There would be overhead in asking people to do something (UBW) rather than simply offering money (UBI). It strikes me that the benefits of being able to limit unemployment directly rather than indirectly, of being able to direct community work that supports all of us, of more people being able to pay their bills instead of wondering how to do so, and of putting a floor under private sector wages and benefits is worth the overhead involved.

I'd note that UBI also requires administrative effort and expense.

> What motivation do I have to do the work if I can’t get fired?

As the other poster described, you've still got to work to get paid. It's a job, not just a paycheck. Another poster described the problems with hiring people who are not able to work. UBW shouldn't replace mental health facilities or jails... although I suspect that it'd reduce the number of people who need either of those facilities. I'd say that both of these types of problems are relatively small compared to the population and to the benefits that a UBW program would provide. Pilot UBW programs might help assess the validity of the above theories.

[zozbot234]

The government already does this by subsidizing low income earners via the EITC. It just outsources the actual job provision to the private sector, which is an effective alternative to wasteful make-work.

[neilwilson]

Except that doesn’t work as there remains a systemic shortage of jobs on offer.

The societal deal with the private sector is that it employs everybody at a rate that allows an individual to live in return for the chance to make a profit. A job guarantee ensures that the private sector overall cannot shirk that responsibility.

If the private sector does its job, nobody will be employed on a job guarantee.

[zozbot234]

An income subsidy does the same thing at lesser cost. Whether that subsidy is a UBI or a wage supplement is to some extent a political choice: we got the EITC instead of a proper UBI (managed as a "negative" income tax bill for low-earning folks) largely due to political objections to the notion of getting money "for doing nothing".

[neilwilson]

Yet the state pension tells us that isn’t the case. The state pension is a UBI allocated by age rather than physical area. We have millions of data points showing that when people receive sufficient to live on they stop working.

The result is political pressure to remove the state pension or increase the age at which it is received.

If UBI worked as you suggest then the resulting increase in productivity would drive the state pension age down not up.

The evidence is against you. Giving people money reduces productivity and makes it more difficult for firms to get the labour they require, and at huge cost to the state that uses up the finite taxation space there is available.

[zozbot234]

Often the state pension gets clawed back at such a rate if you go back to work that it makes working a bad deal for the elderly.

[defrost]

Disingenuous at best.

Sixty five year olds qualifying for a pension is worlds away from twenty year olds looking to learn or start a business.