[pydry]

"When our grandparents built the hoover dam, the lincoln tunnel and the triborough bridge with a job guarantee that was just money for nothing - UBI with extra steps."

^ this would be an accurate representation of your opinion then?

[fluoridation]

That job guarantees exceptionally produce useful things doesn't mean that they don't overwhelmingly produce useless things, or things that are more expensive than they're worth.

[JumpCrisscross]

> doesn't mean that they don't overwhelmingly produce useless things, or things that are more expensive than they're worth

One could say the same thing about all the little art projects a hypothetical society on UBI might busy itself making. The pertinent difference seems to be one about scale and co-ordination. Job guarantees say we work together–through a centralised power–to build big things. Handing everyone cash leans more towards arts and crafts and consumption.

[fluoridation]

>Job guarantees say we work together–through a centralised power–to build big things. Handing everyone cash leans more towards arts and crafts and consumption.

Creating busywork doesn't strike me as a particularly worthwhile endeavor, compared to idleness.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Creating busywork doesn't strike me as a particularly worthwhile endeavor

Make work isn’t the same as busywork. As another comment mentioned, the Hoover Dam isn’t useless busywork.

[fluoridation]

And as I mentioned, the Hoover dam is also not the typical example of the kinds of projects guaranteed job programs generate.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the Hoover dam is also not the typical example of the kinds of projects guaranteed job programs generate

NASA arguably ran its post-Apollo pre-Artemis period as a jobs program. Again, there will be waste. But there will also be waste with UBI. My suspicion is peoples’ tendency towards purposelessness will exceed bureaucrats’ tendency towards uselessness. That’s a loose hypothesis. But in its balance lies which system is more competitive (and satisfying).