[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).

[fluoridation]

>My suspicion is peoples’ tendency towards purposelessness will exceed bureaucrats’ tendency towards uselessness.

The question we need to answer is, given infinite labor (limited over time, but unlimited given unlimited time) is there infinite meaningful work that a government can allocate it to? Eventually you will have built all the dams, tunnels, and bridges that you can usefully build. Historically what tends to happen is that work that isn't strictly necessary gets allocated. Roads that are fine get repaved, etc. I don't see how needlessly wasting energy and resources is better than paying people to spend their time however they see fit.