(02-08-2019 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frankly, kinda surprised a UBI proponent wouldn’t be interested in a federal work guarantee since it would provide an income while also creating something productive.

I think you are misunderstanding the UBI that I have in mind. It's not enough to live well, basically just subsistence level. And it doesn't go away, everybody gets it. The bum on the street gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it. That can only be done if you keep it at a subsistence level, but if you do that then it really doesn't cost more than our current welfare hodgepodge. That's because the administration costs of such a program is way cheaper than the administration costs of the current program, because it does not require the legion of gate keepers that focused and "means tested" programs require.

The reason for setting it at a subsistence level is that then there is a strong incentive to go out and get a job.

The reason for not having it go away is that then you don't have the "welfare trap" problem.

The current focused and "means tested" programs could then be farmed out to the states on a voluntary basis. If we also did Bismarck health care, then the states would save way more from not having to fund Medicaid than it would cost to fund those programs, particularly considering that the UBI is going to price most people out of qualifying for them.

I 100% understand why you’re a proponent of UBI. I don’t understand why a jobs guarantee wouldn’t have similar support. It would also be open to anyone who wanted it, there wouldn’t be gate keepers, and it would go towards productive projects.

I don’t view a federal job guarantee as being in the same vein as our current welfare system that suffers from some of the problems you highlight.