UBI or Jobs Guarantee?

[coolface1572]

Which is better?

[Green Line]

Both bad.  UBI less bad.  SPecifically the FREEDOM DIVIDEND, which will stimulate consumer spending like no other.

[7,052,770]

UBI easily. Lots of people don't want or need to work for the government, as automation takes over in the next few decades, a jobs guarantee becomes unfeasible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would definitely support robust New Deal-like public works programs to rebuild our infrastructure and create well-paid blue-collar jobs in the process. But let's face it, if we actually tried to establish a genuine "jobs guarantee", iit would rapidly devolve into a bureaucratic nightmare and collapse under its own weight. It would be close to going back to outright central planning, and the modern state is simply not equipped for this kind of micromanagement. Harry is also right that not everyone wants that kind of work, and we don't even need everybody to be working 40 hour jobs (in fact, we should probably start decreasing the total amount of hours worked all while spreading it more equally).

On the other hand, UBI is an extremely inefficient form of redistribution, doubly so if it's funded by regressive taxes like Yang is suggesting. A guaranteed minimum income, on the other hand, would be a great idea, and achieve much more redistribution at a lower cost.

So I guess my answer is "neither in their pure form, but a watered-down version of both".

[John Dule]

I honestly think the federal jobs guarantee might be the worst policy proposal this cycle.

[Blue3]

UBI is better

[DeSantis4Prez]

UBI

[Grassroots]

Job Guarantee is a much better concept, in fact I base my entire economic views around the creation of it.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

UBI has a few advantages and disadvantages. It easies taxation because taxation can be implemented on UBI, and the UBI can be adapted. It also centralizes social security. It's also quite a fair measure and create opportunities for people with burn-outs and mid-life crisisses, or who want just something new. The disadvantage is that a pure UBI would increase economic inequality hugely, that it costs a lot, basically for it to work you would spend a whole lot on UBI and that a UBI of 1000 euro is just not enough, unless you keep other social security institutions. I'm against it, but could be swayed over in the future if it works. On a community level, it could work though, but not for an entire country, unless you're head of Monaco, Singapore or something like this. I also believe UBI should be tried out in a relatively small and rich country, or in regions / cities.

Jobs Guarantee is not so great as well, because practically you'll never be able to guarantee a job, and in the future automatisation will decrease the need for jobs. You can also not let everyone work in a federal institution. What you can do is lower the work week so that more people can work, while older people have their much needed rest while they don't have a pension yet and are inactive, reducing unemployment, reducing pensions costs and being ethical to raise retirement age, prepare for automatisation of economy. That's why i'm strongly in support of a 30 hour work week.

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

A job guarantee but it's actually just the condition for your unemployment benefits

[Del Tachi]

Jobs guarantee, because work gives people a sense of dignity and community.

[Blue3]

UBI

People can choose their own work

Jobs guarantee is a bureaucratic nightmare that would be far less productive

[atheist4thecause]

Which is better?

Obviously this is not a dichotomy, and I want to make clear that I think the best policy is welfare for the needy. You can probably imagine that given this stance, I am much more open to UBI because it's effectively like a lazy form of giving out welfare by not determining who actually needs it.

Jobs guarantee is a horrendous policy. Forcing the government to hire people will create completely unnecessary jobs, and then that puts strain on the people working those jobs. This also takes people out of the labor pool and artificially spikes the cost of unskilled labor, because companies that run businesses like fast food will have a tough time finding workers since the government is eating them all up. I know the theory is that the government is the last resort, but once they are there then they are there. If a person is unemployed then they are more open to finding a job then someone who is already working.

This question likely stems from the automation issue, so I want to take that on. I think people are freaking out a little too much about automation. We are a long ways from robots doing everything. We barely have assisted driving on the road right alone, let alone full blown commercially run self-driving cars. And don't forget, not just cars, but semis. And then we'll need different kinds of robots for all kinds of other jobs, some which are easier to automate and some which are more difficult.

What I think is going to happen is in fact automation will never take over completely. We'll have a transition where it starts to, but then we're going to go into space, mine asteroids, planets, etc. and colonize other planets as well. This will create far more jobs than we can even automate, and this will keep us busy for thousands of years. By the time automation catches up, we'll be leaving the solar system and colonizing the galaxy. I think automation should be seen as complimentary rather than replacement for the indefinite future. I wouldn't mind a society where people don't have to work, though.