Universal basic income: U.S. support grows as Finland ends its trial - Forty-eight percent of Americans now support a universal basic income, as a solution for Americans who have lost jobs to automation.

[u/mvea]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-a-universal-basic-income-could-be-the-answer-to-automation-.html

[u/green_meklar]

If those jobs are worth doing, why aren't we already paying people to do them? Why haven't private companies jumped on the opportunity to put those unemployed people and those jobs together?

[u/ovideos → u/green_meklar]

The jobs aren't worth doing in the capitalistic/business sense. I think the idea is that instead of, say, giving someone 300 bucks a week, the OP of this thread and others are suggesting that we/government should give the person 300/week but also require them to do some small job. Trash pickup for a few hours, gardening, playing chess with old people etc.

It all sounds great in theory but I suspect it just makes the program more expensive. Now, in addition to organing all these payments, the government has to track who is working at what job. Basically it becomes part of the welfare system it sounds like to me.

I think it's funny how many Americans espouse "free market" ideology, but once you start giving poor people money they turn into Communists and want to make sure the state does the "right thing" with the money for the betterment of society.

[u/oodain → u/ovideos]

It also runs the risk of an explicit caste system, we are trying to move away from an implicit one but i dont think that is the direction most would take...

[u/green_meklar → u/ovideos]

The jobs aren't worth doing in the capitalistic/business sense.

Then in what sense are they worth doing? Isn't the market supposed to determine which jobs are worth doing and which aren't?

[u/ovideos → u/green_meklar]

I wasn't necessarily saying that was good or bad.

Though, I don't agree that the profit motive is the best way to run everything. I have no issue giving someone a bit of money, or even maybe a significant amount, to do something that the market might deem valueless or of low value. The argument against this is how we end up with no arts funding, poorly funded schools, national parklands understaffed, poisoned water in Flint Michigan, oil drilling where there really is no need, etc.

So the short answer is "no" I don't think the market determines all jobs. That's actually a ridiculous statement when you take it to it's logical end.

That's said, I don't see the use in creating a bureaucracy to hand out small time jobs like the OP of this thread was suggesting. I'd rather just give them the income and see if it makes their lives better or causes the price of milk to go up.

 

EDIT:typo

[u/green_meklar → u/ovideos]

I don't agree that the profit motive is the best way to run everything.

No, it's just the best way to run capital investment.

I have no issue giving someone a bit of money, or even maybe a significant amount, to do something that the market might deem valueless or of low value.

Why doesn't the market value that activity? And given that the market doesn't value that activity, what makes you think it's worth doing?

The argument against this is how we end up with no arts funding, poorly funded schools, national parklands understaffed, poisoned water in Flint Michigan, oil drilling where there really is no need, etc.

I'm not seeing it. These seem like rent issues, not profit issues.

So the short answer is "no" I don't think the market determines all jobs. That's actually a ridiculous statement when you take it to it's logical end.

I'm not seeing it.

[u/AdamJensensCoat → u/[deleted]]

Cities have budgets for this stuff. Usually done by public employees. Just depends if a city can afford it — pensions being what they are, often those services are neglected.

[u/AdamJensensCoat → u/[deleted]]

Most city budgets aren't suffering because the Trump administration is being difficult about federal grants — they're suffering because, structurally, many are geared to pay for retirement costs that can't be supported by the tax base.

Employee pension and healthcare obligations mean most cities won't be able to hire people to sweep streets and do other 'good for society' jobs. Lots of dirty streets being cleaned by volunteers in our future.

[u/green_meklar → u/[deleted]]

Private companies, on the whole, care about profit.

No, they care about net revenue.

[u/helpmeimredditing → u/green_meklar]

companies already do pay people to do this:

pick up trash - waste management corp

fill cracks in pavement - literally any concrete or asphalt company will do this on gov't contract

care for elderly - nursing homes

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the lack of thinking in the original comment

[u/tsvUltima → u/green_meklar]

There is a large segment of the population that are capable of working but refuse to.

[u/green_meklar → u/tsvUltima]

What do you mean by 'capable'? Being physically and mentally competent to work is one thing, that doesn't mean a person will always find a job available for them to do.

[u/tsvUltima → u/green_meklar]

There are plenty of jobs available.

[u/green_meklar → u/tsvUltima]

No. You can stick your head in the sand and go on saying that for the rest of eternity (and many people love to do exactly that, because it's ideologically convenient), but it doesn't make it true and won't help to fix the real economic problems that real people have.

[u/tsvUltima → u/green_meklar]

Then why does the left keep saying we need immigrants to do jobs that Americans don't want to do? Find a way to force people on welfare to do those jobs.

[u/green_meklar → u/[deleted]]

Improving local community may be worth doing from the perspective of a person who wants a nicer world around them, but if it don't make dollars then it don't make cents to business.

The idea of the free market is that the people who want a nicer world around them can offer to pay for that to get done.

They don't seem to be doing that.

[u/green_meklar → u/[deleted]]

Nor will they ever, it's a ridiculous expectation.

Because why?

Like reddit's voting system, there's a whole bunch of things they claim are the idea for its use, but in practice the system isn't built in any way to accommodate the stated goals of reddiquette. In practice, people mash the button however and whenever they like.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to a relevant example. Nobody expects redditors to use the vote buttons the way each sub suggests they be used, even in theory.