mtbc | (Reply)

From:

Yes, I was thinking more a low-end one: it should allow an abode like my freshman dorm room but not satellite television and nights out with friends at the pub: an agreeable life is too much to afford. I think there is something of a win in terms of reducing fear of how bad things could get. I also figure that, given mild misery, people who can work still will, especially if doing so would not cause them to receive less UBI. There's a lot to be said for one's misery being certainly far from outright. I am certainly willing to concede political infeasibility; this goes back to people making assertions about those they do not truly know.

As for automatic stabilizing, I guess that goes with my wanting to increase infrastructure spending, etc. during downturns: that government spending might at least prevent the number of open vacancies from falling too greatly. I'd concede that automatic would be better though.

On full employment, I did think of including some discussion of ideas like limiting the length of the working week. Though, there does seem to be a class of barely employable people: I recall chatting to one factory owner in rural Appalachia whose principal challenge seemed to be that of hiring people who could turn up reliably on time in the morning: with enough missing people the whole manufacturing line stops. I am not aware that anybody much talked to them to properly understand why there was the issue. I have been irritated by some (half-remembered) stories from England of people being required to do menial work in grocery stores essentially for free in order to keep receiving benefits when they were already working more productively and better using their actual skills in the voluntary sector so, while it could be done well, I would be leery of government's ability to manage workfare effectively.