For Leftists mainly: Guaranteed Income vs Guaranteed Employment

[Thunderbird is the word]

Mainly for leftists, I know that a few conservatives and libertarians favor guaranteed income as an alternative to the welfare state also though.

[Sumner 1868]

Guaranteed employment, though aid should be given during periods where people are unemployed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Guaranteed income, because not everyone wants or is able to work.

[Franzl]

What exactly would be the point of guaranteed employment? A guaranteed basic income on the other hand, provided it's high enough to survive on yet low enough to still incentivize working most jobs, is a quite sensible policy proposal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is very little point in creating jobs for the pure sake of having a job. Guaranteed income by far.

[ingemann]

Guaranteed income, because not everyone wants or is able to work.

People who are not able to work or able to get a job are people society should care for.

People who don't want to work, but want money from somebody else are worthless parasites, who should be beaten until they get a job or stop asking from money from somebody else.

As for the question; I'm most favourable toward guaranteed income following Franzl's model.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Of those..guaranteed income with a suggested donation of at least 20 hours/week dedicated to volunteering and/or working.

[Maxwell]

Both are awful policies.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Guaranteed income, because not everyone wants or is able to work.

People who are not able to work or able to get a job are people society should care for.

People who don't want to work, but want money from somebody else are worthless parasites, who should be beaten until they get a job or stop asking from money from somebody else.

As for the question; I'm most favourable toward guaranteed income following Franzl's model.

Are students and single mothers "worthless parasites"? Typically, both of these groups don't want to work but could work. I don't have to point out why it would be idiotic to expect them to work.

[H. Ross Peron]

Guaranteed income, because not everyone wants or is able to work.

People who are not able to work or able to get a job are people society should care for.

People who don't want to work, but want money from somebody else are worthless parasites, who should be beaten until they get a job or stop asking from money from somebody else.

As for the question; I'm most favourable toward guaranteed income following Franzl's model.

Are students and single mothers "worthless parasites"? Typically, both of these groups don't want to work but could work. I don't have to point out why it would be idiotic to expect them to work.

No because they clearly have good reasons not to work even if not as extreme as having a disability.

[Hatman 🍁]

Employment, as long as there are enough jobs to go around. I'm not a big fan of just giving away money, though I realize society may be so automated in the future that it will become a necessity.

[The Mikado]

They both have downsides. Guaranteed employment makes me think of absurd make-work programs (breaking and replacing windows or digging and filling ditches) because there simply isn't enough work to go around for the entire labor force, and 0% unemployment (as in "anybody who wants a job has a job") will be terrible for people who are hiring and need to expand their labor force. The negative economic distortion of a guaranteed income seems less severe than guaranteed employment, which would utterly screw up the job market, lead to massive inflation as wages skyrocket due to people having to raise salaries to attract people to new jobs, and probably slow the rise of new companies and lead to a more stifled economy.

[Thunderbird is the word]

They both have downsides. Guaranteed employment makes me think of absurd make-work programs (breaking and replacing windows or digging and filling ditches) because there simply isn't enough work to go around for the entire labor force, and 0% unemployment (as in "anybody who wants a job has a job") will be terrible for people who are hiring and need to expand their labor force. The negative economic distortion of a guaranteed income seems less severe than guaranteed employment, which would utterly screw up the job market, lead to massive inflation as wages skyrocket due to people having to raise salaries to attract people to new jobs, and probably slow the rise of new companies and lead to a more stifled economy.

While I tend to lean towards the side of guaranteed income I don't think that you would necessarily have to go out of your way to create bullsh**t jobs, there are plenty of roads and bridges which could use repairing as it is, not to mention things like solar panel installation.

[RR1997]

Both are awful policies.

[Cory]

Guaranteed income.

Guaranteed income, because not everyone wants or is able to work.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Famous Mortimer]

Guaranteed income.

Should be enough to live semi-comfortably on and should be paid the same whether or not you have a job.

Jobs would provide EXTRA income.

I see no reason why people would turn down the chance to earn more money.