Jobs guarantee with income support in response to technological unemployment?

[ren0312]

Will a jobs guarantee, with an income top up, basically a workfare programme, be a better idea than a pure UBI system in response to mass technological unemployment? Given that the vast majority of people actually want to work, and derive meaning from their lives by the work they do.

 

[ren0312]

Basically something like Singapore's workfare program, which can even replace minimum wage with government top ups for low wage workers.

 

[tuesdayschild]

I am absolutely against the state having to top up workers wages in order for them to survive. It is a cheap way for the employers to increase profits. Tax them more!

 

[Dan Howard]

How is this different to what was done in the USSR? You need performance incentives to get the best out of workers. Why would you work if you got paid anyway?

 

[Dan Howard]

I am absolutely against the state having to top up workers wages in order for them to survive. It is a cheap way for the employers to increase profits. Tax them more!

It is no different to the tipping culture in US restaurants. Raise menu prices by 15% instead of tipping 15% and raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

 

[GogLais]

Aren’t some of you missing the point that the question relates to “mass technological unemployment”? A problem that it seems is well on the way and seems likely to affect middle-class employees and not just factory lines. Rightly or wrongly I’m not too worried about it in the long term. Either goods and services will become very cheap or the system will need a way for consumers to afford the products of automation. Pain for many in the interim no doubt.

 

[Dan Howard]

Lots of people are going to lose their jobs. Where is the money to support them supposed to come from? Even today they can't afford to pay all of the retirees. The average annual social security payment is $14,000 and falling. When social security was first conceived there were over 20 workers for every retiree. In 1960 there were 5.1 In 2007 there were 3. In 2017 there were 2.8. What happens when the AI revolution dumps even more non-productive mouths on the government teat?

Boomers Are Facing A Financial Crisis | RIA

 

[tomar]

That also brings up the question of the usefulness of unions (which have lost much steam and membership since the 70s).... Is the anwer in more unionism ?

 

[Synarix]

Society can simply not continue as it is currently going. The government does not have enough money to fund such a program, but conversely, you cannot rightly expect everyone to get a job since there is simply way more people than jobs. I believe the only way to solve this would be the raise a large tax on companies, but that would force the economy down and push companies out of the country - thus negatively affecting the economy. But, if you don't tax them they begin to rake in more money then they really should comparatively speaking. Plus, they are eliminating jobs by automatisation without actually lowering prices by a sufficient degree to compensate.

Alternatively, the other way would be to transition to a money-less society or a society where all goods are produced and available 'for free' or for very very little and are produced by robots. Then, the money levied of companies and worked may be sufficient to pay for the people who need the cash.

There is actually enough money to go around. It is just that currently the system is being ever more exploited and unbalanced and is at a point where it can simply no longer 'right' itself without major upheaval, consequences or otherwise. You can see this in the "1%" money worth compared to the rest of the world.

Some countries have extremely power unions. the Unions in Australia are such a case. You have to be part of a union in most workplaces and they do take part of your paycheck for this [forced] privilege.

 

[tomar]

Society can simply not continue as it is currently going. The government does not have enough money to fund such a program, but conversely, you cannot rightly expect everyone to get a job since there is simply way more people than jobs. I believe the only way to solve this would be the raise a large tax on companies, but that would force the economy down and push companies out of the country - thus negatively affecting the economy. But, if you don't tax them they begin to rake in more money then they really should comparatively speaking. Plus, they are eliminating jobs by automatisation without actually lowering prices by a sufficient degree to compensate.

Alternatively, the other way would be to transition to a money-less society or a society where all goods are produced and available 'for free' or for very very little and are produced by robots. Then, the money levied of companies and worked may be sufficient to pay for the people who need the cash.

There is actually enough money to go around. It is just that currently the system is being ever more exploited and unbalanced and is at a point where it can simply no longer 'right' itself without major upheaval, consequences or otherwise. You can see this in the "1%" money worth compared to the rest of the world.

Some countries have extremely power unions. the Unions in Australia are such a case. You have to be part of a union in most workplaces and they do take part of your paycheck for this [forced] privilege.

Perhaps a first step would be to stop taxing work (and increase tax on sale and financial transactions instead)