> What is so wrong with giving the unemployed a JOB rather than just money?
If you give them basic income, then the jobs can pay what the jobs are worth, and no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs that take time that could be used for focussed training, risky (but potentially valuable) self-initiated ventures, etc.
Any such make-work jobs proposal is obviously paying a premium over the actual value of the work (which is why the same job isn't available in the market already), so instead treat the premium as basic income, and the job will be available, through the market, at its actual value (and, with an adequate BI, you don't need a minimum wage, because the BI provides basic support, so taking a low-wage job that may be more suitable for other reasons than pay doesn't have the opportunity cost of not being able to provide basic support.)
> Any such make-work jobs proposal is obviously paying a premium over the actual value of the work (which is why the same job isn't available in the market already)
Wouldn't the government be providing these "make-work" jobs? The government regularly creates jobs, like research and infrastructure development, that would not be profitable for any private entity. Value can be calculated either from the perspective of the employer, or from the perspective of society at large, but the market only creates jobs which are valuable according to criterion #1.
In my view, this is the essential function of government. It is fascinating that, if you look back 2-3 years, when unemployment was still quite high, the private sector had recovered completely in terms of employment -- all the unemployment was actually being caused by reduced government spending (mostly on the state or local level).
I don't know that dragonwriter meant to exclude government employment from "the market". If we include it, the question remains approximately as strong. If there is useful work to be done, we should employ them to do that work, but we should do that based on the work we see to be done, not based on some notion that people having freedom to choose how they spend their time is bad.
>no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs
So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs".
> So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs".
No, I agree that it is an essential function of government (arguably, the only legitimate function of government) to correct for market failures by shifting incentives or directly purchasing goods and services so that exchanges which are a net benefit but which the market fails to provide because externalized costs or benefits are not taken into account naturally in market exchanges (as is the case, for instance, when benefits or costs are particularly diffuse in space or time or both). And many public works projects fit that bill, and when labor costs are low because of a dip in private market demand, more of those projects have a positive cost:benefit ratio.
OTOH, the social benefit from an income support is independent of its tie to employment, and therefore it makes sense for the income support to be decoupled from any public works program. Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job that could, instead, be devoted to economically efficient activities, including working at an economically-efficient job with a lower wage (that would be inadequate income for basic living on its own) than is provided by the government make-work job but which provides experience which enables the individual to progress to better paying jobs and greater contributions to society.
>Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job
Economically inefficient jobs like building the triborough bridge.
Or providing healthcare.
Or building dams.
Or building schools.
Or building public art works.
Your entire argument is based upon a theoretical presumption that is disproved by reality: that if the government provides jobs that did not otherwise exist that those jobs will by necessity be make work.
Economic efficiency is also a terrible measure of whether something is worthwhile. Was sending a man to the moon economically efficient? Was it worthwhile?
I see no claim in the parent that everything done by the PWA was make-work. Also, while creating jobs was an important motivation of the PWA, to the best of my knowledge it never included any guarantee.
That's not what you said. You said, "This is preferable to a Basic Income", and linked both the PWA and a page on a job guarantee. I don't think dragonwriter's response would have been the same to the above. A job guarantee necessarily involves possibility of make-work, or it's not a guarantee.
If you give them basic income, then the jobs can pay what the jobs are worth, and no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs that take time that could be used for focussed training, risky (but potentially valuable) self-initiated ventures, etc.
Any such make-work jobs proposal is obviously paying a premium over the actual value of the work (which is why the same job isn't available in the market already), so instead treat the premium as basic income, and the job will be available, through the market, at its actual value (and, with an adequate BI, you don't need a minimum wage, because the BI provides basic support, so taking a low-wage job that may be more suitable for other reasons than pay doesn't have the opportunity cost of not being able to provide basic support.)