@@RealProgressives no it isn't. Every dollar of non wage income increases leverage in the labour market. Any amount of UBI will lead to some people taking fewer shifts, some people quitting their (second) jobs, some people retiring earlier or staying in school longer. This decreases labour availability at the same time as increasing demand for goods and services, and therefore the number of job openings. This will lead to an increase in the labour share of income across the economy - and it does it without creating bullshit jobs and threatening the poor with beauracratic workfare hell.
@@austinmackell9286 , Fewer shifts or further reduced or depressed wages? The job isn't the problem, it's the wage and UBI will not prevent capital from exploiting their workers unless there is a price anchor.UBI doesn't have that - it's ineffective. There is no decrease in labor availability, is not the issue but the lack of the types of work and projects that we desperately need to investments in as anations to make for a more sustainable inclusive economy, which the private market is not often encouraged/interested in pursuing due to lack in profit incentive. UBI falls short in so many ways that it makes it a dangerous proposal, it's a terrible policy. BI, yes. It is a mandate of gov't to create jobs as they have the monopoly on currency, look it up - we still need to fill so many jobs/needs in our society. There is much to be done.
@@RealProgressives there is a decrease in labour availability, as people won't need to earn as much in wages to survive. It's pretty simple. A household that currently has three jobs between two earners will decide to only have one. The Job Guarantee is an attempt to recreate the economy of the 1960s. But we need less and less labour as productivity rises. Why not let people enjoy life and spend more time with family? People have inherent, not instrumental value. You guys ignore the bargaining power that non-wage income gives people, and seem to think people love drudgery and will do it when they don't have to.
Would be nice to have access to viewing Philip Harvey's slides.
Right now,ihopeWe can find which videoIs American sound, it's hard to find. Thanx info loves!
Universal. Basic. Income.
is.extremely.ineffective.in.addressing.issues.surrounding.systemic.poverty.and.inequality.
@@RealProgressives no it isn't. Every dollar of non wage income increases leverage in the labour market. Any amount of UBI will lead to some people taking fewer shifts, some people quitting their (second) jobs, some people retiring earlier or staying in school longer. This decreases labour availability at the same time as increasing demand for goods and services, and therefore the number of job openings. This will lead to an increase in the labour share of income across the economy - and it does it without creating bullshit jobs and threatening the poor with beauracratic workfare hell.
@@austinmackell9286 , Fewer shifts or further reduced or depressed wages? The job isn't the problem, it's the wage and UBI will not prevent capital from exploiting their workers unless there is a price anchor.UBI doesn't have that - it's ineffective. There is no decrease in labor availability, is not the issue but the lack of the types of work and projects that we desperately need to investments in as anations to make for a more sustainable inclusive economy, which the private market is not often encouraged/interested in pursuing due to lack in profit incentive. UBI falls short in so many ways that it makes it a dangerous proposal, it's a terrible policy. BI, yes. It is a mandate of gov't to create jobs as they have the monopoly on currency, look it up - we still need to fill so many jobs/needs in our society. There is much to be done.
@@RealProgressives there is a decrease in labour availability, as people won't need to earn as much in wages to survive. It's pretty simple. A household that currently has three jobs between two earners will decide to only have one.
The Job Guarantee is an attempt to recreate the economy of the 1960s. But we need less and less labour as productivity rises. Why not let people enjoy life and spend more time with family?
People have inherent, not instrumental value.
You guys ignore the bargaining power that non-wage income gives people, and seem to think people love drudgery and will do it when they don't have to.