TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why basic jobs are better than basic incomes

3 pointsby the_duckover 6 years ago

1 comment

WorldMakerover 6 years ago
While I applaud the call for more public works initiatives (it&#x27;s easy to forget how much of America&#x27;s current infrastructure was the result of public works job programs last century), and worryingly agree that &quot;basic jobs&quot; is at face value in current America &quot;more pragmatic&quot;, I still feel like it is important to question the morality of the Protestant work ethic in modern America here.<p>Despite centuries of cultural memetic RNA from that foundational insistence on the Protestant work ethic, leisure is not a sin [1], and no attempt at UBI could possibly work if we continue to denigrate it. &quot;They need purpose and responsibility,&quot; is an interesting moral judgment born from that. One can find many purposes in leisure, and not all societal responsibilities are encode-able as jobs (there are obvious ones such as housework&#x2F;chores that capitalism just about outright ignores in salary determination, for example).<p>The balancing act too between what constitutes leisure and what &quot;job worthy&quot; creative expression&#x2F;exploration is a fascinating gray zone. Previous works programs did find interesting uses for artists, writers, photographers, etc. But building such &quot;jobs&quot; is to some degree bureaucratic red tape to the creative spirit, and calling it a &quot;job&quot; tends to require progress tracking and discourage creative failures. Similar too, entrepreneurship as a works program &quot;job&quot; would discourage certain types of creative risks. UBI at least has the theoretical hope of allowing people to explore creativity and entrepreneurship outside of the limited job scopes than a works planner might be able to imagine to measure if someone is &quot;working&quot; their &quot;basic job&quot; &quot;well&quot;.<p>[1] Pardon the overlapping secular connotation&#x2F;religious denotation here, but that intentional dissonance perhaps best illustrates the point. Admittedly, there are still plenty of religious groups that feel that life without work is indeed sinful in a religious sense (what remains of the Pennsylvania Dutch&#x2F;Amish&#x2F;Quakers&#x2F;Shakers&#x2F;etc), but from a separation of church&#x2F;state perspective that is all the more reason not to legislate whether or not leisure is a sin in a secular sense. (Leisure can be a great liberty; Thomas Jefferson made sure to add &quot;the pursuit of happiness&quot; to the Declaration of Independence for multiple reasons.)