I notice in the article I read that he said it was an aging workforce, so presumably when those older people are laid off and can't get jobs, the state will pick up the tab. Hmmm.....

Thought it was all about means testing, tax allowances, credits, debits........

...in the UK so much time is wasted trying to calculate entitlements then giving people money then taxing them to take it back, then paying housing benefit....

If all the calculations were just thrown away, and everyone was given a basic weekly/monthly sum of money then it would be so much less complicated. Billions have already been wasted on the Universal Credit system. You could have saved the money and just paid it out at a flat rate.

This would. of course, mean that loads of Civil Servants would no longer have a job.

Hence the saving


WINZ staff dropped to $200 per week


Cutting out all the tape does make sense and they are right to start with $200, a figure that will make a lot of difference to those that need it and for those that don't a easily revised paye table pulls it back.

What about just giving everybody a job that wants one.
Think of the savings at WINZ then, and the increase in productivity in the economy. Win win all round.

Note: unemployment is a government choice. They chose to have 5%+ unemployed as a neolibral policy to drive down wages.

Agree


But there are periods in between where this system would flush out costs and give people certainty of power + food.

I would not support a guaranteed employment scheme and here is why:

The only way to get employers hiring would be to offer them an incentive, however far from pressuring employers to become more efficient it would likely bring low cost labor into the workforce. This same approach with personal tax credits and reducing real minimum wages for low income workers may have contributed to productivity collapse in the UK.

UBI is of interest to me because it enables social mobility by giving people choices and pushing for higher levels of productivity instead of digging a deeper hole. If this means an employer has to invest/lease in a burger flipping machine instead of hiring a burger flipper the flipper suddenly has other choices like up-skilling or entrepreneurship (making artisan burgers or tevs).

Also if you make this a monetary credit to employers the velocity of money is unlikely to increase as much as giving it to consumers, if you discount an increase in velocity of money the UBI starts to look very expensive (because you won't get that spending growth or tax revenue increase).

However I appreciate tax credits for employers is a very conservative and hence easier to swallow. We already have low unemployment by historic standards but productivity and wage growth (which are intrinsically linked) have been very poor.

Not in my lifetime!

Job Guarantee is a government scheme and not a private sector "make work" scheme.

Finland is introducing it.

Finland is another Euro basket case (think Greece):

Finland’s problem is exactly the euro! | Bill Mitchell – billy blog

Swiss go to a referendum later this year and there are some Canadian cities that are going to run a trial.

I totally agree.

I agree again. Manageable hours of work. Keeps you active, socially integrated, earning your keep and off ACC or sickness benefit.

His reaction is enough to let you know that it would be a good plan! Means no one has to sell their souls to get something to to pay rent and eat.

"A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/bu...e-poverty.html