Hacker News Reader

Comment by nopinsight | Hacker News Reader

How about necessary and meaningful jobs, like taking care of the elderly who do need help in their household, or building accommodations for and helping the homeless?

The number of elders will only increase in most of the world over the next few decades and no automation could replace the human touch, or even physical dexterity, in the near term. Granted the people performing the job would need training and perhaps some supervision from professionals, but much of the work requires the skills like empathy and physical agility that most humans are endowed with (despite being left dormant from lack of practice by some).

The same sorts of skills are needed as part of a program that would be useful for mitigating the homeless problem as well.

View on HN

This was actually done in Argentina (it was called plan jefes e jefas). Then they converted it into a basic welfare scheme with no requirement to do the jobs (which was mostly stuff like "help the infirm and elderly").

The majority of people continued turning up to work afterwards because they found it intrinsically rewarding.

That's very interesting. Do you have any good links?

Also curious why they converted it to no requirement?

This has all the details:

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_534.pdf

They didn't realize that it would be so popular with women.

I believe they withdrew it because government thought that the program was providing jobs to women who should be at home instead of working.

Would be interesting to see something similar and also fulfills the goals of meaningful work.

Perhaps with smaller companies this would work better and not conjure up ideas of digging and refilling holes on some soulless corporate farm.

Imagine a single-person company that sells homemade organic jam at a farmers market. As a one person doing everything, surely this person is overworked and couldn't possibly think of hiring someone until years later. What if this person was part of a program that allowed them to hire from a pool of candidates where the company pays a portion of the wage and the gov program subsidizes.

This person hiring really needs the help. The person being hired wants the job doing fulfilling work. The money assigned for the person through UBI is reassigned to this program.

Probably just a pipe dream, but could be similar to the incentives companies get for hiring ex-convicts, etc.

> How about necessary and meaningful jobs, like taking care of the elderly who do need help in their household, or building accommodations for and helping the homeless?

I would prefer that families provide these services (and, therefore, the state focus on the formation of strong families). The market is too brutal for most of this work and the state, in addition to general incompetence, lacks the moral authority to do so, especially when hard decisions must be made (e.g. when homelessness is driven by mental illness.)

Pay a stable, living wage to build strong families, allowing one person to stay at home and provide for the domestic economy in a sphere they have natural authority in.

There are a number of problems with your proposal. For example, many elders do not have family members living nearby because of career and other obligations. Some do not have children or living relatives who are young enough or have enough free time to help out (if there is only one breadwinner and two elders, for example).

In addition, changing culture takes generations but the number of elders who needs help will grow quickly in the upcoming decades. Japan is already facing the problem [1] and the rest of the developed world are following closely behind.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31901943

(Note: I didn't downvote you.)

I would prefer that families provide these services (and, therefore, the state focus on the formation of strong families). So, under your plan, I should dread getting old.

I have no children. I have never wanted them, and it is a relief that I shouldn't have any (medical wise). Besides, it'd be risky at my age anyway. I have a spouse, but otherwise have no family on this side of the Atlantic. My father died, my mother is getting older, and my siblings both have families that include children. I'm supposed to burden my family with my care? I'm not sure immigration would let them come over here and if I go there, I have no health coverage. Sure, my spouse would take care of me. But at what cost? Quit his job and actually make less money, right when medical expenses go up? What if he's already died or disabled? Well... I'm screwed.

I'll add this: I did a lot of care for my ex. It was mental illness, but still. And I felt freaking trapped, and it took longer to leave. My grandmother married a man who had a stroke a year later. He became abusive, but she was scared to leave due to getting in trouble for abandonment (this was in the late 90's). She was stuck for a while. Your plan does nothing to help the folks that are in bad situations. Sure, you might want strong families, but the reality is that not every family is going to be that way.

The market is too brutal for most of this work and the state, in addition to general incompetence, lacks the moral authority to do so, especially when hard decisions must be made (e.g. when homelessness is driven by mental illness.)

Sorry you live in such a country, and glad I no longer do. The country I live in tries to do these things for folks, provides healthcare and elder care. It isn't perfect or anything, but they are doing more than the states did and they are trying to improve things slowly. The state doesn't have to be like that, and you can change it. Vote for different people. And if they don't do the stuff, vote them out of office.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com