That job could take many forms - cleaning courthouses and prisons for the unskilled, DMV clerk for the skilled. But it is important that the job be unpleasant and low paid, so that people have an incentive to seek more useful jobs in the private sector.
Basic jobs fulfills the same goals as basic income (no one is destitute) while reducing the disincentives to work that basic income creates.
There is a whole lot of work being done by the so called unemployed which really needs to be done but for which no-one is going to pay them. If anything open source should have proven is that while there is a lot of valuable work to be done, no-one is willing to pay for it being done, especially not in the startup phase when it's not even clear what you are working on. Fundamental work is often overlooked because it only becomes clear how to make it profitable after it is made.
Many people are payed while they are totally unproductive, while many of the most productive people are not payed any more, often even a lot less, then the unproductive people. Crap often sells better then quality work.
(2) Full employment is an illusion
There will never be 100% employment, more and more people will find themselves unable to find employment. Currently there is no safety net for the self-employed.
(3) An unconditional basic income is about basic freedom and what this means in the 21th century.
With an unconditional basic income we take worrying about survival of the table. Survival is something that should not be a worry in the civilized world. A basic income is a general safety net for any mishap, misfortune and plain bad luck than could happen to anyone.
(4) An unconditional basic income is about human dignity.
Giving people options that they don't have today: The freedom to quite an unhealthy, low paying, dead-end job and to look for something worth doing. Even if this is something like developing open source software, or some other creative endeavor.In the end more value is created even if no-one was told to do it.
As for 1) and 4), you seem to believe that there are a huge number of budding Linus Torvald's out in the world, being held down by their corporate 9-5 job. I think that's bunk.
If you think I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it easily. Many people do have some variant on basic income: NYC teachers in the rubber rooms, auto workers in the no-job banks, not to mention the vast European welfare class. Could you point out to me some contributions to the open source world from such people?
Still, people like to do stuff they are passionate about?
The only thing that kills passion is struggling to survive. Scarcity eliminates options, reduces freedom, and it forces people to go into a survival mode, leaning powerlessness. Nothing good can come from this. People who struggle to survive will not have the time or energy to look for better employment or to build their own business.
To have a purpose without resources does not realize much. And if all your time is wasted to survive nothing gets done. People often confuse scarcity with necessity? Something might be very necessary but without sufficient resources innovation is impossible. Necessity is the father of invention and abundance is her mother?
History shows that shared abundance gives peace, freedom, and individual autonomy Abundance with purpose gave us enlightenment, abundance with necessity gave us innovation.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.h... (Article 40)
Just because I generally want the government to do less doesn't mean that I don't want them to do things efficiently and with as few unwanted side effects as possible.
The fact that the USSR did it doesn't make it bad policy - that's the reverse Mussolini fallacy. It would also not be a bad thing to make the trains run on time.
[1] For comparison, unemployment insurance creates bad incentives. Rather than looking for work, the woman described in this article went on vacation while collecting unemployment. Replacing unemployment with a "basic jobs" program would prevent this.
PS: It's also a smaller paycheck than SS or unemployment so it's harder to get by without a job.
If she got neither unemployment nor basic income, but only basic work, the taxpayers would not have been forced to pay for her vacation.
The expectation is that people will want to work. Naturally a unconditional basic income will change things: Some will seek employment, others will start a business, and then there are the open source programmers. etc. Another advantage is that one could eliminate minimum wage.
Either you think we should have to earn a worthy living and to be treated with respect.
Or that we have the innate right to a worthy living and to be treated with respect.
What is it going to be: The law of the jungle or a more civilized world?
All civilization can be explained as "socialism": To be civil to each other, help the needy and not let the strongest take everything?