If the government wants trees planed it's better for everyone that they hire a company that plants trees. Even that isn't always that great but it's less worse. The government doesn't want that and doesn't have the money for that. They could get that money by raising taxes which increases cost of living for everyone that works and that tends to be not popular.
Anyways- that's what the USSR looked like or maybe China before they switched to their version of a free market. Due to human nature and other factors it doesn't work.
People don’t work hard for crap wages unless you beat them with a stick. Government jobs are seen as cushy because there are actual rules and regulations being followed as to how much work should be done. Corporations just skirt that, do a worse job, and then spread your type of propaganda everywhere.
People wouldn’t be jealous of the government job holders if they could achieve a similar work life balance at Joes Tree planting service.
There is no rule that says you can't have performance bonuses as a government employee, nor are there any rules to say you can't have competition within government departments.
I'm no expert, but I think the problem with the Soviets were that you were not rewarded for effort, and I think we all understand why that's important.
I've read in the US there are teachers that can't be fired because of public school tenure laws and union contracts. So yeah, first thing you have to do is have a sane and functioning government. Then you can start dreaming about a better society.
Bad societies are a reflection of their people.
If you fire them, they're still entitled to a job, right? So some other agency has to hire them. The flunkies will progress from the most demanding jobs, on down to the ones where the assignment is like, "Just please collect at least one piece of trash per day, okay?" The net effect, I'd argue, is that jobs that are necessary but high-effort, like assembling important machines, constructing buildings, food production, IT support, are starved of workers because you can get paid decently for 1000% less stress to be on litter patrol, or the mailbox graffiti removal squad, or whatever.
If you pay piecework, the least motivated will just do terrible work (in many jobs a poorly-done thing can be a big problem), and if you don't pay the ones who don't manage to plant a single tree, then that's technically not a job (though it is daycare, and since you've still got to actually pay the overseers you're generating negative value on the whole operation).
> problem with the Soviets were that you were not rewarded for effort
We actually agree on the important points then, it seems. In my view of people, the ones who are motivated to be truly excellent even with the visible goal of the bonus are rare, and the ones who are motivated to cheat "the system" (which is really just cheating the rest of us who do our share) at every turn are, while not the majority, more than numerous enough to tank any system I've seen that tries to achieve aims like universal employment or true zero poverty. (And worse, they also seem to climb to positions of power of those systems in shocking frequency!) And finally, once people see the freeloaders defrauding society from both the top and the bottom, the truly excellent contributors to society are the first to flee to somewhere their efforts will be rewarded, and the reasonable middle of hard workers also do. This concentrates the low productivity further.
Seriously I support having a decent social net so that nobody is starving on the street without healthcare etc. but the preference is always that if work is available someone should work (assuming it's reasonably suitable, they're not taken advantage of, they are able to work etc.).
So if you do the math using fairly roughly you'll find that the US can support a UBI of about $1500/month without significant inflationary pressure. That'll pay your rent (if you're sharing an apartment) and cover groceries (if you mostly live on rice and beans). If you want a car, vacations or the latest iPhone you have to work. So most would work and build those cars et al.
UBI doesn't mean no one works. It means no one has to work just to live.
And even if you want to ignore the actual scholarly research on the subject (which is ample), we have plenty of examples of people who would never have to work a day in their lives, and yet they still do so, sometimes even despite millions of people actively hating them for it: the very wealthy, particularly those who inherited generational wealth.
1. We could provide jobs for disabled people that makes feel better about themselves. Also remember this is jobs for all who _want_ to work. There is still disability for those that need it.
2 & 3 Government provided jobs could help caretakers and parents because they could be more flexible with hours and shifts. Work while your kids are at school.
4. Jobs causing poverty because you have to drive somewhere and eat out because there is no break room is ridiculous. I laughed out loud when he argued that if you work you are too tired to drive to the shop where the cheap groceries are sold.
5. Yep, some people need to be fired. I'm not sure what he is trying to say here. I think these government jobs need to be run well, and employees need to be paid bonus if they do good work. (Compared to other teams that do the same work)
I could go on.. but seems a little pointless.