You're assuming the premise implicitly, that there are a large number of bulshit jobs, but Gerber did not show this and his evidence for it is thoroughly discredited. If there are in fact very few bulshit jobs, the 'problem' of how to deal with them is moot.
I know the popular image of UBI is a paradise where nobody needs to work anymore, but that's not actually the basis of actual UBI policy proposals. It's really just a different model for structuring social welfare. The problem is that all the studies have shown that in practice it discourages work and reduces overall productivity. People work fewer hours, students study less, take up of retraining opportunities falls.
If you can actually show that many current occupations are in reality not productive, then of course that's something we need to address. However that has not been shown and even if it is true, it's not clear why so many people and companies are willingly funding these roles with their own money.
So if you are claiming is that vast numbers of people in the economy are 'wrong' about their spending and hiring habits, you've got a fair bit of work to do to establish that (let's be clear, it has not been established) and come up with a credible plan as to what to do about it, and who gets to decide what the 'right' thing to do is.
> I know the popular image of UBI is a paradise where nobody needs to work anymore, but that's not actually the basis of actual UBI policy proposals. It's really just a different model for structuring social welfare. The problem is that all the studies have shown that in practice it discourages work and reduces overall productivity. People work fewer hours, students study less, take up of retraining opportunities falls.
Yes. That's exactly the goal of the UBI. That nobody NEEDS to work anymore. How many burger flipper are there that work as burger flipper because they like burger flipping?
Your implicit assumption is that only paid work is real work. But if you remove money as the main motivator for work, people will look for more meaningful occupations and that's where we circle back to Graeber's bullshit jobs which don't qualify as meaningful work.
Child care, elder care. Cleaning the house, cooking the meals, getting the groceries, checking the homework, packing the lunches, scheduling the playdates, planning the parties, booking the doctor’s appointments, getting everyone where they need to be, paying the bills, making the calls, preparing activities.
As for taxes, we’ve chosen to allow income inequality to reach ridiculous levels. There are other choices.
Oh I agree completely about income inequality, it's a serious problem. I don't think taxation is the solution though, at least not straightforwardly. The problem isn't so much not enough taxing people, it's taxing the wrong things and giving ta breaks to encourage rent seeking behaviour. So we should seriously look at land value taxes for example, but that doesn't necessarily mean increasing overall taxation. The tick is getting the balance right so you're not distorting your economy.
>So we’re just going to close all the restaurants, eat at home and take sandwiches with us everywhere because nobody will want to work in service jobs?
This is a strawman. Nobody is claiming that we'll close all restaurants. People who want extra money (or just want something to do) will work in service jobs, and if the supply of workers is too low then that will heavily incentivise automation and investing in productivity improvents.
> People who want extra money (or just want something to do) will work in service jobs, and if the supply of workers is too low then that will heavily incentivise automation and investing in productivity improvents.
As well as, possibly (and hopefully), rising pay in hitherto underpaid jobs.
The people who work do so because they PREFER to, and that's because giving up some of their time, in order to be able consume, is seen as a good trade-off.
Redistributing what the highly productive produce to the less productive just leads to a less optimal allocation of resources for productivity, that results in a lower level of production and thus consumption than what people would prefer.
I think it would be more accurate to say that you thoroughly reject his argument. You've left 18 comments on this thread but many seem to be predicated on the assumption that your outlook is wholly objective and rest upon premises whose validity is questionable.
I know the popular image of UBI is a paradise where nobody needs to work anymore, but that's not actually the basis of actual UBI policy proposals. It's really just a different model for structuring social welfare. The problem is that all the studies have shown that in practice it discourages work and reduces overall productivity. People work fewer hours, students study less, take up of retraining opportunities falls.
If you can actually show that many current occupations are in reality not productive, then of course that's something we need to address. However that has not been shown and even if it is true, it's not clear why so many people and companies are willingly funding these roles with their own money.
So if you are claiming is that vast numbers of people in the economy are 'wrong' about their spending and hiring habits, you've got a fair bit of work to do to establish that (let's be clear, it has not been established) and come up with a credible plan as to what to do about it, and who gets to decide what the 'right' thing to do is.