Rather than a guaranteed income, I think a better system would be a guaranteed jobs. This would work better than basic income as there are 2 type of unemployed (let's leave out the disabled for this discussion). Those that want to work, but can't find work. And those that simply don't wish to work or conform to a work environment. Given this why not have a 2 tier unemployment offering.
The first is a guaranteed job. Ideally covering areas that don't compete with non-essential open market business. So things like looking after parks and helping out in nursing homes. General community benefit programs. This way if someone is out of work the government guarantees minimum wage at X hours a week to keep people in work and not go into that unemployment rut where after extended time they find it hard to re-enter the workforce.. The remain a productive member of society for their own self-worth while working gives the opportunity to upskill or show they are productive people while looking for better paying work. And given they are already working there is not the problem that taking a job earns them little more than being unemployed anyway.
For those that are capable but refuse to work they are offered a bare minimum living environment for pure humanity sake. Something like a bed in a dorm and 3 hot meals environment but they lack personal luxuries until they are willing to be productive and this keeps costs are kept at a minimum. It also solves the view of people who feel like unemployed are all bludgers as it separates those that are victim of circumstance vs unwilling to work.
This way we don't punish people who are willing to be productive but the economy does not have capacity to offer employment, and minimise the cost and incentive for people to abuse the system.
I'm sure it's not that simple in reality but having a one size fits all seems limiting. Something down this route would better allow for people in differing circumstances.
I'm not sure the point of this comment. Is it just for anecdotes sake? If not it sounds like you have a problem with the type of work being offered in this particular example. Not the concept. One (arguably) bad example doesn't make an entire concept void.
If you tie benefits to work for moral reasons, but have no real work for them to do, then you'll just end up with pointless labor. Consider many people on welfare are not very employable anyways, their labor is not valuable or in demand. That is why they need welfare in the first place!
The British Victorians solved this problem with treadmills. But eventually this archaic thinking was replaced with more enlightened solutions to poverty.
Not sure why you're being downvoted without explanations, a good job (key word, good) can bring a lot to a person's self worth and sense of purpose. You have an interesting idea here - for someone that can't find work, it could be the opportunity to do something that would build their abilities and might help get their lives in order. A guaranteed income is a pleasant idea, but gives people neither skills, nor discipline, and lessens modern incentives (nicer stuff, more options) to build either.
The first is a guaranteed job. Ideally covering areas that don't compete with non-essential open market business. So things like looking after parks and helping out in nursing homes. General community benefit programs. This way if someone is out of work the government guarantees minimum wage at X hours a week to keep people in work and not go into that unemployment rut where after extended time they find it hard to re-enter the workforce.. The remain a productive member of society for their own self-worth while working gives the opportunity to upskill or show they are productive people while looking for better paying work. And given they are already working there is not the problem that taking a job earns them little more than being unemployed anyway.
For those that are capable but refuse to work they are offered a bare minimum living environment for pure humanity sake. Something like a bed in a dorm and 3 hot meals environment but they lack personal luxuries until they are willing to be productive and this keeps costs are kept at a minimum. It also solves the view of people who feel like unemployed are all bludgers as it separates those that are victim of circumstance vs unwilling to work.
This way we don't punish people who are willing to be productive but the economy does not have capacity to offer employment, and minimise the cost and incentive for people to abuse the system.
I'm sure it's not that simple in reality but having a one size fits all seems limiting. Something down this route would better allow for people in differing circumstances.