Not a job guarantee, just normal government spending on infrastructure projects, as compared with the underinvestment we've seen over the past decades.
> It actually kind of is. Wages have stagnated, the wealth of the 1% has ballooned, infrastructure is crumbling and the far right is on the rise.
What I mean is we're no longer willing to put unskilled workers in dangerous jobs with no training and stand by while they get killed or kill other people because they don't know what they're doing or they lack the disposition to work safely with industrial equipment.
> Just guaranteeing paid work to the ~30% unemployed is far cheaper than giving a stipend to every person in the United States.
Only if you count the taxes someone "pays" but immediately gets back as a UBI as "costing money". If you use the same accounting that gets used for means-tested programs, the "cost" of a UBI turns negative for everyone making a below average income and costs about the same as existing means-tested programs for people with above average incomes (depending obviously on the amount of the UBI).
If you mean UBI and a job guarantee, I suppose not, however it's going to cause inflation to spike pretty high.
>It's not 1929 anymore
It actually kind of is. Wages have stagnated, the wealth of the 1% has ballooned, infrastructure is crumbling and the far right is on the rise.
>Modern construction jobs require trained workers with trade licenses who demand middle class salaries and benefits. That is a lot more expensive per-person than a UBI.
Just guaranteeing paid work to the ~30% unemployed is far cheaper than giving a stipend to every person in the United States.
Even if you include the cost of materials it's not going to come close.