Lauren Ashcraft  🌹Compte certifié

That’s not a fact nor the point. The purpose of a JG is to reject the Orwellian premise that you only deserve dignified employment if you fit into the “skilled” worker box. That’s not to say there are not levels of skills. But it affirms the importance of a baseline right

The market doesn't operate on any premise of who deserves what. It's about what value an individual brings to the table. Some people's work might not be productive or valuable enough to be hired somewhere for a worthwhile wage so they remain in need.

That’s a fantasy. There’s no empirical or anthropological evidence whatsoever that the utility theory of value can somehow be generalized description of political economy. Most of the time it’s become an excuse for rationalizing poverty and class power.

And on what do you base your belief that individuals all deserve a job from society--as opposed to, say, enough material wealth to get by?

1) that income is a claim on labor 2) that there are community social and ecological needs to be met currently deprived of engagement 3) that people have a right to an role in the participation and production of material wealth as opposed to passive consumption

If a person creates negative productivity -- say they are disruptive at their job or are too low-skilled to be productive over the cost of training or maintenance -- is their presence more valuable than the actual "production of material wealth"?

What is too low skilled? Who is defining that? I think these questions could be better addressed when we stop analyzing real people like assembly parts in a machine

When we deal in policy, we cannot shy about analyzing the overall effects. If you find it distasteful, I'd suggest not advocating for the policy.