Virus response: Guaranteed jobs or Unconditional Income?

Advocates of two radical ways to improve lot of the working class will advocate their preferred solution as a solution to the current virus crisis.

They are particularly relevant because self-isolation (whether voluntary or unenforced) will have a huge impact on some industries; hospitality and tourism in particular. If these industries employ a lot of precarious workers then they will reduce their hours or let them go. Some precarious workers may find themselves without sick pay while they recover or self-isolate. 

Job Guarantee (JG) or Universal Basic Income (UBI)? 

I tend to be in the job guarantee camp, but I think a job scheme that guarantees income but not hours of work is the best option in this scenario. 

What jobs can be done? 

• Providing a food and goods delivery service for the needy and those self-isolating is one obvious possibility.
• Supporting medical staff. Hospital portering, helping to transfer samples for testing, transferring equipment etc.
• However, I think a really useful thing would be to clean public spaces. Having an army of people going around cleaning handrails in busy locations and public transport for short periods each day could be very useful. 

The response may be that during the virus outbreak, it is sensible for people to spend as little time in busy public areas as possible.  

This seems to push towards the UBI proposal but I think it actually pushes towards an alternative form of JG. 

I would suggest spreading this extra work around between the people who have lost their work rather than an indiscriminate UBI for all. 

Rather than hire a few extra people to do the above jobs full-time (or more likely no one at all), why not give lots of people a small patch to clean each day? Or a small role in the distribution network. 

Variable hours but full pay

The amount of time they spend working might vary (and they would have a lot of freedom over when to do the task--in fact they probably wouldn't be monitored). 

In effect, those in the scheme would be 'on retainer.' 

Each would be given a little to do and kept informed and prepared in case there are other things they need to do. Would it be better to have a few of the unemployed working full-time with the rest unemployed, or, a larger number in a scheme where they work as much as needed? 

I'm tempted to think that the latter would be better as spreading the work around would reduce the chance that each would get infected, and that an infected worker without symptoms would be spreading the virus around to many others. However, I'm willing to defer to the experts on that one. If I'm wrong then there shouldn't be a UBI - there should be a BI conditional on isolation! 

Obviously if participants had symptoms of the virus they would need to isolate themselves and should be given a generous compensation (if not quite the same amount as those who make themselves available for the project). 

  

In person or arms length?

Normally for a JG proposal I would suggest that anyone could show up at the employment office in the morning and wait to be assigned a task. 

With the current virus that would be a terrible idea. Therefore, the system would have to use technology - phone and, for the most part, internet-based training and instruction. 

For simple jobs, these can be done at arms length, meaning that the programme, if well planned wouldn't require people to gather in one place. Materials could be dropped at each person's location, or they could collect them from a safe point. 

Why not just hire more people and give others a UBI?

UBI advocates might argue that those who are isolating could buy services (thus creating work) and the otherwise unemployed with the UBI could organise themselves into charitable enterprises  

The problems with UBI are that 

• it isn't targeted on the most appropriate people (in this case the self-isolating would be better off with generous sick pay, the benefit payments should go to those who have lost their precarious work) 
• it doesn't encourage productive and organised use of people's time 
• it doesn't provide people with a feeling that they are contributing/doing something useful 

Because UBI payments go to everyone you would not be able to provide as much to the above group as you can with a targeted programme. It would be giving money to the person who was going to stay home anyway. And maybe to the person who is going to go out and spread the disease. 

Further problems with applying UBI, relying on private enterprises and public charity

Will businesses go around hiring new people in the future? They might not want to take the risk on a hiring process. 

We could give people a UBI and hope they will organise charitable activities. Some have already started to organise themselves in this way. Good for them. 

I tend to think a centralised scheme will be more effective as it will be more organised. But also it can call on all sorts of additional resources - the infrastructure of the state and the army of people who might be willing to help a) if they receive pay or b) if they receive direction.  

Advantages of creating an 'anti-virus army'

There are many advantages to creating a reserve army out of those who have lost their jobs as a result of the virus.  

One is that those engaged in the task will feel they have contributed. They will have a positive role to play in society, given that their previous role may be lost for the time-being. Morale could be a big problem if jobs are lost and the future seems bleak. A smaller UBI payment wouldn't improve morale in the same way. 

And they will be able to contribute. They can be taught about best practice to keep the virus at bay and can help to put that into practice, teaching others as they go. They will be a visible sign to others that there is an organised response. 

Conclusion

I think that governments need to organise a highly co-ordinated response to the virus. Private providers and charities might not be able to cope or organise themselves effectively. 

An arms-length job guarantee scheme is a positive response which provides income, knowledge and a chance to contribute to those who suffer most from the economic storm. Giving out money in other ways likely to bleed the benefits to all sorts of other groups who are less badly off. 

Generous payments to those who are isolating for heath reasons and generous payment to those who find themselves involuntarily unemployed and willing to join the anti-virus scheme is superior to providing a smaller amount of money to everyone whether they are in either of these categories or not. 

As I say - I think UBI advocates should really be advocating some kind of 'conditional isolation payment' if they are going to argue that the state should be paying people to stay at home. UBI might seem like a good idea in response to the virus but it might not actually be the best one.

Update on 15 March

Governments are organising a concerted effort to support the economy through interest rate drops (not that they could go much lower without going negative) and a Quantitative Easing programme.

Rather than support capital owners, the focus should be on helping the precariously employed who will lose their jobs.

Train companies are asking for a bailout as they have lost business. However, it seems that train companies take profits when things go well, why should the government fully underwrite their risks? Perhaps the govt. could pay them extra for train cleaning services but otherwise should consider nationalising the railway firms for the time being.

Deliveroo vs. Job scheme
There are lots of unconfirmed briefings about the future plans in the UK. One suggestion was that anyone over 70 would be asked to remain at home and would get food delivered by the likes of Deliveroo and Uber Eats. This is a terrible idea. These apps use precarious labour and the chance of spreading the disease would be much greater if deliveries are undertaken by people with poor employment terms and no sick pay.

Not to mention the fact that these firms don't operate outside big cities - they don't exist in my small town for instance.