Coronavirus Is Making Universal Basic Income Look Better
I&#x27;ve still never come across a decent answer to this question, so maybe someone can help: why is Basic Income (in the US) preferable to a Great Depression-style Works Progress Administration?<p><i>The Works Progress Administration (WPA; renamed in 1939 as the Work Projects Administration) was an American New Deal agency, employing millions of job-seekers (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads.</i><p><i>Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States, while developing infrastructure to support the current and future society.</i><p><i>Above all, the WPA hired workers and craftsmen who were mainly employed in building streets. Thus, under the leadership of the WPA, more than 1 million km of streets and over 10,000 bridges were built, in addition to many airports and much housing.</i><p>Much of the infrastructure in the US is crumbling and needs to be replaced or fixed in the coming decades. Wouldn&#x27;t society benefit more from training and hiring people to clean streets, rebuild infrastructure, beautify urban areas, etc. than simply sending everyone a check?<p>I know that Basic Income isn&#x27;t simply to replace jobs lost to automation, but I don&#x27;t see how <i>paying people to improve aspects of civilization</i> is not obviously better than <i>paying people with no expectations.</i>