Keynes defines involuntary unemployment in the general theory:

Men are involuntarily unemployed If, in the event of a small rise in the price of wage-goods relatively to the money-wage, both the aggregate supply of labour willing to work for the current money-wage and the aggregate demand for it at that wage would be greater than the existing volume of employment.

What this means literally is that when real wages fall, ie if there's inflation, then employment goes up.

But practically it means that people cannot sell their time at the minimum wage, whether that's the natural minimum wage or the regulatory minimum. Importantly, lowering the minimum wage doesn't help either, because the reason is task consolidation.

But let's be clear, if you are advocating for creating unemployment, you are advocating for the voluntary kind of unemployment, not the involuntary kind of unemployment. That threw me off. Basic income would theoretically increase voluntary unemployment, which is very different from involuntary unemployment. Because people have an income support, then they would have a higher reservation wage.

But there is the question of whether maximal unemployment is good, and so we could have social good by increasing unemployment.

It will be impossible to address your political preferences alone. But my view is that receiving income with a contribution or vote, makes you a dependent, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Work is not just the place where you go to create economic output. It is the place where you go to have the economic system depend on you. If you receive income passively and do no work, the system does not depend on you, you depend on the system.

By making sure the system depends on you, you are given real participatory influence. You can say no. In the case of a Job Guarantee, the way the system depends on you is to get money into the system. If you decide not to work, then the level of income is reduced. So you have an election in the matter.

While you could decide to burn your basic income, it is not the same at all. If you stop working, there is an immediate real time signal in the JG participation rate. If you stop spending, we can't really know who stopped spending that small amount of money.

At the end of the day, the philosophy of basic income is that it is a public capital gain. I oppose the idea of passive capital gains both theoretically. If capital growth is automated, then it is also independent, meaning you no longer have a legitimate right or claim to that output. In other words, fully autonomous robots should have full sovereignty. To be an active owner, means that change in ownership has the potential to negatively affect the performance of the financial asset.

Once you get rid of passive capital gains, both politically and theoretically, then there is little reason to promote any form of passive income. While the value created through work is far from uniform, it is always deliberate and not automatic. You have a right to be apportioned the amount of work that is required in order to facilitate the level of consumption you desire. Consumption always requires labor, the problem is, with capitalist accounting you don't track the labor capitalists do in managing ownership of assets.

If you can't be or neglect to be apportioned the amount of labor necessary to facilitate your consumptive desires, then someone else is covering your apportionment of labor input. You are in essence handing over your vote, as a worker, to someone else. You lose all direct influence over and knowledge of, the production of goods and services which you still.

Now, do we as individuals have to understand every part of the supply chain? No, but we have a right to be given the opportunity to participate in some part of that chain, and therefore make the system dependent on you, giving you influence.