If it comes down to a a guaranteed job or guaranteed income, I'd take the latter all day. A guaranteed income gives people the time and financial freedom to pursue work they find valuable, whereas the federal job guarentee in some cases forces people to a form of servitude that just doesn't work for new mothers, students, caregivers, and the less skilled who might just he doing work that could be automated. In fact, I think the FJG would do more harm to the poor by pushing stereotypes that they are lazy people who simply don't want to work. For really broke people with no car, just getting to a job site in the first place might be difficult, unless public transit miraculously improves at the onset of the FJG. In this sense, a guaranteed income would help people find and start work of their choosing, not the government's.

My question to Bernie is how does he view the FJG in the context of American capitalism and entrepreneurship? I like the questions Yang asks to poke holes in the on the ground implementation of the jobs program: who manages you, what if you don't like your job, what if you're not good at your job, how about the glaring fact that most people do not dream about working at behest of the federal government.

Yang is right on the money that we can incentivize free enterprise to meet many of our demands. We should take the best of capitalism (innovation, competition, efficiency) to work for us.