I think that freedom, variety, and complexity built into the system (vs. endless bureauratic, heavy-handed social programs) would add a robustness to the system similar to the way many conceive of the "free market" now.

MMT advocates are somewhat split on a line between UBI and a federal job guarantee program to accomplish this. The majority favor the job guarantee for several reasons.

1) A job guarantee, paid for by the federal government but administered by state and local authorities, would be countercyclical to the business cycle, injecting money only where it is needed.

2) The program would not be inflationary since it would not be utilized by everyone, but it would set the floor for wages and benefits in the private sector by being "available" to anyone who wanted to utilize it. Employers would have to overbid the offerings of the program to maintain a workforce.

3) State and local governments would be given some basic mandates in utilizing the program, but would be free to define the work required so the needs of their communities could be served, giving precedence to green projects and restoration efforts.

4) Employers would gain workers with their employment and social skills intact when they are needed in the private sector, ending the tendency to not rehire their existing workers after long periods.

5) Retraining employees for new job skills when major employers leave their area could be counted as a job, meaning fewer employees would be forced into leaving their roots to follow the whims of their employers across state lines. Employers could utilize this to keep the skills of their employees up to date as well.

6) The job guarantee program would not depend upon money cut from safety net programs meant to help those who cannot, or choose not to, work. Basic food, shelter, healthcare, etc needs would still be provided instead of forcing the beneficiaries to find those items within the affordability of their UBI benefit.