Bingo! It's going to be so depressing if we don't get basic income because people are worried about what about people will do with it, and (horror)disagree with those choices!
> I must be the only one who thinks basic income is insane.
No, you have plenty of company. A basic income that isn't based on merit is a political hot potato for reasons that should be obvious.
> I personally don't trust my government (US) to implement this properly without any special niches carved out for someone.
That's one problem, but a bigger problem is that, for those who have jobs they don't like, or who think working for a living is beneath them, this offers an incentive for narcissism.
> At the end of the month if they don't have any money left how will they cover their necessary expenses?
> I don't see basic income as feasible politically nor in practise. Therefore, what you must do now is to ensure that you are one of those who have money.
I'm really tired of hearing about that concept. What you really want is probably a low cost of living so that you dont need much of an income. A lot of the cost of living today is artificially high due to - another phrase I think is getting old - rent seeking.
> More focus and time is spent with family and having experiences that truly enrich one's life.
i guess if someone is on basic income then he will not be able to afford a family of his own; raising kids is quite expensive. A basic income receiver will also be out of luck if he has to support a member of his family who got into trouble, if your family is unable to be a potential source of security and everyone is alone on his own then the concept of family will become more brittle.
To me basic income sounds like a way to create a dependent underclass - very dependent on the state for that matter (and will probably vote for the party that is most likely to continue with the basic income policy - so it will likely be a politically agitated group).
And that's not quite conductive to the idea of personal happiness...
Basic income is an attempt to deal with a growing number of people who are unemployable in the modern economy. I think a better way would be to find meaningful work for these people - maybe in such areas as caring for disabled and elderly or in education (i think we are out of luck with automating these tasks). This approach would be harder and costs more to implement than just dealing out the welfare checks, so it will probably not be adopted...
> To me basic income sounds like a way to create a dependent underclass - very dependent on the state for that matter (and will probably vote for the party that is most likely to continue with the basic income policy - so it will likely be a politically agitated group). And that's not quite conductive to the idea of personal happiness...
We already have that - and it's currently very hard for people on welfare and/or disability to ever pull themselves out of it. With basic income it becomes possible to start working 1 hour a week, then 2, then 3..., without having to worry about losing your benefits or getting in tax trouble.
> Basic income is an attempt to deal with a growing number of people who are unemployable in the modern economy. I think a better way would be to find meaningful work for these people - maybe in such areas as caring for disabled and elderly or in education (i think we are out of luck with automating these tasks).
If people find those things fulfilling to do themselves, they will do them (and basic income allows them to do it unpaid). If other people want them to do those things, they will pay for it. If no-one wants them to do those things, there's no value in them doing it.
> I am in favor of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) to replace the status quo of benefits, including Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. But I want the UBI to be a relatively small amount, something like $750 a month for a family of three.
Okay, but it's not basic income if it can't cover the basics. That's just a subsidy. I mean that's not even rent. Let alone healthcare.
A basic income allows a basic life allows for people to take more risks and start new businesses.
If you are really against people being able to not work, than instead of UBI you want to support Employer of Last Resort.
> I don't see basic income as feasible politically nor in practise.
I too fear that the general population won't accept until it's very too late the concept that one should not slave their entire lives for just the right to live.
> Therefore, what you must do now is to ensure that you are one of those who have money.
More scary thought if your scenario actually happens: assuming that the tech sector is more likely to survive automation for longer, we'll all here suddenly have close and extended non-tech families and friends looking for our support. So you won't have just yourself to feed from your income. It might be 10 or more people.
> The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure
Bingo. Well, it's not the entire idea, but it's definitely a very compelling idea.
> If a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself.
Yes, thank you. There might be lots of problems implementing basic income in our current society, but the fearful reaction to the idea itself has always struck me as fundamentally misanthropic and nihilistic.
If the fear of death is all we're living for, then it might be time to rethink our way of life quite a bit.
> I don’t want basic income. I want the ability to differentiate myself and earn more than others.
Basic income allows that, in fact, a big argument is that, compared to conventional means tested welfare, it enhances that for people currently in the lower end of the income distribution.
> Basic income or revolution. That's going to be our choice.
I fear you are right. But neither of those is going to be an easy transition, if only because the effects of all this innovation is felt disproportionally by people in countries where such a revolution will not do anything to give solace.
Basic income assumes that the funds to do this are available and revolution assumes that the powers that be are the parties that are in the way of a more equitable division of the spoils. Neither of those are necessarily true for all locations affected.
> and everyone gets a guaranteed income on which you can just barely make a living (basic income).
You realize that basic income will just become another campaign promise to secure votes, right? Couple that with "I can barely live on my basic income!" sob stories and we'll quickly find that basic income won't be so "basic" given enough time.
> The only way a basic income can avoid being politicized and destroyed is by making it truly unconditional.
Good luck with that. Do you pay citizens, or residents, or perhaps the intersection of them? Do you pay only adults? Or every one who has been born? How dead do you have to be to no longer get the money? (Ie keep your relatives on the machines for longer for money?)
Anyway, I agree with your sentiment. But it's not as clear cut in practice. You still have conditions.
> I have no desire to work if basic income takes care of my basic necessities.
It is widely observed that many people work far more than is necessary to supply their basic necessities, because people's desires don't tend to end with those needs.
You may have quite limited desires, but there is no evidence that that is true of humans generally.
>Basic income or revolution. That's going to be our choice
Basic income sounds good in theory in some imaginary futuristic society of harmony and grace.
In real life, it's a way for the masses be controlled down to your very substinence by the state. Where the state is basically an intermediary for big private interests and lobbies.
>I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic.
Well, that presents you with a chicken/egg situation because for it to have any hope of becoming reality you will need to convince everybody (the majority of Americans) who believe that everybody should pull their weight.
>Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing?
Do we need to? No. Do I agree with you? Yes. But, most people think that it is a moral imperative that you should have to work for a living and we live in a kind of Democracy, so...
Until that part of our culture changes to accommodate we won't get basic income.
At the moment we're making existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the private sector (i.e. democratically unaccountable 1%) thinks that should be doing.
All I'm saying is that the government should provide decent jobs so that the 1% have to compete with the government and provide better jobs than they currently do.
Bingo! It's going to be so depressing if we don't get basic income because people are worried about what about people will do with it, and (horror)disagree with those choices!
reply