Hahahah, oh mannnn, this is so far from a reality. There would be too many libs on the fence about it, whilst virtually every conservative would reject the idea outright. I can just see Bill O'Reilly ranting about people sitting on their asses and getting paid for it. And... I would kind of agree with him. The article is certainly right; there are tens of millions of overly-worked Americans trapped in cycles of poverty. Moms and dad working to support their several children that they couldn't afford to have had, but they're Catholic and uneducated (or whatever other scenario), so can we really blame them? I dunno. But I can guarantee you that if we were to hand out paychecks Oprah style, we would have tens of millions of Americans unmotivated to do anything other than watch TV and post about it on Facebook. It's arguably human nature... if there's nothing chasing you, why run? I would be all for a "mincome" if there were some kind of criteria wherein you had to demonstrate self-improvement. But how the hell are we going to evaluate that? People would point to finger paintings, terrible haikus, and awful music productions as evidence of their "progress" in life. Dauphin serves as a poor example for a case study. If they have around 12,000 residents now, I'd wager that they had maybe about 5,000 during the case study in the 1970's (very generous estimate). An isolated town of 5,000 does not scale to an interconnected country of 320 million. I'd really like to see wealth redistributed more evenly, I really would, but just like every other idealist idea, human nature is just going to shit all over it. Please, I'm all for debate on this, because deep down I want a basic income to work. I just doubt that it would.
So, here's the main problem I have with you argument: Now hold on while I say the next sentence: why is that a bad thing? Yeah, obviously the people that do that are pretty much worthless at that point, but do you know of many people that given a basic income will sit on the couch for the entirety of their lives. 50 plus years of doing nothing? That sounds unreasonable to me. Perhaps some will, statistically it's possible, but not beyond the first generation, that won't continue. The basic income would allow people to do what they want. Want to pursue a career in something you truly enjoy? Congratulations! Making a living wage is no longer a concern, you don't have to worry about funding it. Want to take up a high paying job to be able to supplement your income? Congratulations! You now have the time to study for that job, or pay for the schooling needed to get there. Want to travel the world and not have to stop to work? Congratulations! It enables people to contribute to society as they feel they should, not as they have to. It solves the other issue of people being worried about losing their jobs to robots because all those low skill, replaceable jobs can be now without concern, because those previously displaced employees still pull an income, so technology advances. It would also cut the government spending on social wellness programs like welfare, as it was determined that if everyone had a basic income, the costs of administration and enforcement of welfare and all similar programs is eliminated, so the overall cost would be lower. Will it happen anytime soon? No, you're right, the right would whine like pissbabies until their heads burst, but it doesn't make it something we shouldn't fight for. But I can guarantee you that if we were to hand out paychecks Oprah style, we would have tens of millions of Americans unmotivated to do anything other than watch TV and post about it on Facebook. It's arguably human nature... if there's nothing chasing you, why run?
All fair arguments, to be sure. Ahh, yes, but who will maintenance these robots? Eventually other robots, but for decades, we will need millions of people to work technician jobs to service the fleets of robots pivotal to our society. Obviously, these people would have to be offered an additional wage in order to give them incentive to work. I don't see a problem there, I think that should work out. I just think you're generally giving people entirely too much credit. Look at the lifestyles of the rich and the famous, especially people who are born into a huge monetary inheritance. There are some elitists advancing society, yes, but there are also some people leading seriously harmful lifestyles. It's kind of a mode splitting. Anyway, thank you for your thoughts, I enjoyed that. :)It solves the other issue of people being worried about losing their jobs to robots because all those low skill, replaceable jobs can be now without concern, because those previously displaced employees still pull an income, so technology advances.