In response to the deleted comment because I had already typed it out when the parent was deleted:
> proof that unemployment benefits incentivizes staying at home
I have yet to see conclusive evidence for this "people are lazy" argument. Humans aren't rational actors in a vacuum (except psychopaths). There is social pressure to contribute to society and "carrying your own weight" -- just ask anyone who's ever spent a non-trivial amount of time unemployed.
BI can be more than a replacement for current welfare but it aligns very nicely as a replacement for the current systems of unemployment benefits. Of course there are people with special needs and of course BI can't replace all of the welfare system but it significantly reduces a lot of complexity.
In my opinion, the potential effects of a BI are far greater than just redistributing wealth (which the tax-sponsored welfare system already does). It raises the barrier from zero to a liveable wage. IMO this entirely eliminates the need for minimum wages and drastically changes the dynamics of the job market. It significantly reduces the inequality in the labour/capital struggle -- it eliminates the major social factor of "will I lose all of my possessions and ruin my family's lives" from fundamental job decisions.
Instead of having to worry about your (and your family's) continued financial and social existence when you lose your job (or your company tanks or whatever) you have a built-in financial safety net making sure that even if you do fall, you won't hit rock bottom.
Basically it's "rich parents for everyone".
> everyone thinks "I'll get more" or "they'll get more"
But that's not what it's about. In all likelihood, if implemented correctly, most people will get pretty much what they have now or maybe less. But as with existing unemployment and welfare systems, BI guarantees that you won't be out on the street if your employment situation changes. Unlike most existing unemployment or welfare systems, BI also creates a smooth transition for when you do find a new job (or start a new company).
It's a zero sum game. It has to be. Everybody can't be better off financially merely because of a universal basic income. It's the market dynamics that change, not the amount of money in the system.
You're basically arguing against welfare, not against the BI. BI is no more about closing the gap between the rich and the poor than welfare is. It's like socialised healthcare (a recent import from communist East Bloc countries like the UK): it's not about helping you when you're already fine, it's about preventing your life from being ruined when you're not fine anymore.
> it's not popular to disprove BI here
You're merely disapproving, not disproving. That's why you get the downvotes.
> proof that unemployment benefits incentivizes staying at home
I have yet to see conclusive evidence for this "people are lazy" argument. Humans aren't rational actors in a vacuum (except psychopaths). There is social pressure to contribute to society and "carrying your own weight" -- just ask anyone who's ever spent a non-trivial amount of time unemployed.
BI can be more than a replacement for current welfare but it aligns very nicely as a replacement for the current systems of unemployment benefits. Of course there are people with special needs and of course BI can't replace all of the welfare system but it significantly reduces a lot of complexity.
In my opinion, the potential effects of a BI are far greater than just redistributing wealth (which the tax-sponsored welfare system already does). It raises the barrier from zero to a liveable wage. IMO this entirely eliminates the need for minimum wages and drastically changes the dynamics of the job market. It significantly reduces the inequality in the labour/capital struggle -- it eliminates the major social factor of "will I lose all of my possessions and ruin my family's lives" from fundamental job decisions.
Instead of having to worry about your (and your family's) continued financial and social existence when you lose your job (or your company tanks or whatever) you have a built-in financial safety net making sure that even if you do fall, you won't hit rock bottom.
Basically it's "rich parents for everyone".
> everyone thinks "I'll get more" or "they'll get more"
But that's not what it's about. In all likelihood, if implemented correctly, most people will get pretty much what they have now or maybe less. But as with existing unemployment and welfare systems, BI guarantees that you won't be out on the street if your employment situation changes. Unlike most existing unemployment or welfare systems, BI also creates a smooth transition for when you do find a new job (or start a new company).
It's a zero sum game. It has to be. Everybody can't be better off financially merely because of a universal basic income. It's the market dynamics that change, not the amount of money in the system.
You're basically arguing against welfare, not against the BI. BI is no more about closing the gap between the rich and the poor than welfare is. It's like socialised healthcare (a recent import from communist East Bloc countries like the UK): it's not about helping you when you're already fine, it's about preventing your life from being ruined when you're not fine anymore.
> it's not popular to disprove BI here
You're merely disapproving, not disproving. That's why you get the downvotes.