There are an unknown amount of reasons that would determine the success of a program like basic income, so I'm wondering why the size and homogeneity of a country are always quickly brought up.
Capitalism runs off of inequality of all sorts. Capitalism's entire history is filled with instances of the ruling class systematically serving up xenophobic and racially divisive propaganda (in order to justify expanding imperially, in order to justify inexpensive labor, etc.), with no sign of slowing down. As such, I can find no evidence that cultural tranquility is possible under the global capitalism. The inequality that capitalism continues to deliver breeds dangerous ideological heterogeneity between the people of the working class.
Someone hard-working with a 130 IQ versus someone depressed or maladjusted with a 90 IQ are, in fact, in entirely different classes. It isn't "dangerous" to admit that, it's simply reality. Capitalism does a decent job handling those extremes.
> Someone hard-working with a 130 IQ versus someone depressed or maladjusted with a 90 IQ
Capitalism doesn't do a "decent job handling those extremes," it does a fantastic job creating those extremes. The latter person you mentioned is either highly exploited and/or rejected from society and given a tragic, humiliating life. Our capitalism is divisive, unjust, and destructive.
Capitalism just deals with the results, in this case human capital.
basic income has no effect on diversity or homogeneity. perhaps it might encourage people to immigrate, but that's hardly a reason not to do it. having a country that is so desirable others would like to immigrate into it is a clear indication of doing something right. besides I think its obvious you would only qualify for basic income as a citizen.
At least I can't figure out a way to "screw the system" which by definition just gives everyone an equal amount of money.
And in those countries, experience shows that the grand-children of immigrants have far more similar values, desires, opinions and habits as their peers than they do to contemporaries in the original home of their grandparents.
The average black family in the United States has been in the United States for longer than the average white family. That blacks and whites in the United States are not essentially homogeneous even though they mostly went to the same schools, participated in the same economy, spoke the same language and experienced the same media is purely an artifact of deliberate exclusion.
Any social program is easier to sell in an homogenous country because the opponents wouldn't have the "these people would benefit" argument.
Beyond that, I still fail to see how it would matter.
You're questioning economical premises stated as obvious in a tech forum (so, where no special economical knowledge should be assumed). You're doing the right thing - why are they obvious? If he who stated them as obvious can't answer that with solid references, then it's not obvious; it's just an unfounded preconception.
Didn't downvote, but personally, I really dislike sarcasm used in this manner. It's not so much questioning as flat-out contradicting. And it does that in a way which doesn't help to bridge the inferential gap.