[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-t...
It's not even just the trucking, it's truck stops, highway diners, tiny motels all over the place, there is a massive amount of infrastructure that was built because of and for truck drivers and their needs, and that's still not it because there are tons of small town economies built on the last job that pays well without a college education that more or less anyone can do.
That being said if you can think of another example where we put 3.5 million people out of work nearly overnight along with an entire support system built on their salaries and needs, I'd love to hear it. The only similar thing I could think of would be the rise of automation in American factories, and even then that didn't replace EVERY human with a machine, and carried with it a certain PR cost for the companies involved, whereas I think a shipping company removing humans from their trucks would have a PR boon, not bust.
UBI is only meant to reduce the demand for total income enough that people can recreationally work for things they want, because there isn't enough work to go around for all the things they need. If you wanted to live on a UBI without additional income, you could spend your days at parks or libraries, but by design you should not have the income to be purchasing luxury goods - if you want those you can seek work for them, and because of the drop in labor demand UBI causes, you should still be able to find something.
The human brain works on incentives. Remove the incentive the human is in free fall.
And the Soviets are a terrible example. Centrally planned economies of course destroy all individual incentives to accel or improve.
But if you seriously think the only way economic systems like the US's can function is by threatening starvation and exposure to incentivize working, then what is the point of progress to begin with if we are stuck in the same vicious cycle regardless? All progress is effectively meaningless if at the end of the day you are still laboring to not die of hunger.
And the Soviet's didn't have bread to begin with. Their people starved not because of "free" stuff, but because there was "no" stuff so long as the central planning existed and was as inept as it was (that, or intentionally restricted).
Which economy is not centrally planned? We have more and more central planning every year.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of central planning. It collapsed because everyone was lazy and stole shit from the factories. No productivity, no quality. People were drinking at work and were utterly incompetent. This is what happens when you remove the incentives for improvement. If you guarantee people they can eat, no questions asked, they just stop caring after 10-15 years. They just forget to care, this is the new reality for them. No repercussions, why even bother. Who are you to tell me to work harder? Why should I work at all? I am ENTITLED to your money so I can buy food.
And when the proletariat smells they can get other people's money, will they stop at just a pinch, so they can buy the very basic necessities? Or will they go and protest and push for more money in 15 years? Those fucking 1%-ers! They are not better than me. Who said they are better than me? Why should they have all this money. I need to feed my kids! And for booze.
The vast majority of people when given access to a basic amount of money (not benefits, not stamps, just money) will spend it in such a way as to NOT cause them additional misery via drugs, alcohol or by starving their children. Yes, some will but the "welfare queen" is a myth perpetuated by people who stand to benefit from the social systems being cut back. They exist but it's such a vanishingly small percentage that they might as well not exist, in comparison to the total welfare budget it's a rounding error.
I've never heard of one person protesting against the rich saying that we should all be equal. I used to think that's what they were saying, but in actuality people who want equality want equality of opportunity, not equality of result, and to say that a kid growing up in rural Kentucky with the best of circumstances available there has the same opportunity as a kid in the suburbs of San Fransisco is laughable on it's face.
This is not grounded in reality.
"The prominence of truck drivers is partly due to the way the government categorizes jobs. It lumps together all truck drivers and delivery people, creating a very large category. Other jobs are split more finely; for example, primary school teachers and secondary school teachers are in separate categories."
... I really wish they'd collapsed some of those categories, could have been even more revealing.
Even free services such as Kahn Academy blow many teachers out of the water in terms of really teaching things.
The nanny aspect of teachers will be hard to replace though.