UBI lets you subsist so that you're free to drop off my groceries for beer money.
All of the other unicorn bullshit (automation will free us from want, etc) is the 2016 equivalent of the 1956 flying car or magical gourmet microwave dinner.
I don't know which'll happen. I'm surprised to see the degree of confidence exhibited by both sides of the debate, people who are either sure it'll result in entrepreneurial utopia or sure that it'll be the end of the world as everyone does nothing. My sense is that there's a good deal of projection here, where people who have successfully cashed out a startup assume everyone will build a startup, while people who wish they could do nothing but loaf around all day assume that's what everyone else will do. Personally, I just want to know, and so I'm waiting on the data before judging.
In a situation where people are given a base amount of money that covers their cost of living expenses but provides no extra money to obtain physical resources they will turn to the creation of intellectual property.
This endeavor is low cost in material but high cost in terms of time.
A huge difference is being at the bottom rather at the top. Status is a motivator.
But AI may "solve" thishttp://partiallyclips.com/comic/dome-house/
Well, technically, these are all anecdotes, but the plural of "anecdote" is "data" after all.
Regarding Google-millionaire data: what percentage actually does keep working? We hear about those who do, but not of those who don't (eg Minecraft's Notch). "Newsflash: multi-millionaire relaxes" And, confounding factor: people who succeed amazingly well often keep doing whatever made them wealthy, well beyond financial satisfaction. At least, one hears of those cases - I don't actually know the percentage of how often, vs. those who take it easy. [Guess this is what brbsix meant]
Anecdatum: when I made enough from something I created, I quit. Yet, turns out I was happier before... so was probably a mistake to quit.
Footage and notes from a conference talk discussing the aforementioned experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lanUMETOqWc http://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Basic_Income_Pilo...
Early 90s immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union provide a window into social dynamics of multiple countries where the majority of population was largely employed by government, many in some meaningless occupations (the running joke was "we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us"), others with lifetime pension guarantees - hyper-inflated currencies, general switch to barter for any meaningful financial transaction and endless parade of populist politicians promising to increase everybody's personal wealth by passing pension and government salary rate increases.
IMO, people want to work and be useful. Ignoring that drive and substituting bread & circus is a dangerous direction.
Note how wages have not increased as productivity has? UBI is what fixes that. Its distributes that productivity to people so they are not slaves to capital.
Cool, let's see it then ;)
During that same period, you broadened the scope of the workforce greatly by bringing women into the mainstream workplace and ending systematic discrimination against minorities.
...and then the scope of the workforce was globalized. Talk to any private sector union steward about the biggest roadblock in negotiations -- it's the ability to leverage the liquidity of the labor market to pick up to move to Mexico, China, India, etc.
In the public sector, unions don't have that problem -- you can't outsource the cops (yet).
This would push wages up, as employers would have to pay more for the privilege of utilizing labor.
It seems that your argument is that it (UBI) will increase wages with no (or minimal?) change in productivity. Are you counting the transfer payments in your increased wages, or are you implying that wages will start growing again in addition to the payments?
For example, like unemployment benefits, it gives breathing room to hold out for a better job. Or if they're in a union, it's something to live on during a strike. Or maybe they will take the casual job.
Who knows? How people choose to use their freedom can be hard to predict. That can be a little scary. But the point is it's their choice, not ours.
The context is important. Are these "options" given willingly or taken by force? The distinction is pretty important. It's the difference between making love (a voluntary interaction) and rape (an involuntary one). If this "unrestricted money" is to be collected by force (or the threat of it), it is most certainly coercive.
Compare with conditional transfers (you get the money but only if you meet certain requirements). That can be coercive in effect, if you need the money badly enough.
End of the day, it's sort of like social security for everyone. It may be a more equitable form of welfare, as men and intact families would be eligible.
IMO, resources would be better spent on housing subsidy, healthcare and publicly administered pensions.