Sure. But social acceptability should have little multiplier effect on the other benefits you listed e.g. artistic output (unemployed/beneficiary artists are already socially acceptable, in my circles at least).
How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant relocation. Etc.
A basic income would dramatically affect these sort of situations, IMO.
As much as it would liberate the stuck artists et al from the above 0.1%, my theory is that it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption of various things rather than production of invaluable goods.
Now we could move the goal post and say, ‘hey, they were born as human and by that they have won the lottery! Why shouldn’t everyone be eligible for the basics?’ - but that’s a different argument than saying this will liberate the arts. I don’t buy that line of argument.
Here is an article in agreement with that point, from a different POV though: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/i-used-to-argue-for-ubi-then-... “[UBI] merely serves as a way to keep the wealthiest people (and their loyal vassals, the software developers) entrenched at the very top of the economic operating system.”.
Ideally I think a UBI appears interesting, however practically I can’t see how it could work.
I’ve digressed from the article topic, because I am interested in why UBI has such zealotry (appears to me at least).
F.ex I think it’s pretty commonly agreed that a safe environment, where failure is not fatal, may promote creativity and innovation better than an environment where failure gets you ousted.
Some would even argue that the same fear is a powerful force in shaping less desirable behavior. F.ex when used as a tool for manipulation.
UBI, some argue, may address a large source of such fears.
Especially in a highly creative group, such as I imagine the hn-audience to be, this may be a strongly felt belief. I think it’s quite natural that it’s a promise that would trigger a bit of zealotry in that group.
You mentioned talented artists, not self actualization. You are calling goods from jobs as invaluable - few may be. An iPhone is expensive but not invaluable. But art from Picasso is.
I think by moving the argument to self actualization - you’re essentially proscribing a wallE like lifestyle - the above talented artists might go ahead and produce greatness, but I don’t think majority is going to be doing any self-actualization. It’s going to be a party of consumption for most. But we are both guessing here.
That argument also assumes a post scarcity world which we aren’t even close to.
Finally succumbing to the myth of everyone chasing their passions while AI keeps up our lifestyle essentially is writing the end of our civilization as it is. If you buy that it ever happens, you should also buy that one day it will turn off. That day humans will be surrounded by magic machines they have no idea how to fix / work and in essence die off. Or at best, they get back to today.
If a (perhaps more fulfilling or “fitting”) life on UBI is to rival that of say a stockbroker, UBI must provide more freedom than one can get by working in that position, while perhaps saving up for early retirement.
The income level will have to be moderate at the very least, to rival that. Since it is supported by tax revenue, it must be part of a balanced budget. This can quite easily be matched by a reasonable income, where a good amount is put into savings each month.
I agree, that this is not an option for a lot of people, as their monthly expenses won’t allow to save like that. But then that isn’t something that UBI will fix - given its “basic” nature. If all else equal, the higher the level of UBI, the higher the price level as demand increases.
I do support some models of UBI. It could help in replacing the myriad of different welfare programmes that are only about money here in Denmark, where billions of USD are either wasted or swallowed by bureaucracy each year.
However, I find it almost fraudulent how UBI is being misused as a “Trojan Horse” by some people and especially by politicians.
UBI, like most other insurance schemes, will only work if most people are net-positive contributors. This makes UBI mostly into a welfare programme - something that’s limited in its use.
But if the idea is that it’s something for everyone, most of the time, I’m hard pressed to answer how it will work on a societal basis, without the use of force.
I don’t believe that is what you argue for, so please don’t take this as a straw man argument against your point.
Have you done that?
If not, why not?
(Though I agree that the targeted poverty relief payment to those with the greatest need for extra dollars would be a better use of the funds)
Preferably instead the IRS could allow tax-free donations that are equally spread across every resident citizen.
I recall there is some wierd statistical winner-takes-all outcome to random payments within a population - maybe something to do with losing your whole stake?
If UBI makes 10% of the population "talented artists", what does that even mean? Who should consume all this art? Doesn't it make "art" much more common and thus, less valuable to society?
Popularity or consumption is irrelevant. If someone is satisfied by writing books that no one reads, why is that a problem? Surely we all have hobbies that we enjoy for themselves, not for their social consequences.