They do indeed. And why not let them?
Most of what they could do with their time is being automated away, and the front-line service industries (restaurants, coffee houses) can only take on so many.
Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? That even without their effort we have wealth in excess and can afford to carry them?
You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money?
Besides the moral argument, isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?
We're not quite there yet but what happens when all the food and goods a society need can be made by automation, run by a skeleton crew of (say) 5% of the population in facilities owned by 1% of the population? Nobody else can compete on price or availability, the makers don't need staff, and only so many can fit into the service industries.
Do the 1% continue to take the majority of wealth as rent, and the 5% live reasonably well, and f*ck everyone else? Or do we recognise that human progress has been a group effort and start to share the abundance with everyone?
Besides which, if you're asking where the moral authority to demand you help house feed and clothe people comes from... LOL. It's already here. What's not moral is the immature libertarian "I've got mine" attitude we see so much of these days. Tax to help the less fortunate and societal development is theft of my stuff by force and inherently immoral? That's a pretty stunted and selfish thought pattern right there.
>> isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?
Oh no, the poor people will breed!
Rather than snarky comments, try to actually think about the question. There are good arguments against unbridled capitalism, but "Libertarians -- LOL!!" is not one of them.
- remuneration would likely improve
- only motivated people would be left, so "pretending" to enjoy a job and all other kinds of fakery diminishes
- artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically
- the ability to change jobs becomes extremely fluid on both sides of the table(with liberalized hire/fire policies [employer-side] plus a lack of worry about winding up in the street [worker-side])
This is a very large net benefit to the motivated. The sooner those who don't want to be there get to stop working, the better for the rest. An "arts, sports, and leisure (which may take the form of beer or video games)" is going to happen, and we should be happy to allow it for those who want nothing more.
why?
-"artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically"
why is artificial competition important? You are saying that it will be easier for qualified people to get jobs because unqualified people won't bother to apply any more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
Artificial competition going away is important, because it reduces the "fake" demand for positions; those that would rather not be there won't, which takes the pressure off that position (reducing its perceived scarcity/value.) This has both the above-described wage effects, and a cultural effect: you no longer have people pretending that they want a job, lying to get jobs, inflating their resumes, gladhanding, etc. You're only there if you want to be.
Also, if inflation stayed in hand, the basic income itself would look an awful lot like a raise.