He also attempts to justify the social implications of his position by saying that we can still have high levels of risk-taking and innovation but without suffering an oligarchy by severing the connection between wealth and power.

This is a nice idea, but in reality the power that comes with wealth is an even greater motivator than the improved quality of life that comes with cash. He suggests that his motivation for becoming wealthy was increased security; well, what position is more secure than one of great power? There's no reason that removing the link between wealth and power would reduce motivation less than flattening top level income.

But PG didn't write that essay in response to a basic income argument, he wrote specifically about the argument for eliminating income inequality. So yes, he missed the mark, but only because he wasn't trying to hit it in the first place.

> The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today.

The jobs of tomorrow are no less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. It's always been anybody's guess what people will be doing for a living in the future.

> We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for.

This is very idealistic, but probably not realistic. Most people will stay home and consume entertainment.

> But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it.

Competence isn't always the main requirement for jobs. In fact, for most jobs, it ranks lower than punctuality, politeness, and consistency. If you effectively remove all the people who are not that competent but able to do jobs that don't require that much competence (manufacturing, food services, etc.) you decrease the available labor pool required to provide the goods and services people like spending their basic income on.

What if competence is learned in the work force? Basic income decreases the competence of a civilization as a whole.

This hits the mark, hard. It would introduce so much more flexibility into the economy. Some people would abuse it, and critics of these bills generally harp on how no one would do anything, but that's overblown, and the flip side is that people will be free to reeducate and relocate themselves rather than getting stuck in poverty traps and becoming slaves to their short term needs. The lack of that severe risk will allow people to take much bolder risks. This won't eliminate people's drive to excel, become wealthy, etc - we're biologically driven to try to look better than other people to be more attractive, and to provide our children with a good start. This will just make the failure mode not so bad, and enable people to try again, or switch course.

If we can stomach the direct tax impact, I think this would be the most positive transformative change we could make in the near future. Being able to eliminate almost every other entitlement program and their associated bureacracies would be a nice side benefit.

It will also be necessary as productivity continues to climb through innovation and automation. Low/no-skill jobs are being removed from the economy in huge swaths.