A secret of many urban 20-somethings: Their parents help with the rent

No it isn't, not even remotely.

> False presumption

It wasn't a presumption about BI, but a hypothetical framing of an example situation. Please give opposing viewpoints their due interpretation rather than looking for phrases to pick on out of context.

> Unfounded

Once again, this is what we're arguing about. You can't simply quote my conclusion without my supporting arguments and say it's unfounded.

> That doesn't remotely address the issue that BI attempts to solve, lack of available jobs for people due to the effects of automation.

I didn't expand on it, but my view actually does address this. If working people had been able to save money, then they would have had more economic bargaining power to demand higher wages and fewer working hours, gradually over the past few decades. As it stands, we could fix much of the employment issue by redefining "full time" to be 15 hours per week, getting rid of the exempt loophole, and changing overtime to double or triple pay. But this is such a drastic change (because the issue has been building so long), it seems quite ridiculous. But it's important to understand how we got to this point in order to know how to proceed, lest we choose another "quick fix" that actually just makes the situation even worse.

This comes up in every BI thread, and I can't wrap my head around it. All the sensible proposals seem geared so that if you have income from a job, most of the BI amount will be recouped from your taxes. So, for most people their purchasing power would go up only slightly or not at all.

Think about the extremes: if you make a comfortable income (say, at least 2x the median) your taxes should increase to recoup most or all of the BI subsidy, so your purchasing power doesn't change. If you choose to leave your job and live off the BI, your purchasing power goes down (drastically!) and you won't be in a position to inflate prices on much of anything.

At the other end, if your income is zero and you receive BI, your purchasing power goes up, but you still won't have a huge amount of money to throw around. And in the developed economies, at any rate, we suffer from over-production of basic needs stuff, so I don't think demand would exceed supply for basic things like flour, rice, toiletries, etc.

Analyzing the middle few percentiles of the income distribution is tougher, but for any scheme that increases taxes along with BI it's hard to see how it could possibly cause inflation to increase by more than a point or two.

So then change the full time number to be summed over all jobs. It's a cooperation problem where it is in nobody's individual interest to work less (since the marginal utility of surplus over your peer group is extreme), but yet everybody competing for this results in all the surplus thrown onto the bonfire of financialization.

And yes as I said, 15 hours is a drastic change from 40. Because the point is that this should have been happening gradually the whole time. I personally would have preferred it to happen through sane monetary policy rather than government diktat, but either way we should all be working much less.

> We need to move beyond the puritan work ethic to something more appropriate for the world that's coming.

I wholeheartedly agree on this point. But the implementation we're looking for is not BI.

The idea of BI deprecates the idea of having an economy (ie p2p transactions), and replaces it with widespread monthly funding from the government. This will necessarily come with strings attached, inevitably becoming a highly politicized way of dictating individuals' life choices. We already have something quite similar to BI, called welfare/medicaid, which brings no end to hassling its recipients. I believe that BI proponents would say that the aim of BI is to simplify these systems, but this is not a stable state. It is trying to reverse up the gradient of why politicians generate complexity (finding divisive bikeshed issues so people can be led).