Why we should all have a basic income

No.

1)

The Industrial Revolution saw a considerably greater degree of automation than we are seeing now.

'Single Engines' replaced dozens of workers, some cases 100's.

Think 'weaving machine' vs. 'individual weavers'.

The 'automation' we have today is mostly 'soft' - do you think MS Word actually replaced 'Secretaries'? Or was it a confluence of things, including the fact that we now have 'Executive Assistants' which do much more than Secretaries ever did.

And what happened during the Industrial Revolution? Wages rose! Unemployment never really went down.

You know all those 'servants' in 'Downton Abbey' - the ultimately left to get higher paying jobs.

I should add - this had also a lot to do with the labour movement.

2)

The major source of 'job loss' in Industrialized countries is not 'automation' - it's 'outsourcing' to India and China.

'Automation' has been going on in a very aggressive way for over 200 years - and yet we still have fairly low levels of unemployment.

Entire new sectors have developed: entertainment, professions, services. There were 5 channels in 1950 and now 500. There weren't many pro athletes in the 1900's - now their are tons - and massive industries around them. We didn't really provide much in terms of healthcare in 1900 - now maybe 20% of the economy is healthcare. Very few used to go to University, let alone finish highschool - now education is a massive industry.

There is always 'work' that can be done so long as we can improve each others lives.

So - the question of 'UBI' comes down to how we decided to spread the surpluses. Do we give some surpluses to those who are not directly contributing?

Hint: we already do. Especially in socialized countries - we give massive subsidies to non-working people: healthcare, parks, security, all sorts of other services. Power subsidies (electricity is subsidized here in Quebec). We just don't give them spending money.

I think UBI is an interesting idea, but a dangerous one as well.

I live in Montreal, many of the people in my neighbourhood are 'artists' - photographers, actors - but really they all work full time in services.

You can get a 1/2 decent, small but respectable flat around here for $400 a month - and I don't mean grungy. It's entirely possible to live decently off $1K a month (remember healthcare is already paid for by other members of society).

I feel that with UBI - my neighbourhood would fall flat - because everyone would quit their service jobs (or work a lot less) - because they only need UBI + a little bit of extra cash - i.e. '1 day work weeks' - I think would be the preferred mode of existence for vast numbers of the young people around here. They would live a 'very low materialism' style of living, and be happy with it.

I think a 'means tested' form of UBI (not really 'Universal' ...) instead of welfare would be better.

In America - a better idea than UBI might simply be to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare, in a slightly-more-socialized way. I don't mean 'single payer' - but something. Having better healthcare for everyone would put people on a much more equal/fair footing - AND probably be good for the economy directly/indirectly. Solve that problem and you're already a huge step forward in trying to provide for better social outcomes.

Problem #2: Disability most definitely does not "work great". If you take disability, you can be charged with a felony for every seeking work again. It is a side-track to poverty for the remainder of your life, despite the fact that you may be re-employable at some time in the future (possibly due to innovations in technology or changes in the workforce). Additionally, despite the name of the program, not everyone who accepts "disability" (SSDI) is incapable of working. After trade deals like NAFTA, there is a structural change in some industries and regions that qualifies workers in that industry (usually ones where the trade deal is expected to offshore jobs) for "disability" even though their body and mind are perfectly capable of working again. It would be better to give them a UBI-like program which doesn't dis-incentivize them to permanently leave the workforce.

We have safety nets like "Section 8" (housing vouchers), "Food stamps" (grocery vouchers), unemployment insurance (UBI-like fixed payments), but each of these is a step function. As soon as you get a job that pays above the cut-off range, you lose the benefits and can have a net loss in purchasing power. A UBI to replace these programs is superior because there would no longer be a penalty for finding a job or making above the cut-off.

I wouldn't spend any of my UBI on any of those things.