I think a good source of data could be the population of retired people. I'm pretty sure if I could afford to be retired, I could easily keep busy the rest of my life.

[1] http://freakonomics.com/2012/05/17/retirement-kills-a-new-ma...

It's actually true only for men.

I never said all people would suffer early deaths from retirement. For all I know, some people's lives may be prolonged.

some people. Do not generalize.

I would hope that this is not relevant to people who just want to be financially independent at an early age, and never really "retire". Maybe a lot of people just don't know what to do with their time, so they turn to unhealthy activities like drinking and sitting on the couch all day watching TV.

Some stay busy napping. Some stay busy zoning on TV/internet. Some stay busy actually creating stuff.

All of them may believe themselves to be "busy"

That's a big part of what I wish I had more time for. My list of things I want to watch is long and growing all the time. If I were retired, I would love to be able to sit down and finally watch The Wire or Sopranos.

In this case the person doing the work might both derive self-worth and view the basic income as being 'earned' .. and hence value it as much as a traditional salary [ and not 'waste' it ].

I think basic income could fill a lot of little niches where the market economy is not perfectly efficient in allocating money to value - some of these are being explored thru approaches like Patreon and IndieGoGo and freelancer sites.. but maybe Basic Income is an even better way to reach more of these niches ?

You should Google "emotional labor metafilter". A lot of "caring" work has traditionally been done by women and we are expected to do it for free, out of the goodness of our hearts. If we expect to get compensated for it, we are taken to task as harpies, gold digging whores, etc.

I was one of the top three students of my graduating class. I have done many things that enhanced the lives of other people. I have struggled with trying to figure out how to monetize my work. The main thing I need is work that pays adequately and doesn't keep me sick. A lot of people who have benefitted from my volunteer work, public writing, etc. are offended and outraged that I desire financial compensation.

I have been homeless for just over four years. The people who expect me to do nice things for them because I "care" generally do not give a damn about that. Plenty of people have made it abundantly clear that I should shut the fuck up about how poor I am and how hard my life is. They seem to think that telling people I am homeless amounts to trying to panhandle them.

I am pretty pissed off about it because I am not a beggar. I have only ever asked for help in trying to figure out how to turn the work I do that benefits others into an income source for me. The idea that I deserve compensation gets pissed on, often by the very people who seem to think I am after their money as a beggar.

We need to pay for these jobs if we want them done. No one should be expected to live in poverty on an allotment of Basic Income while taking care of others. It is a shitty, shitty expectation.

"Fuck you, pay me" should apply equally to the kinds of work you describe. If society NEEDS this work done and it doesn't pay adequately when handled by the private sector, then create a government service. This is why fire and police are public goods, not private sector services.

If there was a basic income, people who do things that currently aren't paid for, like what you mentioned, could be done and "paid for" by the basic income.

If you like the work, but just want to be paid, that should solve your problem.

If you don't like the work, don't do it. The basic income would mean that jobs that people don't like doing would have to increase what they pay until someone is willing to do it. Nobody would be forced to do work they don't like for a barely or non-livable wage.

UBI could serve to further entrench an existing exploitative pattern, which currently exists because some things are "paid" work and other things are not.

Fascinating.

I could foresee lots of people quitting to learn skills for more rewarding jobs. You might see that jobs like a janitor, garbage man, and service reps at abusive companies start commanding higher wages since people don't want to do them.

Now workers have the leverage to decide not to work doing something they hate unless they are paid enough for it.

Creating free education programs for careers in demand would really strengthen this effect and I think would improve society as a whole. People will be rewarded for doing menial or dirty jobs rather than looked down on by society.

Jobs that are currently mostly done by people with no other choice, and hence can pay as little as they want, will have to pay better or be part time or some other benefit if they really need to get done.

And then, if a crappy or mindless job ends up paying $30/hour, people might do it because they want the extra money, not because they need it to survive.

Nope. To my mind, Basic Income = permanent slavery for women, with no hope of getting free as the expectation that we should "care" out of the goodness of our hearts will just become more entrenched and more doors will close to us.

If women want male privilege, they need to take the entire deal, including the risks of failure.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -- Benjamin Franklin

You were very vague about what this "care" work is. For child care, as in your own children, somebody has to do it. It shouldn't be assumed to be women but it makes no sense for this to be a paid thing.

If you mean something like elder care, for example, and you don't feel it's worth doing it for free, then just don't do it. I don't know why you feel (or you feel anyone else) would be expected to do this work

With a basic income, if you think elder care is important and/or something you want to do, you can afford to do it for free. Because you have a basic income. If you want more than a basic income you have to do something that people want to pay for. But you have the freedom to walk away from any job without fear of homelessness and poverty.

Your worries about permanent slavery seem to have very little to do with basic income. In fact, the main reason for basic income is to free people from the wage slavery we have now. People are stuck in barely livable wages because they don't have the time away from work to get into a better paying career.

Annotated version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0UUYL6kaNeBTDBRbkJkeUtabEk...

I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class. I am a woman and 50 years old. This is a problem space I have studied for decades because of my own personal frustrations with the fact that people expect a great many things from me, those things improve their lives, and I am not supposed to want compensation for them. I don't know how to make that any more clear to you. I think a Basic Income will make this a more entrenched problem. It will not alleviate it. Men already are nigh impossible to talk to about this, even with measurable negative impacts on women's lives that we can point to.

The fact that you can't see it just makes me feel all the more strongly that your idea that Basic Income "pays" women (for basically being society's slaves) is just going to make things worse.

Unpaid house work isn't going to get worse if women get the (new) option of leaving situations they previously were stuck in.

The problem of unpaid "emotional work" is caused by a sexist society. More social safety net either does nothing to alleviate that problem, or it helps. It makes no sense to argue it makes things worse. Unless you provide even a shred of an argument for how it could make things worse, it sounds like you're just yelling into the void of the internet. Unless by "men are impossible to talk to about this" you really mean "men don't accept my assertions on faith".

Edit: Also, it sounds like possibly you don't know what basic income is. Or you mean something different by it. This[1] sums it up neatly in the first paragraph. I'm not trying to be insulting, it just sounds like you're talking about something different.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

It makes it worse by making it less painful for the status quo to continue forward. Currently, women are making a great many hard choices in order to stop the pain of being poor because society does not want to hire them, promote them, etc for "men's work" while expecting us to continue to "care" without compensation. Give women what amounts to permanent welfare and a lot of them will not make the hard choices involved in questioning the status quo and trying to find another answer.

There are plenty of examples of populations given some kind of permanent welfare. They never result in some sort of golden era. They result in people who are overweight, out of shape, demoralized, with no goals or aspirations.

I read a lot of that discussion on meta filter, and it was extremely unconvincing. I empathize with women who marry crappy people who expect them to stay at home and don't want to listen to their problems and want them to send birthday cards to their family. But the whole conversation was about a non issue. Basically like the argument any roommates would have about who has to do the dishes. Or who left the toilet seat up. It was complaining about personal things that they really just need to deal with themselves. And maybe they need help learning to do that, but "emotional work" isn't a thing. It isn't, it shouldn't be compensated, it doesn't exist. These aren't big societal dilemmas. Women aren't perfectly equal now but it is perfectly acceptable in most of the western world for women to get real jobs.

Or maybe it would help to hear an example (any example, you still haven't given one). What is one hard choice a woman might have to make to escape the pain of being poor? The hard choice not to have children? How is that a hard choice and how could it possibly go away in any imaginable future without the reality of biology being worked around with external wombs and robotic child care? And what, please tell me, could that have to do with a basic income?

Yes, as a society we don't value that kind of work that traditionally women have done the majority of - child rearing for example. Maybe as a single dad I can now have some empathy or appreciation of that, that I wouldn't have otherwise as a middle class white male.

Looking after my kid and making paintings have probably been the most useful things I've ever done - neither of them paying anything, unlike programming work which does provide an income. I have to wonder what more useful things I could have spent my time doing, rather than some projects which paid ok, but were unlikely to be of much use to anyone.

I can relate to some of your comments - when I see people who want an Uber clone developed, or who think programmers should get 5 bucks an hour because they enjoy their work anyway.. or who dont understand how much skill it takes to draw a plausible figure, who think a one off oil painting should cost 70 bucks. But then these people are using apps that cost 20 million bucks to develop but are free to use, or they can buy a print for 30 bucks and a chinese replica for 150..

There are some economists and even politicians who have been talking about the value of all the work that is done which is not paid for - value and money don't match up, in many cases. I hadnt seen the term 'emotional labor metafilter' but I'd heard of the concept [ as I listen to people like Piketty, Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren and lately Bernie Sanders ]

My hope is that a Basic Income might be a way of partly fixing this flaw [where real work is undervalued], rather than entrenching it - if the free market is not efficient enough to pay you for the useful work you are doing, basic income might at least cover the cost of living.

Its not a solution to every ill.. teachers will probably still be paid less than their true worth, stay at home parents will probably still have to sacrifice a lot of income. It wont solve sexism, racism, ageism .. but it might alleviate some of the worst symptoms, some of the current pain ?

Maybe the government service is in fact BI, because it covers so many special cases where individuals can do useful work, that the government wont ever be able to implement an overall program ?

> No one should be expected to live in poverty on an allotment of Basic Income while taking care of others. It is a shitty, shitty expectation.

I agree.. but I assume the Basic Income is more than being poor, that it was high enough to cover living expenses so that you are free to function without stress.

So the question is how much should BI be - equivalent to 15 bucks an hour ? 25 an hour ? Should the minimum wage be set at the same level as BI ? Location dependent on average rent ?

Many years ago, I saw a study that asked people in different countries to define poverty in terms of things like how many meals per day a person ate, what kind of shelter they had, etc. The study concluded that less than 0.5 percent of Americans were poor by the standards of people in India at the time the study was conducted. Meanwhile, Americans routinely conclude that 12% to 14% of us are living below the poverty level.

As a homeless American, I have regular access to electricity via a public library. I have access to public toilets. I have access to cheap goods. My quality of life is likely higher than that of many people in the world who live in countries without consistent supply of electricity and other basic infrastructure that I take for granted. There are countries where women are fairly routinely raped and sometimes murdered while attempting to relieve their bowel or bladder in an open field because there is insufficient infrastructure.

My quality of life is likely higher than that of kings of old, who had no electricity or Internet or antibiotics etc.

Humans are a social animal. If you eliminate physical hunger but cut us off from freedom of choice, social connections and a great many other things that money cannot buy, you do us egregious harm.

We need to invent the 21st century's version of the 40 hour work week. I believe the answer here is currently being called The Gig Economy. We need to make sure the Gig Economy empowers ordinary people to work when they want, as much as they want. We need to make sure "gig" work can create a middle class lifestyle if you do it decently for about 40 hours a week.

This will empower homemakers, single parents, etc to create a comfortable life that works for them without being cut off from Society and the halls of power.

We need to worry about empowering people to readily and easily make the money they need. Giving money to people will never provide the same quality of life as earned income. It is qualitatively different. It will always be qualitatively different. You cannot change that fact.

Hopefully, merely collecting a universal/basic income will not be similarly stigmatized.

And is this a problem? Societally speaking, shame and stigma are great motivators. If we remove them as motivation for work, will society really be better off?

I daresay society's great achievements are not derived from shame and stigma. What real benefit does society derive from meaningless jobs [1]? We've tried shame and stigma. We should see whether society is better off when the thinkers and doers are free to use their time thinking and doing what they feel called to think and do.

[0] http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-04004/1

[1] http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

Basic income doesn't aim for people to sit idle, and in practice basic income doesn't seem correlated with idleness. Some studies show an increase in work hours [0], and another showed a slight decrease in work hours among new parents and teenagers [1].

Loss of self-worth need not occur when people are given the freedom to say "no" to unfulfilling and unproductive jobs, the freedom to take time off to care for their own or another's health issues, and the ability to pursue their passions -- teaching inmates, launching a startup, or becoming a world-class gamer.

[0] e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268552

[1] http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf

The negative income tax experiment in New Jersey showed that the negative income tax created a disincentive to work, and increased family breakups. [0]

Negative income tax, by virtue of being tied to the tax system, operates on a year-based system and pays retroactively. Regardless of whether the year's overall income would qualify for negative income tax, the individual still needs to self-fund any time off. A negative income tax does nothing to help those who are temporarily out of work, or who only want a few months off to help with childcare, learn a new skill, or address an illness.

[0] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html

For people who have a job, we already have a system for them to pay taxes with each paycheck (withholding). By reversing that, you could make negative income tax payments year-round rather than at tax return time.

Withholding adjustments would help those in low-paying jobs, part time workers, etc. But how does it address temporary or long-term joblessness without requiring individuals to self-fund until refund time?

> A negative income tax is basically equivalent to a basic income funded with a progressive income tax.

I disagree. The funding structure is substantially similar -- some people pay more in taxes than they receive. However, by only distributing the payments to a subset of the population, there is a social stigma associated with receiving benefits. With a universal payment, there is no stigma.

Consider food stamps. The funding structure is set up so some people pay more in taxes than they get from food stamps, and some pay less. But because only some people receive food stamps, there is a stigma associated with them. By contrast, consider the Alaska dividend, which is given equally to every citizen, regardless of income. There is no stigma associated with receiving or using an Alaska dividend. It isn't seen as welfare, but as a right.

People aren't so naive that they would ignore the fact that their basic income is being immediately taken out of their pockets to pay for other people's basic incomes.

As of 2011, an individual paying >$12k/yr in USA federal taxes is in the top 25%. [0] With a basic income of $1k/yr, anyone in the bottom 75% would effectively be receiving a 100% refund of all taxes, not only the funds earmarked for BI.

There is also the option of voluntary basic income systems, which have the advantage of being immediately implementable. [Disclosure: currently developing a voluntary basic income project/study]

[0] Apologies for the outdated info. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/31/the-average...

I only claim economic equivalence, not political or marketing equivalence. On the other hand, we already have a negative income tax for working people (the earned income tax credit) and no national basic income, so maybe the marketing advantages aren't a slam dunk.

The linked article hypothesized "reduced pressure on the breadwinner to remain". Too many fights over money, financial ability to leave a bad relationship, and no need to "stay together for the bills" could all be causes.

http://www.widerquist.com/karl/Articles--scholarly/Failure2c...

You get the same effect with basic income. Those who pay more in taxes than basic income gives and those who don't. You could effectively create a negative income tax that gives the exact same payouts as basic income.

x is income, b is basic income, F(x) is tax someone has to pay at x income under the basic income scheme, G(x) is the tax scheme someone has to pay out without basic income that includes some negative taxes.

If G(x) = F(x) - b, then x + b - F(x) = x - G(x). Yes, they are coded up on law a bit differently, but the outcome on everyone's pay would be the same. All that is different is the talking points. Kinda like how people are charged higher tax rates for not having children currently in the US.

> of course we could give them shorter hours. Technically, it would be perfectly simple to reduce all lower-caste working hours to three or four a day. But would they be any the happier for that? No, they wouldn't. The experiment was tried, more than a century and a half ago. The whole of Ireland was put on to the four-hour day. What was the result? Unrest and a large increase in the consumption of soma; that was all. Those three and a half hours of extra leisure were so far from being a source of happiness, that people felt constrained to take a holiday from them. The Inventions Office is stuffed with plans for labour-saving processes. Thousands of them." Mustapha Mond made a lavish gesture. "And why don't we put them into execution? For the sake of the labourers; it would be sheer cruelty to afflict them with ex- cessive leisure. It's the same with agriculture. We could synthesize every morsel of food, if we wanted to. But we don't. We prefer to keep a third of the population on the land. For their own sakes-because it takes longer to get food out of the land than out of a factory. Besides, we have our stability to think of. We don't want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That's another reason why we're so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science."

In a broad sense, the shift towards a services-based economy is a type of "make-work" in the shadow of heavy automation in first agriculture then manufacturing. This is very much Parkinson's Law writ large: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law

Furthermore, what is the economic benefit of the activities listed above? What would be lost if those activities were either abandoned or required to be paid at a fair market price? I know, charging grandma by the hour is a silly idea, but I say so to illustrate the benefits to society by activities not reflected in GDP, and to invite discussion about whether society would be better served by individuals living on basic income alone who spend their time helping others, without having to worry about making next month's rent.

I don't know this would be too unrealistic for the study.

Japan seems to have one solution to this problem. It's a culture that highly discourages idleness, yet also aims to look after people's welfare, so they have a very large number of (practically speaking) quite useless jobs - crossing guards on parking lot exits and streets with no traffic, platform attendants, park attendands, etc. It was quite weird seeing this at first, but once I started thinking about it as a socially acceptable form of welfare, it made a lot of sense.

I don't think their system will work here (serving people is seen quite positively there, whereas here it is often looked down upon here), but it is a good working example.

You can work hard at something which provides immense satisfaction and personal value (perhaps even value to others). But a job is strictly something you do in exchange for money.

A job doesn't necessarily contribute to your self-worth. Meaningful work, does.

Because I read about it many times in the past ?

> That seems like an unfounded conclusions. For example, a lot of people here on Hacker News don't have a "job", but they're building startups and working on products. I wouldn't call that a job, in the sense that they're not performing work in exchange for money. It probably does have some effect on their self-worth, but I don't think it has anything to do with the lack of an employer.

That's because you are drinking the koolaid without reading the warnings all over HN about the entrepreneur porn lalaland echo chamber it is at time and succumbing to the game of redefining common words to fit a specific story. Also, very specific and small population sample here. You can't exclude the majority of the population to deny the fact that self-worthiness is linked to employment (edit: whether it is a good thing or not).

Here's some unfounded conclusion:

- http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2012/04/unempl...

- http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/09/19/the-long-un...

- http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/kay/2013/08/31...

- https://kar.kent.ac.uk/19046/1/abrams_unemployment_self.pdf

- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222079910_'Unemploy...

- http://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/016-the-hidden-injur...

- http://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/pt/sd/news_article/67151/_PAREN...

> And to follow on from that point, someone can be retired and spend 8 hours on art, music, writing, or any other creative endeavor. I don't think those are the kinds of people who live shorter lives after retiring.

But that's the thing. Retirees have a different status to hold than the unemployed. Plus, you forget that the transition from a working class member to a retiree can be really hard.

Here:

> A job doesn't necessarily contribute to your self-worth. Meaningful work, does.

No, having a job like the vast majority of others around you (or the supposed ideal) contribute actively to your self-worth way more than have a meaningful hobby or unpaid meaningful work on the side. It has to do with the humane need of feeling integrated in the group.

You really have to work hard on yourself to keep your self worth for ten years by not « working » and having only a meaningful job/work/hobby.

It's not the job or the hobby or the meaningfulness that matters to your self worth. It's the sense of belonging to the group.

With that said, I completely agree with that:

> if we're going to introduce a concept like basic income then we need to start being really clear about the difference between effort in exchange of money, and effort which contributes to your satisfaction.

Benevolent activities are going to be cast under a different light.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222079910_'Unemploy...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=self+worth+and+unemployement

Basic income can liberate a lot of people to focus on bettering their situations, rather than just trying not to drown from day to day.

Most people want to do something, and generally want to feel productive. How many stories have you heard about unhappy office drones leaving a job where they spent all their time on the internet to something more rewarding?

But where will this productive energy go? Plenty of people will still have jobs, likely doing something more in line with their interests. Others will volunteer their time and participate in the community. I think lots of people would love to spend more time mentoring young people, being with their families, etc. It could be a revolution in community participation and lead to a more healthy society.

Satisfying and productive work doesn't need to be paid work.

I'm thrilled Deschutes Brewery has started distributing here in DC. Also, count me among the many who have no issue with the use of Amazon affiliate links.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf

Sitting around playing video games is a classic example, but it's a way to become a better video game developer or a world-class player, both of which are fulfilling and well-paying endeavors. Even sitting and doing nothing (i.e. meditating) can be one of the most productive things an individual can do. [0]

What constitutes a "productive activity" is quite subjective. And even seemingly unproductive things can be productive: if they help de-stress and refocus, they're still contributing to productivity.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10186082

If I'm playing minecraft and optimize a factory in an hour, that is a productive hour of gaming. But to my father, that entire time was wasted because he cares naught for video games and would instead be out working his farm. But I look at the small scale farm and realize that for what it produces, it would be cheaper to just buy the produce and thus don't see it as productive.

Is watching football and prime time TV productive? What if you have someone who doesn't like either but is doing so only so they can be a better culture fit at work since that is what everyone else at work is doing?

negative income / social welfare are packaged in a way that telegraphs dependency and low self-worth.

[ I would also be really interested in seeing an economic analysis of how much money and time is spent on administering social welfare ]

Basic income needs to be marketed as a positive way : here's some money - it is your share of the basic wealth from the land/resources and the benefits of our technology to the country - do something useful with it.

[ I also wonder how many of those 'lazy-dole-bludgers' now on social welfare would have a better sense of self-worth, and actually get off their arse and do something useful if we didn't make it so clear to them they were total failures from school age ]

Changing this sort of culture once it has formed is really, really hard. People much more dedicated than me have poured in enormous resources without make a dent in the problem.

Imagine: You're 18 years old and your Dad gives you $500. He says, "You don't make any money and have to rely on me. Here is your spending money" or "You'll be making a lot of money (value) later on in life, this will help you kickstart it."

To what extent does Australian welfare gradually taper off as a means to incentivize saving, instead of punishing it?

The real problems come when everyone in the community is unemployed. We really need to work on new societal structures to make sure that we don't follow the same path our remote communities have fallen into.

Then again, it might remind them of their own failures and they get double drunk that night. I'm not sure.

What jumped out of the paper(around page 25) was that Europeans have been just Happy! Why are first 12 members of the EU Happy over time? I'll let you speculate.

Now to entitled--usually white upper class men--who have been telling the poor what to do since biblical times. Dummy up! I've had seen too many people die early because they became homeless.

I think what most of these researchers fail to comprehend is the difference between poor, and poor with no safety net. No parents. No friends couch to crash on. Just the inviting, wet thicket of Scotch Broom to crawl into, and being woken by gently nudge of a police officers' latest extension of their authoritarian arm. Real poverty is homelessness. It's ugly. I don't know why we are even debating someting, like a minimum income, at this point in time. I have seen friends die way too early because of their homeless stints. It seems by the time they get a little help, it's too late. They just die early?

I'm not going to list off my gripes about making a living in this enviorment, but a lot of us tech workers are very succeptable to being homeless. At least half the guys I know without roofs over their heads were former Programmers. At one time they we happy, and young, banging away with Fortran.

(Willie Brown is actually the first one I heard, wondering out loud, exactly what we are going to do with all the future homeless tech workers.

They now sit in coffee shops fiddling with our discarded toys.

Basic income at this point--yes. I actually think if some of these poor people were given a little bit of help, they might just start business, and who know where it will end. There's only one benefit from being poor; some of you see the world a different way.

We have never had a basic income in the United States. Let's give it a shot? I look around at what's happening in the United States, and I don't like the trend. It was better in the past.

(Yea, what if it gets worse. Go back to this wonderful system of privileged elitism. I won't be back, so any comments--I will miss out on. Oh, yea as to sitting idle--the subsided poor I know, are busy. See the world is funny place. Even if you get the couch in the subsidized house, you are expected to do/fix all sorts of things, including being a amature psychiatrist. The poor always pay in some way. Think about it. Did you really ever get a completely free lunch, outside of maybe grade school, or when you were young and pretty. Pretty is gender neutral.)

Arguments for universal BI (as opposed to tweaks to benefit entitlement rules) are in effect a suggestion that people on those programmes should have less so that we can afford to extend subsidies to middle class stay-at-home wives and twenty-somethings on gap years, because rich people that don't want to work obviously deserve the same as people with nothing going through a crisis. And you have the temerity to intemperately accuse anyone that questions it of being elitists.

And yes, BI is something which has been chiefly advocated by privileged white men.

I don't want Basic Income only to be told where and how to work. If I have to work for it, I want to go find work my damn self that I find palatable.

Which is (part of) why I don't want Basic Income at all.

(Edited for clarity)

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-conversa...

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/01/ubi-we-tried...

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-dubious-...