Yes, this is exactly my thoughts. Sure I suppose some people will sit on their asses, but I think many more would pursue hobbies/activities that they are interested in. And when more people are able to participate in ”the pursuit of happiness" isn't that a good thing?

The point is not so much whether you'd be doing something or not, but whether what you would be doing would ultimately be of enough value to justify the money collected from others to fund your UBI.

You missed the point of UBI. There will be a whole class of people who won't be able to create enough value to justify the money needed to have a comfortable living. So we create UBI so they can still live comfortably. When most things are automated, there will be an excess of wealth. Why not use UBI as a transition tool to a post-scarcity economy?

"Comfortable living" is where UBI falls apart for me. What's comfortable? If my parents are [google|fb|apple] execs and I decide I want to just write poetry and live off UBI, will I be able to afford to live in the same neighborhood as them? The same city? The same region?

Clearly the answer is no, and it will result in the ghettoization of those that choose to take only UBI for income. This already happens with Section 8 housing, retirement havens (eg Florida), and so forth. There would be an even starker contrast between the haves (who perform "useful" work) and the have-nots (who subsist solely on UBI for whatever reason).

You make a very good point.

This is something that London (at least) does well. Council housing is available across the city and you will often find amongst some of the wealthiest parts of the city alternating blocks of council housing.

It might indeed be a pain point for those who bought their £1M town houses to then have to deal with the consequences of a whole council estate across the street but it has (so far) prevented the ghetto-ization of swathes of our capital which seems to affect Paris for instance which has less of a mix of housing.

your criticism is spot on. There will be a have / have not divide. It will make today's inequality look quaint. The top 20th percentile in IQ/productivity will live way better than the rest, but they will probably be creating 99% of the value.

So what's your solution? With the upcoming automation wave coming, UBI is way better than the status quo. What is better than UBI?

What makes you think IQ or productivity will have anything to do with it?

Predictions of a post-scarcity economy are overblown. From the perspective of the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, we in the US are already in a post-scarcity economy. A "comfortable" living, though, is eminently relative. Many of the poor in the US live more comfortable lives than many in less developed countries. It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US.

>From the perspective of the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, we in the US are already in a post-scarcity economy.

Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities .

As William Gibson put it, "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed"

>Many of the poor in the US live more comfortable lives than many in less developed countries.

I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this.

>It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US.

Clarity here depends on your perspective. From the perspective of humanity as a whole you are absolutely correct. From the perspective of citizens within a country the government's (ostensible) purpose for existing is to provide for their quality of life either directly by use of collected taxes or indirectly by facilitating socioeconomic activity.

>Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities

I'm unaware of any significant number of US residents suffering from malnutrition due to lack of access to healthy food or exposure due to insufficient clothing or shelter. That is not to say there are none, but most are due to factors other than the lack of access to basic necessities.

>I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this.

What I am saying is that I question the assertion that everyone deserves a particular quality of life even if it must be attained at the expense of another.

Even if I were to accept that, the complications of such a position are legion. What constitutes the appropriate quality of life? What happens in an economic downturn when that minimum quality of life is no longer sustainable? Etc.

Its not fair to say, living in America is an accidental privilege. That doesn't credit America with any responsibility for its own prosperity. Its the culture, and the resources of course, that make America the engine of commerce that it is.

I'm having some trouble parsing your intended message. Is this an agreement or disagreement?

Agreement I guess. I was thinking of the parent comment including "It's unclear why they are entitled to a particular standard of living that is rather generous by global standards just by virtue of their living in the US. "

We are already sharing the value created by some people to other people with no more justification other than the other people being human too, and living in the same society as the first.

We say that noone should starve, and we redistribute wealth to food stamps.

We say that noone should die of preventable disease or injury, so we redistribute wealth to medicare and medicaid an emergency care.

We say that everyone should have an education, so we redistribute wealth to provide free public schools.

I'm not saying this country is doing a very good job of the above, and I'm not saying there's no opposition even to these measures, but we commonly accept this redistribution of wealth with no regard given to the value-adding abilities of the people receiving it.

So UBI is not some brand new thing we have to justify, it's more of the same, and the justification is the same.

Between TANF/SNAP and Medicaid expansion -- for the states that have gone the route of removing the asset tests and increasing the income thresholds, we're getting close to effectively already having UBI. A "true" UBI isn't phased-out directly, but rather is merely eclipsed by marginal taxes, but the end-result is pretty similar. It's not money in your pocket to spend on whatever you want, but it's a substantial safety net.

I guess the real mental switch is instead of allocating these subsidies to specific buckets like "food", "health care", "housing", and having massive programs to administer and oversee the spending, can government actually get its head around the concept of just writing a check to be spent however? Maybe the problem is... who are the special interests greasing the wheels in congress to get the subsidy passed, when no industry in particular is benefiting from the subsidy?

Aren't we writing a check to be spent however already for senior citizens?

There are actually different justifications for your examples above. For example, we don't let people starve because we consider any person, by mere virtue of their existence, as worthy of food. The same is not true for education. We consider the societal effects of an educated populace and workforce as valuable enough to justify the money we spend on it. UBI is not at all more of the same and it absolutely requires justification for its immense cost.

Do you thinking under pinning this is a belief that you would eventually be very good at making music and be recognized for it? This may not be the case, but, if it is, is there a point of discouragement that would lead you to stop pursuing hobbies or other passions?