I agree with both of you, though one is for and other against UBI.
I suggest a compromise. A linear increase in ubi from 0 to sustainable. I think going straight to sustainable is a little too drastic all of a sudden. It's like if we invented teleportation. That would destroy trucking faster than AI. But it would be chaos too.
Call the networks. :)
> A linear increase in ubi from 0 to sustainable.
I agree that going straight to UBI would be impractical, both politically and economically. My preferred approach would be a step function: we eliminate one entitlement program at a time, and replace it with a corresponding amount of UBI.
That seems like a highly debatable statement.
However, it can be reasoned about. I have two arguments:
1. It is hard to start a company while working for someone else, particularly if you're working in a low-wage job. There is definitely evidence for this phenomenon, as unemployment leads to more entrepreneurship. [0]
2. It is hard to start a company while starving. Starting a company requires a longer time horizon than finding a job. Hence, if there isn't a adequate social support in place, I think a lot of people will prioritize finding a job over starting a company. This is born out in some empirical studies. [1]
[0] https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs394tot.pdf
[1] http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/resources/2016/...
We might even be in a better place than we are today. There would be even more entrepreneurship and labor would have more bargaining power when entering new industries.
Nothing about UBI prevents there from being new opportunities created. If anything, it provides for more potential for those opportunities by encouraging people to leave shitty low-productivity jobs to start their own thing or to search for a higher productivity job.