This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody to feel like someone else is cheating the system. I hear a bunch of people (even old people who are on medicare and social security!) who will talk trash about "welfare queens".

It is not like we can't afford it. There will be short term pain, of course but I think we will have greater solidarity. This is good for the 0.01% as well because if you are doing really well, you want to keep the ship steady. (Well to be cynical, you could try to keep everyone else fighting amongst themselves but any arsonist will tell you that a fire once started won't spare the people who started it.)

There are two states in nature. You either grow or you shrink. You remove the incentive to grow and guess what happens next.

Or if you want to really start thinking hard, maybe you should ask yourself what happens when everybody has X in money and businesses raise their prices accordingly?

When kids are raised without the persistent threat of not surviving? They'll stand a better chance of flourishing and reaching their full potential, like many of us here on HN who have an affluent background.

Having to contribute to society by keeping a job, and using the income of said job to finance your cost of living is far from being a life-risking enterprise.

You're trying to avoid the point by inventing absurd emotional examples.

That's your assumption, and a baseless one at that.

Back in reality, we're experiencing unprecedented economic development which includes the inception of a whole new economic sector.

You're essentially complaining that buggy whip artisans have less job opportunities in a world that's creating whole new jobs such as forum moderators, social media experts, and data scientists.

Today's economy even creates jobs playing video games, surfing, and talking about gourmet food.

The world's most developed economies are enjoying structural unemployment rates.

And you're here talking about "less job opportunities over time".

You need to separate facts from fiction, including your own baseless beliefs.

I wanted to congratulate you on your enduring politeness and civility while enduring exactly the opposite. I thank you for your tone and your contribution. While I may not agree with you, I applaud the manner in which you communicate.

It's people like you that really make HN a different place.

What happens when kids know they don't have to steal or rob to survive?

What happens when kids know living for the good cause will never starve them to death?

What happens when kids know they can pursue their best interest without worrying about being starved?

Can you point out exactly how many people starved to death in any western country? Because I vividly remember that there isn't any universal basic income program in effect, and somehow people manage to feed themselves just fine.

You can't expect to be taken seriously if all you can come up with are absurd emotional works of fiction.

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hu...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/12/teens-americ...

There is also homeostasis. Perpetual growth is cancer.

Have you looked at the US Economy lately?

(Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier...

(April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con...

(June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/the-next-recession-is-already...

I'm all for a basic income for lower income families, but I'm not sure how routinely volatile our economy is, we really afford this long term. What happens when you put something like this in place, and then can't afford it? There's a long list of government programs already awash in waste and mismanagement. I'm not sure another program (which would have to take the place of other programs - WIC, TEFAP, HUD, etc) is really going to solve the problem.

If it's just moving some bits into everyone's account monthly, entire layers of bureacracy, with their buildings, staff, forms, and fraud checking departments, can be removed. It should make it remarkably cheap to run, comparatively.

Make it lower income only and you have to bring all that back.

You're assuming that it would be possible to simply eliminate government and state services and institutions, both politically and practically.

Instead, everyone working within an organization works to serve their own personal interests. This means that it's practically impossible for an elected official to eliminate all this state cruft, as every single person within the organization would fight tooth and nail to sabotage the project.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/government-p...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-an-era-of-bu...

Universal basic income is a reform that satisfies both the left and right. My conservative brethren are totally on board. Not perfect, but good enough, and better than what we have now.

Economists will undoubtedly turn up their noses when not so well learned people like me start explaining our position because it is clearly too stupid for them. If we have $100 available and three people: one who doesn't need any money, one who needs $20, and one who needs $50 to survive, clearly it is best to give nothing to the first person, #20 to the second person, and $50 to the third person. Look, we were economically efficient and now $30 can go towards maintaining the system! What I propose is that the $100 should be divided more like $33 each with just $1 going towards maintaining the project itself.

This came up before when talking about college education and whether the government should subsidize college education for the wealthy. My answer is yes! Of course, the government should pay for college for everyone, even if that person is Bill Gates' son. Similarly, should the government pay for Bill Gates' health care expenses under a single payer universal health care system? I say again Yes! We should not discriminate against the wealthy. Sure, it might result is less care for the poor but at the end of the day, I think it is better for everyone.

I only read through about half of the article, but I didn't really see any real reasons why basic income would be bad. Most of the arguments boiled down to "That's not how we do things now". I ended up coming away from this article with more faith in the potential for basic income than I did going into it as none of these arguments were very compelling.

As a regular reader of mondaynote.com (and so therefore an expert), I have the impression that France has many other obstacles to entrepreneurship. Like their labor laws.

It seems to me that universal basic income, alongside universal health care and other reforms, would greatly reduce the need for stultifying labor laws. More simply, employers could hire and fire as needed.

This is a major disincentive of work.

However, the work that will not be done by those people who can do it but don't want to will still need to be done. The solution will then be to hire people at higher wages.

But since these higher wages are not a result of increased productivity, the employers won't be able to sell more. The result is that prices will go up, generating price inflation. And we know inflation is the worst of all taxes, as it affects the poorest the most.

In the long run, the money received via BI won't be able to sustain the "comfortable living" that it was supposed to.

Sure, above a certain level people's taxes would go up, so they pay back some of their basic income as tax. But that wouldn't kick in until people are earning rather more than $1200 a month.

This also has the inflationary consequences that I mentioned in another comment: you're effectively increasing wages without increasing productivity. This will cause prices to rise because employers will face higher taxes so that the state can support basic income, and demand will rise because people will have more money.

This will cause inflation, and in the long run purchase power will not increase, while society will be worse off with less people doing productive work.

Sure, some people won't work. But most of those would be people who either would have a hard time finding work, or who have some specific other thing they'd rather be doing.

You are also confusing money with wealth. Basic income may give people more of the first, but its inflationary nature does nothing for the second.

Child care? Elder care? Volunteering?

Consider this scenario: you're taking care of you elders and you need to go out and buy some medicine. But the drugstores have all closed, since nobody wants to work there anymore (why would they? They're at home taking care of their elders too). Do you think this is not a realistic scenario in the long run? Why not?

Then, in the following decades, many people, notably on the right, started to hate it and, as a result, new, conservative rules made it more difficult to claim the benefit.

(Just like, for instance, Republican legislatures all around the US make it more complicated to vote, not because it's a necessary procedural evil, but because it's in the political interest of the Republican party.)

I think that the same fate awaits UBI if it were to be enacted (which I doubt, but that's another story).

> So you could argue that the “RMI/RSA” is basic income, except maybe for the paperware frictions that it inflicts on those who are eligible and that could be removed thanks to technology. Accordingly, those in favor of basic income should pay attention to the “RMI/RSA” and draw appropriate lessons: it’s not simple (at all); it has adverse economic effects; and it is widely denounced, notably on the right, as “assistance” (assistanat) that deprives those who claim the benefit from any incentive to look for a job, thus making them live off the middle class taxpayers. If you know politics, you can guess where this is going. Unfortunately, politics is not Silicon Valley’s strong suit.

As an example: see how quickly the Democrats lost control of both the houses once Obamacare was passed. And see how the Republicans are continuously trying to kill Obamacare.