You end up with the problems due to the framing.

If you frame it as a gift from your betters (which is how it is currently framed), yes, you have problems.

If you frame it as something you're owed as a human right, there are many fewer problems.

The framing does in fact matter. All the problems you mention are not inherent in the situation. They can be addressed.

I haven't been clear, and for that I apologize.

We're discussing people who are inevitably going to view a basic income as charity. You can tell them it's their human right. You can tell them it's what society owes everyone. You can tell them they deserve it for existing.

I honestly believe that how you frame it isn't going to matter. Not with the populations and identities we have today. They're going to see those Other People over there paying them to shut up, sit down, and be useless.

If you want to discuss how people who identify differently would react differently, that's cool and fun. I don't believe we're in a scenario where that's a relevant discussion, though.

I tend to agree with you: without MEANINGFUL employment (and I don't mean some feel good no value job), people's self worth on these areas would tank, and dive into coping and depression.

>They're going to see those Other People over there paying them to shut up, sit down, and be useless.

Right. And what I'm getting at is removing those Other People from the equation. I see that as a completely essential part of the process, and one not many people have come around to yet.

We can't have overlords of any sort for this to work out well. Not a government handing out checks. Not a few companies in Silicon Valley handing out checks. Ownership (if the concept even survives) of the sources of production and wealth generation must be shared equally by all.

For it to work out well, at least.

We can easily not go down that radical path, of course. Continue with small modifications to the systems we have. No doubt that's what we'll try at first. But as you're pointing out, that's not going to be a satisfactory solution. I agree with you on that point.

So I think it's worth looking at what the ideal would look like and then try to find the least painful path in that direction.

UBI as currently envisioned is a half-measure. A stopgap at best.

You know, it occurs to me that this radical idea you describe has a name. It seems like maybe people have tried to get their previously with revolutions.

While it resembles some concepts of the past, it doesn't resemble any actual implementations of those concepts, so I intentionally avoid attaching those labels to it. They do not accurately describe what eventually needs to happen.

I will say only this: you may wish to think long and hard on how all previous attempted implementations went in the same undesirable direction. It's perhaps possible that this is somewhat less than entirely coincidental.

Think about what I've actually suggested here and not the comparisons you're leaping to. As I said, I didn't avoid those comparisons by accident. What I'm suggesting is not the same thing.

There are wide swaths of people who (even though they collect it) rail against social security and disability etc...

Their claim is that they "earned it" and "those people" didn't earn it. Ok, well if it's obvious that nobody earned something then you have the same problems.

The majority of american workers aren't going to see a paycheck in the mail and say "Wow, great this means I can spend more time whittling/hiking etc..."