> For every entrepreneur or community volunteer that makes a difference, I fear 9 others will set their sights on being gaming streamers or will just sit around writing blogposts.

Providing entertainment and insight has no value to society?

People who provide good entertainment and valuable insight already collect money through subscriptions.

I really appreciate Jack Goldstone’s perspective on this.

Instead of perpetual UBI, he’s in favor of a larger single lump sum paid out after a period of time post-civil service. The idea being instead of the slow morphine drip of $1k a month for life, you can get, say, $25k-$50k in a lump sum after serving a year or two in the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps etc.

The advantage being service builds a stronger sense of community and gives you more skin in the game. Additionally, a larger single lump sum is more conducive to helping start a business as well as being cheaper long term. It parallels the GI Bill in a lot of aspects.

I’m not sure that’s a good plan with such a huge dependency on financial wisdom. Look at Alaska - they have the PFD every year (well, mostly) and people just use it to buy TV’s, quads, and all the rest. You could say it frees up other income to pay bills, but I think generally people indulge themselves with lump sums of cash unless they are really struggling and have some good sense. In Alaska there are people who would favor switching the PFD to a monthly stipend rather than a lump sum to discourage this behavior.

I think the rationale is that between UBI and his plan, his has more upside. I don’t think AK is a good analogy because, as you state, it’s a nearly annual re-supply of cash

1) not everybody will use it because they won’t want to do the civil service part

2) those who do won’t have perpetual payments. Once you use it (unlike Alaska) it’s gone. If you squander it, at least there is an upper limit to your benefit as opposed to a plan that acts as an open-ended annuity. I actually think this may help foster better decisions because for many, this is their one chance at such a windfall. Of course there will be some who squander it regardless

3) As opposed to UBI, the rest of society will get some benefit in the form of service.

To elaborate on the financial wisdom aspect, he advocated for putting the money in a trust fund payable at around 25 years old. Similar to the GI Bill, you could also have strings attached as to what it could be used for (the GI Bill, for example, can be used to open a business, go to university, go to a vocational school, but not just a check for “free” money)

Another scarecrow. You are not 'paying someone' at all. It's not your money. The basic income is paid to all, similar to roads and police and fire.

The additional goods and services it buys, come from advances in automation, which are consuming jobs at a geometric rate. Nobody is enslaved to make these things for us (already true for most things).

This attitude is simply the old Protestant Work Ethic writ large - folks that cannot stand to think anybody might not have to slave away at a job.

To draw it clear: is it actually necessary to have an underpaid below-poverty class of workers to make our society function? It cannot exist without them? Was Marx right all along? Is that what is being argued?