You don't think there is any amount of money you could pay people to do those things for you? If so, I think you're mistaken.

This may mean that costs for getting people to do unpleasant things for you will rise. Consider it a correction to the fact that median real wages have been falling for years, if you'd like. If - even with your new basic income - you are having a hard time finding someone to work for you, you'll just have to offer more money. This is preferable to forcing people to work for you out of fear of them dying for want of food or healthcare, in my book.

I think you also have a narrow-minded conception of what people can view as fun. I would very much enjoy being a chef, but it doesn't pay as well as my current gig and that's a larger motivator for me in part because of the lack of social net.

Robots and automation will continue to do more and more of the total labor that humans need; this provides a constant check against labor prices rising too much. It seems like we would steer our robotics and AI R&D towards replacing jobs that humans really don't want to do [at the amount you're able to pay them]. What's wrong with that?

I would be a lot more inclined to find value and even enjoyment in being a waiter or cook if my desire (quite plausible to imagine) was to own and operate a restaurant. Likewise, I wouldn't mind so much doing janitorial work or running the cash register in my own shop.

Maybe what would disappear is the huge retail / food service chains, in favor of passionately-run local businesses?

What people seem to be missing in this thread is the fact that the concept of the basic income is that it's _basic_.

Construction already (surprisingly) pays pretty well, so does plumbing, etc etc. More tedious jobs will either be automated (which is far more efficient) or if they absolutely require a human brain, there will be a rise in the cost of that labor until the work is worth the money for enough people.

Money is fungible enough that it can be converted into "doing things [you] enjoy". With a well-designed, subsistence level basic income, you won't have enough money to do things you enjoy (unless your hobbies start and end at eating, having shelter, and sleeping). If you work construction, or plumbing, or any "boring job", you'll make substantially more money than the "basic income", and can spend that money on things you enjoy.

You're right about your point in the short term. My comment was considering the extreme (though inevitable future) where the majority of labor is obsoleted by automation. Usually discussions about basic income have a component about the increasing obsolescence of unskilled and even skilled labor and the necessary changes to society to accommodate such a future.

We went from putting every ounce of labor into hunting/gathering/building shelter for oneself and one's family to early civilization where the surplus of resources generated by agriculture (i.e. technology) caused a labor surplus that allowed for new kinds of jobs to arise. More recently, the US went from 80% farmers at the time of the Revolution to 2% now. Along the way the definition of "low-level labor" and "skilled labor" changed; you'd be hard-pressed to get a job even at McDonald's or in a factory, if you're completely illiterate in modern America. It's hard to argue that these changes weren't for the better, for _everybody_, including those at the bottom of the new order. The bottom of society today is orders of magnitude better off than the middle of society in 1790, and we owe that pretty much entirely to technological advance. There are of course speed bumps along the way, and a generation of workers that are not skilled enough for the new order will have a hard time, but in a healthy economy, it's the role of the state to smooth that path using the resources that the economy at large gains from the advances in efficiency and wealth.

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that this wave of technology must be different from all the ones in the past (which isn't to say it's impossible) and obsolete jobs completely. Programming literacy may simply become the new literacy; Education may very well have to become a longer stage of life, but given lengthening lifespans, it won't necessarily be a drastically higher proportion of one's life than it has been in the past.

This isn't true. Our usual concept of ownership and hiring might have to change. There are people out there who dream about running a coffee shop. There are people out there who are the restless type who have to be working on "something". Yes, you'd have a hard time finding baristas to work for 5 dollars an hour. You could probably find plenty of people who would join a "co-op" type ownership situation where everyone shared in the less than pleasant responsibilities for a shared sense of ownership of the entire endeavor and a shared cut of the profits. No doubt society would look different than it does now, and there would be a lot of problems to solve. But these problems aren't unsolvable.

When people come over to my house, it's always a big chore to get someone to make the coffee.

Usually 5 or 6 of us gang up and threaten to throw the other one out of his house. Works every time.

> Society can't function with people only doing things they enjoy.

Yes it can. Or rather it will. That's the whole point of this basic-income discussion. The source of the problem stems from the fact automation and software is systematically replacing humans in things they don't enjoy.