And that's the problem. If basic income won't happen until technological advancement causes mass unemployment, and governments ban technological advancement that might lead to mass unemployment, then we will get neither technological advancement nor basic income.

Why can't basic income happen first? Or why can't basic income be phased in smoothly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that basic income is unlikely to happen until there has been an incredible amount of pain and suffering, but does it have to be that way? Not necessarily. If we, as a society, set compensating policies as a condition for technological progress, then the progress might come more slowly, but it will still come. Of course I'm probably being a crazy person thinking that our government might act rationally. :(

It's not just about job loss it's as much about salaries stagnating and thus making people poor. Especially here in the US it's a problem since it in return affect things like ones ability to pay for healthcare.

Absolutely right

>>we should stop the jobs from going away.

We can't stop anything from going away. Technology progress by and large has always been incremental. Large changes haven't occurred since the time of Industrial revolution. And I guess the next one won't occur until we get Artificial general intelligence. Until then affairs of the world will go on as they always have.

AGI would alter the very course of economy in a way the whole concept of a job and a income would be very largely irrelevant. Heck you may not even need a basic income, because you only need to bootstrap a few machines and from there on they are going to do every single thing for you.