Unemployment dropped as well, from 60% to 45%, and there was a 29% increase in average earned income, excluding the basic income grant.

Also from the wiki link posted by OP:

As published in a recent report, "All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effec. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP."

There could be statistics that support the argument that you are making as well but I don't think that:

> "I'd have to imagine..."

without any references to support your statement contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

If one had basic income why would they need to work? The incentives favour against the need to work. That income could be saved up and used in countries where the PPP value is much higher. Or just live and not work (which would decrease tax revenues forth).

If people started to work less the basic income scheme would not have a source from tax and it spirals down GDP.

I keep bringing this up, but no one here likes to give a decent explanation as to why this will not be the case.

Why do you want people to work? Is there a stack of widgets going unmade that desperately needs to be made? Are we fighting a two-ocean war and I missed it?

Right now half of the country is trying to work and there aren't enough jobs for them. It's 2015. What the hell was the point of the past century of technological improvement if we all still have to have jobs our whole adult lives?

This is a complex idea, not without a large amount of challenges.

However as a citizen and programmer, I would rather see more things being automated, and instead of more unemployment, people could either not work, or find work they are more passionate about.

Just imagine if everyone that decided they want to not sit around all day, actually was working on something they were passionate about.

I just completely don't buy the "people wouldn't work" thing. Yes, you'd probably have to pay some menial work more to motivate people to do it (or, even better, spur technological development to automate that), but that's a feature, not a bug.

With that said, specifically replying to your comment: I would work, because the income levels i've seen in this thread ($1k/m) would barely be enough to live on.

Hell, my existing debt alone (car), and current housing cost, keep me working. The idea of having to sell nearly everything to survive on the base income is not something i enjoy.

Furthermore, even if i did end up at the base income after selling most of my more expensive cost-laden possessions, most people enjoy having money to purchase technology, entertainment, etc.

With that said, i still love the idea of a base income. Knowing that if you fell out of work, ill, or whatever - you could still live? That you wouldn't go homeless? That really feels like a .. positive, proud of my country sort of thing.

Again, i'm not claiming that any of this would work, or that i know anything. I'm simply replying to your question, from a personal standpoint. :)

$1000 a month is lots of money to live off elsewhere. It's easy to save by living a bit shabbily for a while. Not everyone will see it that way they should work more. I'm content with very little.

I don't want to be homeless or stuck when I'm sick. But I also don't want to be living in poverty in 20-30 years time which is potentially a big problem with BI due to the vicious cycle it would create with decreasing tax revenues.

Because people want more than $12k/year can buy? Many people here do contract work, how many of them stop once they've earned $12k/year?

Did you read the article? There is a section on this. You may disagree with the analysis, but we should really start from what's actually being argued.

I see how it can help someone this year and next year but I clearly see this vicious cycle it can create over a decade where things get much worse and probably actual poverty instead.

Also, because you'll say people will work on better jobs and make more production how do you know they'll do this: If they have the income they need why would someone work and say not save it and spend it in a 3rd world country where everything is cheaper? Its so likely it creates a cycle of poverty.

If you agree or find reasonable that the incentive to "not work" of BI affects the lowest paying jobs the most, lets go around a few cases.

1) Automatable-minimum wage jobs: today they are not replaced by machinery because its either expensive or through social concern (i.e. Walmart doesnt fire all the cashiers and replace them with automatic ones because of many political, social and some economic measures). In the world today such automation is not pursued because of its consequences and the marginal profit. If these people stop working, we would quikcly start finding automatic solutions. Bartending, cashiers, some construction, product assembly etc. I would expect these jobs to dissapear from human hands.

2) Non-automatable jobs: if the minimum wage people drop jobs that are too hard to automate or require a human touch (retail sales, nannies/child care, cleaning?, Garbage management, etc.) lots of people would drop out, which would reduce supply. So income would increase a lot for those that still do those jobs.

TLDR; decreased supply would increase wages and let this work still happen but it would be more expensive for businesses, and it would push automation.

This is far from the claim that BI will have no chance of decreasing GDP

It's all well and good to make lives better, what about the long run? This would solve it for a year or two what then?

Obviously we need more experiments, but the data we have shows that unemployment tends to go down not up.

>Take away all those 'entry level jobs' and this will decrease GDP no?

Most of the entry level jobs your talking about are being automated away regardless of whether we have a basic income. But lets remove automation from the equation and assume no increased automation over the next few decades.

You're ignoring the second order effects of a basic income. People who make less than $12,000 a year will definitely make more money, and people who make less than $50,000 or so (whatever the break even point is) who keep working the same amount will also make more money. People in lower income brackets tend to spend their money directly on consumption--this will directly increase GDP.

The data shows that the increase in GDP due to increased spending among the lower income people who make more money each month will likely offset any decreased spending from people who are making less money each month as a result of a basic income plan (either as a result of working less, or paying higher taxes).

If only 10% stop doing minimum wages and go to school, and pursue a typical corporate carrier, and make 10 times minimum wage, the offset of the 90% not working minimum jobs anymore would be completely offset.

Not to mention that people needing to get a job within 2 or 3 days pick terrible jobs with no future, so those that dont go to school will still be able to pick jobs better.

One talked about in the article is that workers who choose to work, tend to work harder/more productively than workers who are forced.

The whole point is almost moot though because the data in basic income experiments show that employment rates tend to go up not down.