[creshal]

Because it seems to imply a post-work, not a post-full-employment society.

We're still going to have a lot of jobs in the mid-term, probably even long-term. 70%, 60% of the working populace in the mid-term maybe, and not too few of those in menial/blue collar jobs. We still need to fill these jobs, and a generous basic income would make these jobs highly unpopular. So we can either set a basic income that is not high enough to solve the problem it was trying to solve, or we create a situation like in Saudi Arabia – where all the undesirable jobs are taken by foreign jobbers (from nations without basic income, or war zones, or…), while the natives grow fat and lazy.

Not exactly an economic policy I'd have expected from the Left.

[Turing_Machine]

"We still need to fill these jobs, and a generous basic income would make these jobs highly unpopular. So we can either set a basic income that is not high enough to solve the problem it was trying to solve, or we create a situation like in Saudi Arabia – where all the undesirable jobs are taken by foreign jobbers "

Or we could just let the wage for those undesirable jobs rise to a level that someone will take them, even though they're getting the basic income.

Why shouldn't someone get paid a lot of money for (e.g.) trimming my toenails? Someone else would have to pay me a lot of money to do that.

[aninhumer]

Basic income doesn't have to be set at post-work levels to provide benefits to an employment-starved population. Even a small amount will reduce the number of hours that people are willing to work.