[mindslight]

I'm not missing this, and in fact it ties right in to my core point. Wages are due to an equilibrium. The supply side of that equilibrium is dependent on how much the workers need the money. Any individual has a rough idea of how long they can comfortably go without income ("runway"). While this is modulated with how in-demand their industry is (especially apparent today in our hollowed-out hand-to-mouth society), the core of their power is how much of a buffer they have saved.

If a person has no runway, they are forced to be constantly worried about losing their current job, whereas if they have a large enough runway they have the ability to quit on the spot and worry about their next job later. This power relation effects every single negotiation, from salary to benefits to day-to-day working conditions.

Thus my assertion is that the real problem is that people have no savings. This gives them no economic power, and thus terrible negotiating power. This is due to an economic policy that prevents savings by the lower classes, especially liquid savings, and turns their life's accounting into one of debt and monthly rents. This further destroys their negotiating power (they don't have $0 to their name, but actually -$10k), and channels any of their surplus upwards to the parasitic banking industry through monetary rent.

> it simply depreciates the idea the the economy is based entirely on wage slavery.

Sure it gets rid of that specific slavery, but it does not get rid of the wage nor the reliance on it. The real mass frustration is due to a lack of opportunity and self-determination, for which signing up for low-paperwork welfare will increase. Reliance on the continued existence of a government program is going to make many people (rightfully) uneasy, because...

> If it has strings, it isn't BI.

This is like saying that we've never achieved true capitalism or true communism. In the real world, individuals have their own incentives. The incentives of politicians and "news" media is to play on people's prejudices to divide them into groups so they can be led, creating power for the leaders.

Even if we were to start off with a perfect BI program on day 0, it is only a matter of time until some group demands preferential treatment for themselves, or protests what they see as preferential treatment for others. The subject of having kids is fertile ground for this - if BI is truly uniform, this means that having a kid gets you immediately double the BI, and if it only starts at 18 that means you now have more to support. Either way (or even with a "ramp" compromise), this is but one of the clear contention points that will be endlessly politicized.

[gnaritas]

People aren't lacking savings because economic policies prevent it, they lack savings because they're poor and don't have excess income to save. They use all of their income simply to survive. So no, lack of savings is not the problem, it's merely a side effect of the problem which is the dwindling value of labor in an ever more automated world. So yes, imho you are missing the point, terribly.

And no this isn't a no true Scottsman thing, the entire point of BI is that everyone gets it to avoid the need to administer the program with qualification red tape. Yes there would be some initial fighting about how to implement BI with regards to kids and what incentives that creates, that doesn't mean it'll be endlessly politicized nor does it make the whole policy fertile ground for politics. Fertile ground for that is what we have now, with endless programs and rules about who qualifies and who doesn't and BI would vastly simplify that system while also addressing the long term social problem of the coming end of wage labor. Nothing you've said addresses the problem at all.

[mindslight]

Your argument technique seems to be to state disagreement with my point, and then just assert that I don't understand your point.

> they lack savings because they're poor and don't have excess income to save

And yet we're witnessing the creation of even more poor people (ie hand-to-mouth), in educated industries which have not been automated away yet. Salaries in those industries are keeping rough pace with the official CPI, so what gives?

> the problem which is the dwindling value of labor in an ever more automated world

Yes, we agree this is one of the fundamental problems here - I'm not "missing the point" as you keep insisting. I'm also saying that another fundamental problem is that fiscal discipline went out the window when USD disconnected from the gold standard, a slow acting moral hazard which is only being felt decades later. With technological and market progress, we would expect prices to be continually dropping (which would mean people would have to work less to survive), so any diagnosis must address this as well.

What you seem to be doing is taking the logical induction that led to the idea of BI for granted. And then refusing to follow the logical induction around other ideas. Of course BI is going to look like the solution if you refuse to consider that there could be other approaches.

> the entire point of BI is that everyone gets it to avoid the need to administer the program

As I said, this is an anti-feature to those who derive power from controlling such programs. This includes voters.

[gnaritas]

Now your critiquing me personally while spewing the same old conservative nonsense, we're done.

[mindslight]

It's a bit frustrating to have entire points responded to with only an assertion to the contrary. You questioned the honesty of my argument ("you really don't know what BI is"), so it seemed reasonable to point out what I perceived as a fundamental problem with our conversation. I can't particularly see what I would have said differently to keep our thread from slowly going off the rails, but I apologize for my part.

I'm done beating this dead horse if you are. But perhaps you'd view my argument in a different way if I said that I don't have a philosophical problem with BI, and that I'd support the idea iff interest rates were back up to say 10% ? The main point I've been trying to get across is that in the current monetary environment, BI seems akin to adding a second garden hose to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

[gnaritas]

It's equally frustrating to watch you continually setup straw-men version of BI to then knock down while accusing me of arguing poorly all the while ignoring what BI is actually attempting to solve, while continually introducing non-sequiturs like the gold standard which further derail any attempt to stay on point. As you said, dead horse, I have no interest in talking with you any further, it's pointless. Someone who thinks poor people are poor because interest rates are too low has no connection to what it means to be poor and no place discussing solutions to problems he clearly has no understanding of.

[mindslight]

IMHO BI has gained such interest, not because it would help the poor, but primarily because everybody that would describe themselves as "middle class" is frustrated at seeing the largest part of their paycheck simply go towards rent.

Perhaps my characterization is the root of why you're seeing me arguing a strawman? But if my assessment isn't correct, then why do mainstream articles present it as such a society-changing idea? Or is this judgment incorrect as well?

The reason I keep beating this dead horse is because your nick is one I see associated with more insightful comments. That we're in such obtuse disagreement here seems odd.

Yes, my critique here "comes from the right" [0]. But please just try to give me a benefit of the doubt that my aim is actually to reduce the wealth extraction by "the capitalist class", and analyze my point on its own merit. My goal is certainly not to perpetuate the status quo.

[0] The way I see it, "left" and "right" are really just two different approaches to characterizing a problem and they generally both give some insight.