[notzorbo3]

> If UBI = $1 / person, then the difference in pressure is small.

The pressure might be small, but it's still there. The €1 still has to come from somewhere.

> Also, you presume that people only work for money. I think with UBI, you'd see a revitalization of community oriented, but low profit pursuits.

How are low-profit pursuits going to pay for everybody's UBI? You can't heavily tax low-profit pursuits.

[delecti]

The premise of UBI is that not everybody needs to work. It's not that everybody will move towards low-profit pursuits it's that otherwise unemployed people will. The taxes will come from the same places they are expected to: automation increasingly taking over the creation of most of the wealth in society.

We'll see if it works in practice, but that's the theory.

[notzorbo3]

It seems everybody has different goals for UBI. Getting unemployed people to work is not one I've encountered before I think. I fail to see how giving everybody free money is going to get unemployed people to work. For them, nothing changes.

> The taxes will come from the same places they are expected to: automation increasingly taking over the creation of most of the wealth in society.

I think this is the "lets tax automation!" argument? That's another one I haven't seen convincing arguments for. Why do you think companies would stand for such a thing and not oursource their automation to a country that doesn't do UBI?

> that's the theory.

I think there's a lot lacking in the theory, and I'm not hearing any convincing solutions for the problems UBI presents from anyone. It all seems to be built on hopes and dreams and best wishes, with little accounting for actual real-world considerations.

[dragonwriter]

> It seems everybody has different goals for UBI. Getting unemployed people to work is not one I've encountered before I think.

It's one of the most common I've seen cited by both left- and right-leaning UBI proponents.

> I fail to see how giving everybody free money is going to get unemployed people to work. For them, nothing changes.

For the unemployed, two critical things change compared to existing policy in a typical UBI scheme funded primarily by additional taxes on capital income and very high non-citizenship income, with little change in the taxation of income at most lower levels:

(1) Additional income from work is not offset by benefit reductions as in current unemployment/welfare programs.

(2) Minimum wage is eliminated or reduced due to the reliance on UBI to provide all or part of a livable income, increasing potential (re-)entry opportunities to the labor market.

[dllthomas]

Possibly also more demand for their labor, as more people are able to more freely express their needs.

[delecti]

Getting unemployed to work is not a goal, it's a possible desirable but unintended consequence. If nobody (or few people) has to work to live, then people can do things with their time that they find personal value in.

> Why do you think companies would stand for such a thing and not oursource their automation to a country that doesn't do UBI?

The "U" is why. Where would a company outsource their automation if every country in the world taxed their automation?

I'm not a politician or economist, so I can't give you a breakdown of every last detail of how UBI might work. That said, the fact that you haven't seen anyone trying to account for the real-world considerations seems to be more of an echo chamber effect than a sign that those conversations aren't happening.

[dragonwriter]

> How are low-profit pursuits going to pay for everybody's UBI?

They aren't. Any functional Basic Income is going to be funded by taxes that effectively fall on capital, whether directly or via taxes on business income, and be self-limited based on productivity.