[UncleEntity]

I wonder about this point.

Let’s say there’s a UBI, there’s still a ton of jobs that won’t be taken over by the robots for at least the rest of my life that will still need to be done. If we learned anything from the Covid unemployment benefits it is given a chance people will sit at home instead of working for essentially the same amount of money.

What they don’t ever explain is how they plan on incentivizing people to do all the crap jobs. Everyone always talks about the writers and programmers needing to get compensation for their lost jobs but for every one of those there’s probably a dozen people who would get a raise from a UBI and just stop working.

Unless there’s an underclass that is prevented from collecting the same UBI as the displaced white collar workers I can guarantee you there will be nobody taking that job to suck out your septic system.

And I’m intentionally ignoring any economic impacts of a UBI because I’m more interested in how people propose to solve this without creating a virtual caste system.

[htfu]

Why do you assume it would be anything more than what's in the name - basic? Enough to get by, nothing more.

Or is it that you think shitmen make minimum wage or something? Anyways, the answer is simply that _UBI IS NOT MEANS TESTED_ so working won't take any of it away, just give you more money. Even if UBI was on par with your salary we'd be talking doubling your income. If that's somehow not enough the market will have to value those jobs higher until there is equilibrium.

[UncleEntity]

> Why do you assume it would be anything more than what's in the name - basic?

Because people claim it’s the only solution to AI taking the skilled jobs. Tax the owners of the AIs and distribute this to the people who no longer have jobs because of the automation.

TFA specifically implied this or why else would they have gone on a rant about how the government doesn’t do enough to provide for the people?