I'm working on a publication about it, since I've noticed a lot of confusion on the topic.
Most likely, most people will live for free, as happens with subsidies at present, which would cause productive people to have to carry the weight of people who are not productive, those who have not been productive in the past, and that they will not be in the future either.
Basic income also substantially increases the circulating money supply, which will end up devaluing the currency and increasing inflation.
Also thinks that the few people who work will lose part of their interest if they are rewarded in the same way as people who don't, that is communism 101 and one of its main faults; the motivation.
I think there are two ways of imagining the future, and we have always been able to choose between these two options, stagnate or move forward. If we stagnate we will create welfare states, and subsidies of all kinds, as well as UBI, but this will bring the collapse of civilization as what happened after the Pax Romana. On the other hand we can move forward, if the current jobs are automated then we will create more jobs, we will look for more, the space is a good place for that, we must always continue growing.
consider public domain.
and once again...why do we need jobs?
Because it is the only way to grow, jobs mean production, creation, and also novelty. The most probable thing is that the works completely reform as when the industrial revolution, but they will always need people who think, express themselves, innovate, etc. Art as well as writing are jobs that are not replaced by machines or AI, many mental and expressive works will probably see their peak.
Put the example of Rome because it happened 1,500 years ago, and at that time, in its economic boom, the Roman citizens, who did not envy anyone, had stagnated, believing that they had everything and there was no need for anything else, but then they collapsed, because there is a permanent need in the civilizations and human societies, as well as in the human being itself, to expand and grow, to create something new and better, that is why we dominate the other species and that is why the dominant countries and civilizations always begin with a quest for expansion, those that stagnated; Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, including the British Empire, collapsed, very easily we can fall down this road.
well I disagree with your fundamental premise.
the societies of old died because they got to big.
governments, all of them, are insane...when they get too big they die.
That's what I said. When I speak of expansion I don't speak of the State but of all the indicators, I speak of intelligence, knowledge, territorial expansion, technology, etc. It was exactly when they stopped expanding in these areas, because they were comfortable, and began to expand their State, through forms of subsidies and Welfare State, with the "bread and circuses" in Rome, which began to fall.
Rome gave subsidies to wheat and organized expensive entertainment events to benefit the population, however, this growth of the State brought with it the collapse of civilization, interregional trade was diminished because farmers could not compete with subsidized wheat, and many poor people emigrated to the Roman center to live with these facilities. The Roman economy suffered an atrocious interventionism and the population became accustomed to luxuries, which is why they could not stand with the same barbarians they had subjugated for centuries.
I think something similar can happen with the implementation of a universal basic income.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
If money is abundant, friend, then it devalues and subsequently inflation goes up, basic economy, not improving the chances of a person giving him a wad of bills. Go to Venezuela and give 500,000 bolivares to the people to see if you create opportunities, excuse me, the government went ahead and does the same for months, see inflation and tell me the results.
If you tell me that there are no productive people, because all jobs are automated, then you are talking about a society that is stagnat, because it does not have the capacity to grow and create new areas for these workers. The industrial revolution automated many jobs, but in the long run I create new ones, the digital age is a sample of that.
If money is scarce, then it is not money, because its goal is to serve as a means of exchange for all products. Money is not scarce in any country in the world.
The only way to increase the circulating money supply without devalue money, is also increasing the demand for it, and it would need a very exceptional case for people to start demanding more money if the State, or a Private, is giving it away to everyone.
Well, maybe you're right, maybe I don't know what is happening in the country where I live and born, maybe you can explain better what is happening here.
I think we are deviating a lot from the subject, which is only if a UBI is desirable, and answering the final part of what you say. It is unfortunate that the world-class zoologists, scientists, microbiologists, etc., are only an exception, in fact, a great exception in the world, but the reality is that the main motivator in the world in which we live is money.
Look at Steemit, how many are here for more than money, are really an exception. If on this platform a universal vote were given to people to publish, the Steem would descend so quickly that people would leave the page alone before we could notice it.
The digital era has created many, countless jobs, in fact, you just have to keep an eye on the main companies of today, also monopolizing the first 5 positions (Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook), are precisely those of the technological area that burst at the end of the last century.
Finally, and although it does not go to the issue, it must be made clear, the war is not beneficial or economically profitable in itself, it only generates money because a few rulers take money illegally from there, and only for them it is profitable, however, always it generates losses to the population and to the nations in all aspects, including the economic one, because it destroys everything, absolutely everything. The United States does not generate money or profits when they go to war, rather it generates debts which is counterproductive, the few that take money out of there are some rulers that propitiate these situations.