I don't know why you're being downvoted. I'm not a good fit for most labels so I've got quite a varied social network, and I've been pushing the idea of UBI out to them to gauge what folks think. It's approximately what you've mentioned here. Average people seem skeptical but open to the idea, interested but certain there's a catch. Republicans look at it like a way to cut welfare funding and Democrats look at it like a way to increase public assistance. I've got friends on both sides looking across at one another, wondering how something could be both things at once. I personally think most Americans would support UBI if it were spelled out clearly what it is and also what it is not.
A bit of anecdotal evidence of the pitfalls of welfare and what it could mean for UBI.
I grew up in an area of questionable safety. There was a woman across the street who spoke to my mother about how she would scam the welfare system to receive multiple payments every month. This was on top of food stamps and child support checks. She was making more than most people with full time jobs in the area while doing absolutely nothing for society with no desire to ever change.
People will take advantage of the system if they can. Spelling out what it is and what it is not would have to mean making people understand that it is only the minimum and somehow encourage them to expand their horizons. That seems like a cultural shift that needs to happen before UBI becomes prevalent.
> People will take advantage of the system if they can. Spelling out what it is and what it is not would have to mean making people understand that it is only the minimum and somehow encourage them to expand their horizons.
People on welfare often already treat it that way, doing under the table cash work while receiving benefits (many don't, either for moral reason (it is fraud, usually, both tax and welfare) or fear reasons (the punishments for such fraud can be catastrophic) or availability reasons (they just haven't found opportunities, which aren't exactly openly advertised). But it's still fairly widespread; UBI would normalize additional work and stop punishing it, and allow it to take place in the formal economy, which all by itself would produce exactly the culture shift you refer to.
Okay, but let's look at it this way: What do you suggest we do when fifty percent of the US workforce is no longer employed because of clever kinds of automation that smart folks like you and I personally weren't able to predict way back in 2018? What do we do? How do we keep babies from starving and all wealth from aggregating in the hands of a dozen people worldwide? Let's not talk about how likely (or unlikely) this eventually is and hedge our bets. Let's play like we're "Societal SREs" and do a little emergency management. Let's talk about what happens if the article's conclusions come to fruition. What do you suggest we do?
Because if we leave people to their own devices, they'll burn the whole fucking thing to the ground. Open literally any history book to see examples.
I was pulling a number out of a hat to make a point. But you should know that nobody has a crystal ball. Before 2008, institutional investors were saying they were prepared for "apocalyptic" losses of 10 to 15% of the housing market. Sometimes reality outpaces expectations. Regardless, you can substitute "a sufficiently large number of people" if it offends your delicate sensibilities.
