Basic income could work as a segregated portion of the economy for basic essentials. Food, shelter, transportation, and hygienic items.
Some combination of a tax on luxury goods and services, low income housing, and regulation on food production might be one way to offset the resources required to sustain the basic income output.
The scenario of thousands of citizens living purely on basic income in free housing projects should also be considered. What is the minimum level of contribution we require from citizens in return for the minimum level of support that the State provides? In some countries, it's required to do a year or so of public service though the equivalent of peace corps. It seems fair to ask for a minimum level of work contributing back to society in exchange for society providing a minimum level of life support.
> It seems fair to ask for a minimum level of work contributing back to society
I think BI proponents argue that specifying what counts as a contribution leads to economic inefficiencies, in the broadest sense. Does taking care of your own children count as a contribution? Or sitting in the pub and making other visitors happy by your presence? What about writing software and putting it on Github? And for the latter, should you get a minimum number of stars to make it count? How long should the list of "useful activities" be, that the Department of Civil Contributions would maintain? And how much money would we spend on civil servants who determine whether your edge case qualifies?
The result would be that people end up doing artificially much of what counts as "contributing", and too little of some things that aren't specified as "contributing", but that society actually still benefits from.
Would some people just sit on the couch all day, and really contribute nothing, by any standard? Yes, probably. So the premise here is that the number of true freeloaders is small enough, that it would be inefficient to worry about them. I personally don't know any true freeloaders, which leads me to think that that's probably a fair assumption.
I imagine to appease anyone with doubt to the benefits of basic income some sort of "basic work credits" type system would need to be in place for anyone without a normal job to contribute something noteworthy back to society.
The matter of what is acceptable as "basic work" may already be in place as court ordered community services, peace corps, or local public works projects. Maybe even a new variation of non-profit organization [1] that has specific structural rules for "basic work" credits?
It's a noble attempt at compromise, but at that point, you're not talking about UBI anymore. The entire point of UBI is a rejection of the notion that a person must contribute before they have permission to live. It's a statement that the right to life is inherent to every individual, details on the morality of suicide or abortion aside, and that if we can't simply provide those necessities, then we can at least provide the means to get them through guaranteed income.
Basic Income is, by itself, already a compromise. To compromise again is to no longer be a separate concept.
At the point you're talking about, it's not actually different from the situation as it stands now: what you're really saying is that the minimum wage needs to be sufficient for living expenses. Nothing more.
This expectation largely derives from II Thessalonians 3:10--"The one who is unwilling to work, let him not eat"--and it comes from an era of civilization where the majority of the populace was employed as agricultural laborers, by necessity.
Now we have robotic tractors that can operate with a tiny amount of human supervision. The Industrial Revolution made it possible for children and elders to not work. We do not begrudge them their allowance, because their labor was no longer needed. Female integration into the workforce further lessened the need for the marginal laborers.
Computerized automation has further lessened the demand for unskilled labor to such an extent that the equilibrium market rate is likely below subsistence level. Minimum wage laws transform that into unemployment. People want to work, but cannot find enough to pay for their consumption.
You are demanding that people work, but you are not explicitly making the inchoate demand that someone be forced to buy their labor. It is not needed. We have enough bullshit jobs already. It may be time to end the charade and find more reasons for people to choose to exit the labor pool. Lower the retirement age. Guarantee living expenses for both graduate and undergraduate students. Extend maternity/paternity leave out to a whole year. Simplify disability payments such that everyone who cannot lift a 15kg mass from the floor and move it 20m is exempted from work that may require it.
I would very much prefer that the people doing work be both competent and motivated to do the work, rather than grudgingly present as the means to pay their bills.
The minimum I expect is zero. I don't want anyone to create more bullshit jobs that occupy people with busy work. Let them pursue their vocations instead.
Fair enough, but I have seen the effects of people and kids in living conditions where all basic necessities are provided and they're quiet often completely unmotivated and stagnate.
It might be great to let the robots do everything though.
Were there conditions attached to the provision of those necessities? Would they be reduced or revoked if the recipients earned any income on their own initiative?
Would your observations be explained by removal of the implicit requirement that one must do work of a particular type to survive, or could they also be explained by conditioned helplessness, where people receive negative stimuli in response to attempts to change their own lifestyle?
The welfare system in many US states is not a great model for predicting human behavior in an environment where the basic needs are not particularly scarce. In any case, an unmotivated, stagnating person is preferable to someone who becomes violent and destructive. I'll take 1000 couches filled with 1000 semi-professional marijuanologists over one angry arsonist any day of the week, and twice on Fridays.
What I meant by unmotivated people with all basic necessities met being unmotivated - I was speaking of middle class suburbanites I know, who's goals and accomplishments hardly exceed watching full seasons of television shows. A civilization of couch potatoes just reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPGlVqqEP0
As for any reform that would help treat, rehabilitate, and employ [1] former convects (or differ to rehabilitation programs instead of the money sink hell hole of the prison system) - that would bring a welcome and significant impact to all the millions of dollars, lives, time and resources wasted on for profit prisons and the vicious cycle of convicts with no where to turn.
Some combination of a tax on luxury goods and services, low income housing, and regulation on food production might be one way to offset the resources required to sustain the basic income output.
The scenario of thousands of citizens living purely on basic income in free housing projects should also be considered. What is the minimum level of contribution we require from citizens in return for the minimum level of support that the State provides? In some countries, it's required to do a year or so of public service though the equivalent of peace corps. It seems fair to ask for a minimum level of work contributing back to society in exchange for society providing a minimum level of life support.