You hear about this idea on the left today, but it was Milton Friedman who first proposed the "negative income tax" which was basically giving $ to everyone unconditionally. As you say, the thinking is usually a reduction in waste by streamlining it all, and avoiding welfare traps. 

I know Ontario (I believe?) is going to pass a moderate version of it, giving out $ the idea being if rent and etc is covered, all your income from work can go to other things, and you may even be freer with how you use it. 

Funny you made this thread, just a few days was listening to an NPR podcast where they discussed the idea, and how a town in Canada actually tried it long ago, but the program was scrapped and all the data was tucked away, totally unorganized and forgotten about for decades, and with laws saying they can't contact participants....the researcher found it impossible to really analyze 

My take on it? 

Hmmmmmm there's a lot of different ways to look at this. 

1: Morally: Personally, I'm a pro work liberal. I have always believed in government job programs. This way people who are left behind by the labor market can be have a solid living, but be put to work for society. Infrastructure, environmental, child/elderly care all sorts of things that are very beneficial to the country. I personally prefer it over a lump sum of money. There's no right or wrong to this, just what you feel. I'd rather people be put to work in a beneficial fashion. Not only is it good for the country, but it will make people feed good, we generally want to feel useful and that we are earning our living. 

I can support a small, supplemental amount I suppose. However, I would not be personally supportive of an amount high enough one could live on. 

2: Economically: It really depends on the amount. If small, it shouldn't cause any perverse incentive, (aka people not looking for work).

I am not sure if inflation is a fear, because depending on the amount...it may not be any more than we spend already on welfare. I suppose there could be issues with things like rent, if a lump sum was giving out everyone could then flock to housing and cause issues. If the program is specifically targeted perhaps this could be avoided. Like, "Hey Bob, you need $X per month for rent, so you Bob will get that. Alice needs $Y so she will get Y"  but this would of course require oversight, planning and would defeat the purpose of it being a simplifying process. I also wonder if this would cause rent to increase. If $500/month is suddenly given to you, well hey as a landlord why dont I just raise it? You can cover it after all. 

There may need to be some time of price control. 

This is partly what happens with college in the US. Because the price can be covered through gov aid, many colleges simply raise their price. It's also fueled by the fact many people want college, more than seats available, and of course everyone needs housing, so I think this type of specific inflation could be an issue. 

OK sorry, I didn't pre think this post, just kinda started rambling on as I ponder

Basically: It depends on the level. If small and supplemental I don't see much issue, and could support it. 

If larger (even able to live on solely) I am far more unsure. Since you asked personally, I am not toooo into the idea. I'd rather jobs be provided by the government at a good wage. This should accomplish much of the same thing (everyone having money, less need for welfare) but has the advantage in my book that people can be productive for society, and they can earn a solid living (let's say $15/hr) with less fear of inflation and disruption. 

That said, I have no idea. No one really does, makes it pretty fascinating to think about. 

I've been hearing this idea usually coupled with the notion that this is indeed finally the era where machines replace most of our labor. So a basic income becomes more appealing, and sometimes people get into much more fanciful scenarios like replacing our monetary economy entirely. 

Guess we will see! 

For now, I like the idea of a wide scale jobs program at a good wage. At let's say $15/hr that's a bit over the $2500/month amount so could make a basic income not really necessary. True one can absolutely live on that amount, while it's no hip city...Central NJ is pretty darn pricey and I got by on roughly $15/hr. In terms of building savings and living well, it wasn't so great but I was out of the parents place, getting by fine, could enjoy nights out drinking or getting food regularly.  

Don't get me wrong, to get even $500 a month no strings attached would've make things a helluva lot easier! (Long as Scott didn't then realize he could raise our rent without any impact)

But yeah, it's not an outrageous idea, it doesn't seem terribly disruptive and if we are actually seeing the permanent replacement of labor with machines, the idea will make even more sense. For now, I'd only want to see this at a small level, like how some countries do a few hundred a month. 

As for crappy jobs being lost not being a bad thing, you are right about that! It's always been the argument. That's progress. We may have lost jobs due to children not being to work in mines but no one will say that was a bad thing. 

Eh... No, NOT true! Very long story short: I graduated (studied microbiology), couldn't find any work, so I had to ask for a welfare... Lived without money for half a year before I finally got 'approved', and in the meantime I had to search actively EVERY DAY for a job and I had to say YES to every job that came onto my path, if I refused I got cut off 100%. I had to follow stupid required courses (or got cut off again), had to go to every useless appointment etc... I went near to berserk because I got cut off on my welfare for the most stupid reasons, which were mostly their fault... Anyway, it even became a long lawsuit to get my welfare back... Which I lost of course (and my lawyer was a very sweet man and had never seen such a terrible and devastating lawsuit)

So yes, a basic income without any bureaucratic bullsh*t would be nice, because I have no income for years at the moment. I'm homeless, have no health insurance and every day I live in fear that the police will put me into jail (or something like that) because I have a terrible debts of unpaid bills and loans... 

When I got out of the Army in 1971 I could have gone to college for four years and gotten paid  to go. 

But I chose to join a large construction union as a first year apprentice. We worked every day and went to school two nights a week but had no school during the summer just like a regular school year.

As it turned out, my GI Bill benefits still paid me during the four years I went to school.

As a journeyman I had high wages, excellent health care and now collect two pensions (since 2006).

We also had company supplied vehicles with gas credit cards. That alone added quite a bit to my annual income.

There were also advancement opportunities and I eventually went into the office (and to a fifty-two checks a year salary) as an estimator/project manager/draftsman. An air conditioned office sure beat a hot, dirty job site.

I did not once regret not going to college.

I don't really see the benefits of this basic income idea. Encouraging people to do nothing just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Interesting that the article mentions third world peasant bastions and specifically India.  India still has a very large proportion of its population living in villages and predominantly occupied in agriculture.  The govt should do everything it can to empower the farmer and this ironically entails embracing free market policies - just letting the farmer sell his produce to whoever he desires and at a price of his choosing instead of regulating farm produce to subsidise industry and consumers at the expense of the farmer.  Also, to bring urban amenities to the villages so they don't NEED to come to the city.  Instead, economists are hell bent on advocating ways to shift more population to the cities which would not only be wasteful and destructive (of the environment) but borderline ruinous in the coming age of automation.  A farmer living in a village does not need a high level of income to subsist because the farm produce also provides for him and his family's needs.  It's a model ideally suited to a dystopian future where there are few blue or white collar jobs to go around and ways need to be invented to help people spend their time fruitfully in cities.  But no, we want dumb-smart cities that will have politicians and contractors laughing all the way to the bank while exerting a still greater toll on our natural resources and displacing farmers.  Not to mention the small detail of pushing a few more species of flora and fauna to extinction.

Being in the power quality world (installing and troubleshooting UPS units, power conditioners, filters, PQ meters, etc...) for over 30 years here in the US, I believe hacking is much more of a serious threat than an old grid since most everything is processor/programming and network controlled, although I agree with Mickey.  There are some areas where not enough investment has been made, especially by the power companies themselves.  They will squeeze the last drop out of antiquated equipment until it is beyond repair.  Although I think our grid is in better physical shape than much of the international community.

This thread has been interesting to follow and has taken some different directions.  I fall into the middle somewhere as I understand and see each view, but I would not trust the extremists on each end of the spectrum.  Those wanting something for nothing and abusing the system, then those that would exploit it for more.  It would be a monster to implement and then who would you want to run it?

I hope so too. Thank you very much for your reply. 

Holy crap!!!  Reading this thread, I think that I just became a Tea Party Conservative!!! As ideal as getting paid to sit home and watch TV 16 hours a day this is about the most completely ridiculous idea I have ever heard.  "Hey Joe...I've got this really great idea...why don't you become a doctor/lawyer/CPA, work your ass off 60 hours a week, make lots of money so you can afford two homes, three cars, and two golf club memberships....and as your reward pay 70% in income taxes so that the government can pay people to stay home and watch TV 16 hours a day".  Can you say lead balloon?  "What do you mean that there is no one working at the golf club today?  No caddies?  No waitstaff in the restaurant?  No washroom attendant?  Where are these people to pamper my rich ass?"  "Why the hell am I paying them to stay home and watch TV?  They should be here washing my balls!!!!"   etc etc etc.  

People need to make smarter decisions. Should I study for this exam or practice my keg stands?  Should I get a degree in underwater basketweaving so that I can say I have a college degree?  Or should I get a degree in a useful profession?  Am I more mechanically inclined person who would be better off going to technical school to learn a trade?  Should I spend $50k a year at college to go away out of state to get away from my parents so I can party or should I live at home with my parents as long as they will let me, work a job to pay for my college, and save up as much money as I can while doing so, so when I do finish college, I have practical job experience, and maybe enough money to move out on my own?   Trust me....I hate working as much as the next guy, but it will always be a necessary evil. 

On the other hand, I fully support making able-bodied welfare recipients earn their welfare by contributing to society.  egads, even if it means financially supporting "evil" private corporations to pay/train/supervise/co-ordinate these society improving labors and laborers.