>I was under the belief that only the middle class protested for basic income. It would have been more interesting if the "beta test" was done on educated/ firs

>I was under the belief that only the middle class protested for basic income. It would have been more interesting if the "beta test" was done on educated/ first world persons, so we can finally get progress (or a full stop) on this debate. The middle class protests for UBI because the middle class is the one with enough education and free time to think about these problems, and push for solutions, and that also cares about such things (the rich generally don't). The middle class also is closer to the poor side, and both sees what the welfare state is really like and how much of a mess it is and why UBI would be so much simpler and easier to administer, and the middle class also has to worry more about backsliding into the lower classes and so realizes how good it'd be to have that safety net in place. You're absolutely right, it would be better to "beta test" in industrialized nations, esp. the USA with its very large amount of spending for social services (SNAP, TANF, etc.) and also its large and growing divide between rich and poor and the falling of many poorer people into poverty as their jobs are automated away. Places like Kenya don't really have this issue; they were never highly industrialized. However, doing a "beta test" in the US would be very expensive and it is flatly impossible, politically, at this point in time. The best we can hope for is to try it out in someplace like Finland. So until then, I guess the idea is to try it out in places like Kenya, where it can be done extremely cheaply because the local cost-of-living is so ridiculously low and the standard of living is low too. (Give $10 a week to a Kenyan living in a hut and it'll have a big effect on their lifestyle; give $10 a week to an American, anywhere in the US, and it won't make any difference at all. Maybe they can buy lunch 1 or 2 days with it, and that's about it. It certainly won't pay the rent.) >This is similar to the Toms fiasco where they would donate a pair of shoes to Africa for every pair bought -- it crippled the local fabrics businesses. That's something people are going to have to deal with in a globalized world; local businesses have to compete, to some extent, with businesses across the planet. But this is not similar to what you describe. This is giving cash directly to people, to spend how they will; it doesn't favor or disfavor any local business, it just injects more money into the local economy, mainly at the lowest levels, where it'll be spent quickly. If anything, it should be a boon for local fabrics businesses, as the locals will now have more disposable income to spend on things like that. Of course, they might also spend it on manufactured goods shipped from China, but that's not such a bad thing: it'll raise their standard of living regardless.