The author of the article is advocating exactly that, though. I quoted him saying just that. The move toward a shorter work week seems like a good idea, but th

The author of the article is advocating exactly that, though. I quoted him saying just that. The move toward a shorter work week seems like a good idea, but this would reduce GDP and the tax base, and would necessarily be counterproductive to the author's goal of redistributing more wealth to the poorest. Why would we expect gift economies to increase as total output decreases and gift dollars are more dear? I haven't read 'Bullshit Jobs', but based on a quick Google, he uses the meaninglessness of some jobs as an argument for UBI. His first premise may have merit (it has probably applied since the industrial revolution) but his prescription of UBI as a cure is odd. I would be interested to see a comparison of the mental states of people with "bullshit jobs" vs people who live off the file. And anyway, a Libertarian may make a decent case that taxation is theft, but that doesn't magically make the Libertarian ideal of a voluntary society a realistic proposition. Your reference to Keynes and Galbraith seemed to argue for a general endorsement of a vague notion of progressive tinkering-- what exactly did they endorse in this regard? In any event, there is nothing wrong with tweaking the economy in considered and careful ways. UBI is neither considered nor careful, which is why it does not deserve serious consideration. Big ideas (like actual socialism, communism, and UBI) that require a massive top-down rework of the global economic system are doomed to fail. And that makes them dangerous. Careful, considered action over long periods of time aren't sexy, but they're safe(r), responsible and more easily refersable.