> I do believe we all agree that it will be, yes. There are claims that you can "reduce administrative overhead" to pay for it, but they are many orders of magn

> I do believe we all agree that it will be, yes. There are claims that you can "reduce administrative overhead" to pay for it, but they are many orders of magnitudes off. I'm not talking about "administrative overhead", although that's certainly part of it. I'm talking about things like reducing the costs to society of having significant parts suffering malnutrition. Reducing policing costs because people aren't forced into crime simply to survive. Those sorts of costs. > I'm sure that most people will agree to do it if A is incapable of contributing, but not if A just is unwilling to contribute. Who gets to define what "contributing" means? Or what "unwilling" means? Why are you sure about what "most people" think? "Most people" - 51% in a recent survey - are in favour of UBI, outnumbering those opposed 2:1. In my experience, once you strip away propaganda, most people aren't that paternalistic, moralistic, and judgemental, especially when it comes to a benefit they themselves would also get. > The issue with "just moving money around" is that it's really no different than doing it virtually... When already-rich people automate moving money around, it's called "providing liquidity" and "price discovery". The same ideas apply on the individual level, plus the baker gets to participate and build value in a long-term relationship with an individual. There's clearly economic value here over and above the base exchange of money. > No more garbage collection, no more grocery store clerks, no more sewer inspections, no more farming! No more exploitation of poverty to get these things to happen, possibly. Yes, there will be economic effects: the wages for some jobs will need to go up, the wages for other jobs can go down. The point is that the directions of these things will be in a favourable direction. > Their motivation to do $whatever drops by $X, so you don't have to add $10, you'd have to add $X. Motivation is not linear. > Please define that very basic level of existence. Ok, here's a concrete proposal: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/12/andrew-yangs-universal-basic-income-proposal-expla/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/12/andrew-yangs-... $1000 a month. $250 a week. Here's another: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/19/hull-universal-basic-income-trial https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/19/hull-univers... £50-£100 a week. > I have a feeling that it's not "a bed, 3000 calories, a chair and a change of cloths", but rather "an average sized apartment..." Where does that feeling come from?