> seems to me to be self-evidentally economically impossible for universal BI to [be enough to live comfortably on with no drain on savings] unless we've reache

> seems to me to be self-evidentally economically impossible for universal BI to [be enough to live comfortably on with no drain on savings] unless we've reached that point of labor-irrelevance Why is it economically impossible? It seems quite possible to me. For example, suppose that 20% of the population _must_ be engineers for society to survive. But the other 80% of the population is irrelevant to production. The 80% could be given a BI of $40k, while the 20% could be given a salary of $200k (or $2M if you like). (The 20% and 80% figures could just as easily be reversed, if you consider 20% to be "labor-irrelevance" -- although it is not irrelevant if it is necessary to the survival of society to ensure it's done.) Why is that economically impossible?