But PG didn't write that essay in response to a basic income argument, he wrote specifically about the argument for eliminating income inequality. So yes, he mi

But PG didn't write that essay in response to a basic income argument, he wrote specifically about the argument for eliminating income inequality. So yes, he missed the mark, but only because he wasn't trying to hit it in the first place. > The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today. The jobs of tomorrow are no less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. It's always been anybody's guess what people will be doing for a living in the future. > We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for. This is very idealistic, but probably not realistic. Most people will stay home and consume entertainment. > But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it. Competence isn't always the main requirement for jobs. In fact, for most jobs, it ranks lower than punctuality, politeness, and consistency. If you effectively remove all the people who are not that competent but able to do jobs that don't require that much competence (manufacturing, food services, etc.) you decrease the available labor pool required to provide the goods and services people like spending their basic income on.