> He simply proposed a tool for making the debate more concrete No. it makes the debate less concrete. The model is absolutely 100% meaningless. An equally va

> He simply proposed a tool for making the debate more concrete No. it makes the debate less concrete. The model is absolutely 100% meaningless. An equally valid model would be: I assume that basic job has a cost of $1 trillion (+/- $500 million) and basic income has a cost of $3.25-3.5 trillion How does that improve any debate? This whole thread is really annoying me because it's just hiding bullshit behind "maths". There are no insights, no conclusions, nothing. Just some numbers. Most annoying of all is the stupid "write some fucking code!" counter-argument. No. I wont write code with bullshit numbers to try and convince people of something that has no data to support it People are going to go away from reading this article actually convinced that basic job is better than basic income based on what is essentially this guys uninformed opinion. That is bad