Ah, OK. I asked because literally all experiments with the UBI showed the opposite of what you’re saying here. But yes, it’s hard to argue with hearsay from 1993 supported by a general idea, so I will probably have to change my views.
That’s a very interesting and rather long winded way of calling me a liar. I have no idea why you feel so insecure about YOUR views that you feel like you had to do that, but that’s entirely your affair.
But, more seriously, it’s not important if you change your views or not. What eventually will happen is that we will automate our way into a future where some minority of the workers will be responsible for generating all the productivity, and the rest will be left with nothing to do, dependent on some source of income which is unrelated to the work of their own hands.
How that is accomplished, be it by UBI, by guaranteed job, or traditional welfare, is rather besides the point; it’s like three plumbers arguing over what route the pipe should take, but all agreeing on where the water is coming from and where it’s going. What we should be doing is taking the debate to a higher level, without anyone taking a galvanized position on what route the pipes will take (which I see the UBI cheerleaders doing, it should be said). IOW, we KNOW that we will need to feed money to a large segment of the population; the question is what’s the best way to do that, which allows them to live in dignity and has the least negative impact on our society as a whole?
As far as the recipients of the funds are concerned, they are unlikely to care too much whether the scheme is traditional welfare, a guaranteed job, a UBI, or whatever; and if they DO care (IOW, they want the welfare or the UBI, and not the guaranteed job) then that pretty much makes the point that people tend to be lazy and unmotivated.
As for your interesting wiki reference……did you even read that page? All those examples in Western developed nations are in process or are pilots with extremely limited scope.
So no, you may not agree with my “hearsay”, but you certainly didn’t refute it with hard facts, either.