You take no-one will work anymore as the logical conclusion, as if no-one ever wanted to work for any reason other than making enough money to survive. That’s not human nature – and even I know that! 
But like I said, it won’t be universal anyway, at least not for quite some time.
Tax “loopholes” allow for the company to directly reinvest their money into expanding their operations. It’s not a bad thing. Amazon is building regional hubs all over the place…jobs and incomes.
And my bad, I’m busy touristing, haven’t read the whole thread, but wanted to address that one issue. 
People will work. However under a UBI the ‘work’ they choose may not be wanted or needed by society. Because you decide to make pink alpaca socks it doesn’t mean anyone wants them. Subsidizing that kind of work with a UBI is counterproductive.
How many lower level workers (cleaners, garbage collectors, bus drivers, shelf stackers … etc) would still work if they didn’t need to? Not everyone can get the glamour jobs. Who will do this kind of work under a UBI?
Well that’s the goal. It’s the reason for the ‘U’. Isn’t it?
In 1950 the biggest companies in market capitalization were GM and AT&T, which were also the two biggest employers. In 2010 the biggest company in capitalization was Apple, which is #40 in terms of employment.
Amazon is busy investing in driverless trucks (though probably not happening for another 10-20 years) and robotic handling of packages.
If nobody wants them, they won’t sell. I mean, handcrafted products have been such a drag on the market in recent years.
So, with automation and AI taking jobs, what’s the solution?
Change that to most people, and we agree. 
I’m serious!
Okay, let’s suppose for a moment that we’re talking about far in the future when the “U” comes true. 
It’s actually simpler than you think: supply & demand. 
As long as a crappy job is truly essential, the compensation will need to reflect that. Otherwise, people won’t do it (excluding the minority who are masochists or whatever, but you need to hire people you trust to do the work adequately). But because it’s essential, people will pressure tptb to find a way to cope, and if that coping isn’t through automation and isn’t through some form of slavery, it will be through incentive, i.e. money or social credit or whatever people are into at the time.
As I said, that level of social development is still not on the horizon, so this really is academic.
You’re thinking in absolutes. Democracy doesn’t work that way, even in a quasi-absolutist (non-coalition) system.
You seem to have a nightmare scenario of oh no the SOCIALISTS won the election now we instantly have social this and social that and UBI! 
That won’t happen. Instead there will be fierce debates and pressure from all kinds of groups, and whatever compromise is reached will be nothing like what the idealists want. (Think Obamacare. But no I don’t have time to talk about that.)
If it manages to piss off enough people without enough obvious benefit to offset the pissing-off effect, it will get abolished or downscaled to a ghost of its already compromised self anyway. This has already happened (think Manitoba, or think Ontario). Then it will get kicked around as a political football for decades afterwards (as it already has been for decades – think Manitoba), occasionally mutating into something bigger and/or better but still clearly not universal (or universal by one definition or another, but still clearly not enough to qualify as a basic income, unless your definition of that is extremely flexible).
Dude, the Funny Political Pictures thread is that-a-way. 
And anyway, you completely missed my point.
Sorry. Based on your last post I thought this was the joke thread.
Okay, I’m bored. Explain how each part of it that cracks you up cracks you up.
(Don’t forget reading comp 101 btw.)
Yea, but as productivity goes, that’s a good thing. 
Socialists always win in an election as by it’s very nature any government is socialist! What you’re voting for is the degree of socialism you can accept.
Yes, it is. Not too good for jobs, though is it?
I think the agitation against automation is still too early, but it is definitely happening in manufacture (well, that and shipping all the jobs to China. But with the current crackdown, they’ll move out of China and to Vietnam and Bangladesh).
Yes and no. I just read something on that very subject, but the book is back in NY. I think it was the Shellenberger book or may the Tamny book.
I think the point the author was making that, advances in technology and production eliminates jobs but in turn creates other jobs that didn’t exist before…like social influencers for examples.
Interesting, but I don’t get the Manitoba reference. Maybe you know about something that happened in the ancient times of Manitoba that I don’t? Or are you talking about the “Mincome” experiment in Dauphin in the early seventies? It isn’t discussed by really anyone in Manitoba political circles as far as I know … Maybe some hardline NDP folk, but with recent developments, who knows what could happen these days …
Also makes it possible to reduce pollution, fossil fuel usage, accidents … many other benefits which the environmentalist crowd should be very happy about.
Well, should implies understanding and thoughtfulness. The environmentalist crowd as you call them are more interested today in the monetization of their brand of alarmism…so I’ve read.
UBI has been implemented before, typically funded via the unconstrained waste of natural resources rather than taxation. It generally does make people both lazy and miserable. Examples off the top of my head: Nauru and Saudi Arabia.
Suggesting that it ought to work in theory (ergo we ought to actually do it) is a horribly risky path to take given that it’s never worked before. But people never seem to lose faith that there’s a free lunch at the end of the rainbow.
Right, rich economies that cannot expand their markets need to find things for people to do…and build…like the pyramids and long stretches of Chinese walls.
