They will be a minority so very few will get to be human drivers. When there are few paid work without some kind of basic income only a minority will be able to afford anything.
So what happens to the large majority who has no job because there are only jobs for 10% of the population?
Thing is there are limits to what an individual can consume. So either they will have to be taxed heavily, or be compelled to create jobs.
That’s what usually happens sans the drama.
I read his book. You should too as you seem interested. He’s made the best case for UBI in the US…not that it’s viable…it’s just the best one fronted.
Do I now?
You may be mistaking my eagerness to debunk my favorite love-to-disagree-with-'em pundits with actually advocating the opposite of what they say.
A comprehensive welfare system is a natural result, indicator, and further cause of progress. But so comprehensive a system that no-one is left out – that’s something humans just aren’t developed enough to figure out how to do properly (yet). You know, like planetary government. 
Give it a few centuries.
Thanks for the suggestion though – I’ll see if I can get into his stuff.
Oversimplified, but still a good introduction. 
It’s not going to change your life. It’s simply a contrarian looksee that got a bit of traction b4 the DNC pulled the plug on Yang.
I’m not a big fan of giving anybody anything. As far as food goes, I was suggesting that the truly destitute, or the temporarily down-on-their-luck, could engage with an alternative economy in which food producers have the economic and physical tools to route surpluses (there are always surpluses) to those who desperately need food; the consumers would “pay” for it via some form of social currency (i.e., by contributing to society whatever they are able to contribute - very few people can contribute nothing). This would be a pretty simple project that could be undertaken without unintended repercussions (unlike UBI).
Not much point giving coal-fired power stations to poor people, IMO, unless you also gift them with:
One should be clear-eyed about what one’s goals are when proposing power stations for poor people. Is it to empower the coal-controlling oligarchy? Is it to ensure that they are forever trapped in a fossil-fuel economy, thereby keeping them in a developmental cul-de-sac? These are plausible national goals for rich countries that want to stay at the top of the pile. But there are, I’m afraid, very few good and noble reasons for helping poor countries acquire white elephants.
Sorry- didn’t check out the date.