I get that is ultimately the idea but I guess I figured that the first stage of rolling something like this out would be to those near the edge and there's no shortage of those.
My assumption is the money would be calibrated to subsistence level so it doesn't concern me that a hipster wants to do art instead of work for money. They'll have to live simply but god bless them if they want to paint in a shared house with other hipsters. Then those who want more money will get jobs. The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided.
No i didn't say that was the first stage, I was assuming that they were going to test this with very poor people near the edge before they tested it with people higher up the income ladder. It's an assumption, possibly completely wrong.
The second statement about sinking beneath the waves was there are people who are starving right as we speak even here in the U.S.
I am afraid of the situation where a person who is reasonably well decides to let go of opportunities in the presence of UBI. The parent post is a case in point - what if the person tries the startup idea; but since the person's livelihood is not on the line, the startup never lift offs?
If UBI endangers the motivation of people 'higher in the income ladder', they are likely to become 'people near the edge'. Since UBI hypothesis is testing ideas for the future, it is hard to predict but important that it does not create a demotivated/poorer workforce.
My assumption is the money would be calibrated to subsistence level so it doesn't concern me that a hipster wants to do art instead of work for money. They'll have to live simply but god bless them if they want to paint in a shared house with other hipsters. Then those who want more money will get jobs. The moral hazard of this doesn't concern me but maybe I'm misguided.