I haven't read the entire article, but this has been around the block a few times, even down here. In theory, the idea is good, in practice, I wonder. For those who need it, it may not be enough, for those who don't, why should they get it? The intent is to allow those on low incomes to survive. In theory, that is good, but given that all will be given the "assistance", cuts to other govt services may well occur, to the detriment of those who truly need it. I dare say that prices will also rise across the board to "maintain the status quo".
Frankly I think it is a silly idea - there are enough people who think the world owes them a living already. Why add more? I would review the whole 'benefit' system - kick out some of the idle scroungers and make them earn their hand-outs by sweeping street, weeding parks etc., Restore the idea that money has to be worked for !!
I think it is more about facing up to the fact that very few people will be able to work once things become fully done by AI. There's hardly a job
that is safe. If the wealth that is available is evenly distributed then it could act as a spur to join the gigging economy or to go to learn new
things without being worried about falling out of the benefit system. Obviously folk like me who have worked for decades would be raging if we lost
out on future pensions for example but cognisance needs to be taken of other ways of doing things. Pilot schemes are the only way to see if things get
better or worse. Finland has been trying this for a while but the jury is still out.
And Leigh, the beggar's wage idea has been round since the year quoted in the OP. It is trialling it that is new.
Tell you what. With the increasing acceleration of Artificial Intelligence, we will need to think of a way to keep the unemployed from revolting against the system. We all have a right to live. To eat. To have a comfortable shelter etc etc. And if take away their means of earning it, we will either have to pay them to stay at home or face conflict and anarchy.
I know quite a few people who left the earn-your-way model of living and have become slaves to drugs, drunkenness, and sex. Video games and
television fill large blocks of time for some people, who otherwise could be doing something that would be helpful to others.
A work schedule does a lot of good for people. It generally requires some personal hygiene, some standard of clothing, some discipline to regulate your schedule with respect to sleep and wakefulness, some self-control with respect toward treating your boss and fellow workers with some decency, some exercise (even if only to get to work and return home).
Some of us are too broken to keep most jobs. But, for those who can do one, it can be quite beneficial.
There is a group of individuals/families in the USA whose numbers amount to nothing more than a guess who are not about to ever give the govt a bona
fide mailing address for the 'stipend', or as an alternative, a direct deposit bank account. Included in this are those who would see such a
program as a way of govt tracking their citizens.
Govt has a very traditional preconceived view/notion (and naïve) of individual and family life, and the values by which such people live by. I would add that on the periphery of this group are family members who no one has any idea where they are, to include whether they are dead or alive.
The "people" who conceive (and administer) such programs don't come from such groups, and don't ever interact with them in their private lives; furthermore they find it inconceivable (beyond belief) that anyone would want to live like that.
And I'm not just talking about so called "homeless" people either. I think "alienated" would be a more appropriate label.
Every country has those groups, Jack. Though Americans do seem to figure in people's thinking when that sort of thing is mentioned, so you may have a
preponderance of such "invisible" people. Which is anachronistic in its own right because "those" people seem to take great delight in advertising
MY thinking, re government payments, is that you must have contributed by being in the work force for a pre-determined time before qualifying. Whether that is paid work or voluntary is irrelevant, as long as you have "worked" for your benefit.
There will always be those for whom the capacity to work is beyond their control. It is not those to whom my comments referred.