> Except machines make a lot of stuff. Technology makes low skilled labor obsolete, and it becomes difficult to fight unemployment with unskilled labor. It becomes a servant economy.
Ludditism has been proven wrong multiple times. New industries replace the old - more jobs are created. There can be short term pains when people are laid off due to automation, but social security programs can alleviate some of this. The kind that already exist. UBI does not seem like it will provide the incentives for people to learn new skills and get new jobs if they're guaranteed a living wage anyway.
> There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people.
There's no "free money." There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money to generate wealth, and allocating it it, often to unproductive people who merely consume. Obviously not true in every case, but you get the idea. If we want to increase the wealth of a nation, the money is more effectively utilized by those who are effective at turning it around to generate more wealth.
> Define "make stuff".
I'd call it, adding to the national gain. If you're not performing productive work which leads to export of goods, but are continuing to import goods, then you'll build up a deficit, which at some point needs paying off, or those luxuries you've been importing aren't going to be available anymore.
Ludditism has been proven wrong multiple times. New industries replace the old - more jobs are created. There can be short term pains when people are laid off due to automation, but social security programs can alleviate some of this. The kind that already exist. UBI does not seem like it will provide the incentives for people to learn new skills and get new jobs if they're guaranteed a living wage anyway.
> There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people.
There's no "free money." There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money to generate wealth, and allocating it it, often to unproductive people who merely consume. Obviously not true in every case, but you get the idea. If we want to increase the wealth of a nation, the money is more effectively utilized by those who are effective at turning it around to generate more wealth.
> Define "make stuff".
I'd call it, adding to the national gain. If you're not performing productive work which leads to export of goods, but are continuing to import goods, then you'll build up a deficit, which at some point needs paying off, or those luxuries you've been importing aren't going to be available anymore.