This gets at a problem I always wonder about with UBI (as someone who genuinely sees the value in a successful implementation of it). What happens in 20-30 years once the system has been entrenched. Will the children of those that choose not to work for additional income have decreased social capital an struggle to enter the workplace if they choose? How do you prevent those that choose to work from using the increased wealth to exert force on those who didn't? These are the actually problems I see around UBI, not how to balance the budget.
This is the actual dilemma with UBI that should be discussed. I feel though that not everyone who leaves the workforce will generate $0 in value. There are many people who would rather create their own small business, maybe selling a minor product, streaming video games, or any number of things. Over the past few months I've realized that there is so much opportunity to work for yourself online by providing some niche service that you really can sustain yourself. If you have enough time, patience, and money to find that niche and work at it that is.
It's similar to children of mothers who all stayed at home. A generation later, many of their daughters decide (or are forced) to enter the workforce, but not all. I see working and non-working moms coexist today without any undue tension.
This is actually a really, really good question. It could create entire new future populations of disadvantaged and disenfranchised people with the same types of afflictions as the current groups. True equal access and opportunity would mitigate that of course, but good luck there.
> What happens in 20-30 years once the system has been entrenched.
What about a scenario where we get one big step closer to a vision shown in Idiocracy? A world where people don't need to struggle may be great for some self-directed people, but I suspect it will be ultimately terrible for many (even if they won' see it that way).
