I sometimes wonder if BIG is counterintuitively more popular with libertarians than with liberals/socialists. There seem to be four solutions to the automation will require hardly anyone to work problem.
1. Ignore it
2. Patch and reinforce the existing welfare system
3. Basic Income guarantee
4. Try to trying time
1 & 3 are obviously stupid solutions. But a combination of 1 & 3 seems to be what the current administration is doing. Democrats seem to like a combination of 2 & 1. I think 2 is generally the go-to solutions for all liberals/socialists world wide who are used to that approach and therefore are comfortable with it. I think libertarians who acknowledge the problem and therefore not to go with 1 will not like 2 and 4 because they both massively mess with the market. So that leaves BIG. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if we see some form of BIG in the US before we see it in Europe. The enormous size and regional diversity in the US might prevent that though.
> I sometimes wonder if BIG is counterintuitively more popular with libertarians than with liberals/socialists.
It's really not - and the only reason it might even seem like it is is that most discussions really only talk about the theory, not specific policy details.
As a concrete example: let's say that everyone agrees on some fixed amount that should be guaranteed - perhaps $5,000/month. The actual figure doesn't really matter, so you can replace it with whatever you personally think the right value is[0]. The only important thing is that (a) it is a fixed amount (each individual knows exactly what they will receive ahead-of-time), and (b) every person somehow agrees that it is the "right" amount.
Now, that money is cash, so everyone's free to spend it how they want. But invariably, there will be some person for whom that $5,000 isn't enough. Maybe they have an accident that leaves them with a career-ending disability. Maybe they decided to go to Vegas and bet it all on red. Maybe they made a bad investment. Maybe they gave it to a family member who absconded with it.
There are all sorts of situations that you cannot rule out occurring unless you also restrict people from having the agency to do what they want with their money[1]. No matter what that fixed amount is, there will always be someone who ends up needing a bit more in order to put food on the table, whether that comes from bad luck or bad decision-making or both.
The problem is that the libertarians are only on board with giving the $5,000/month on the presumption that it replace the vast array of other government-provide welfare and social services that cost money. So if you say, "well, at that point, it falls to the state to pick up the bill", then you've already turned off libertarians, because they're only on board with the idea because it allows them to dismantle the existing state welfare system.
But on the other hand, if you say "well, tough luck - they had the money, and they still couldn't manage, so it's their responsibility to figure it out" - well, that's not really going to work politically. So, the only way that you could have this (politically, not economically) is to retain some form of a welfare state, at which point libertarians have long since lost interest.
[0] You can even replace it with a linear scale if you'd prefer - again, as long as each person is only entitled to a specific amount.
[1] And if you argue in favor of that, fine, but you're arguing for a fundamentally different system altogether, not a guaranteed income. (And libertarians would hate that system even more than the status quo).
Yes, what you are describing would be the worst of everything. You are probably right that that would be the most likely outcome given the political system. And you are right, I certainly wouldn't want that.
> "well, tough luck - they had the money, and they still couldn't manage, so it's their responsibility to figure it out" - well, that's not really going to work politically.
Why isn't it?
If you have medical emergency - this is where charity kicks in, they will help you.
If you bet it all on red - in this case you have to mow lawns for $20 to eat every day until the next paycheck comes.
5: Government policy to aggressively drive down the cost of living via automation.
This should also be a libertarian win-win since it benefits everybody through lower costs and it doesn't provide benefits for some at the expense of others, nor does it come with the risk of inherent inflation that a minimum income might have, especially as more work becomes automated and fewer jobs become available for people who don't have the talent or simply the intelligence to do higher-value work, which raises the need for a higher minimum income to supplant the inability to find work.
1. Ignore it
2. Patch and reinforce the existing welfare system
3. Basic Income guarantee
4. Try to trying time
1 & 3 are obviously stupid solutions. But a combination of 1 & 3 seems to be what the current administration is doing. Democrats seem to like a combination of 2 & 1. I think 2 is generally the go-to solutions for all liberals/socialists world wide who are used to that approach and therefore are comfortable with it. I think libertarians who acknowledge the problem and therefore not to go with 1 will not like 2 and 4 because they both massively mess with the market. So that leaves BIG. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if we see some form of BIG in the US before we see it in Europe. The enormous size and regional diversity in the US might prevent that though.
Edit: formatting