It's not that millennials have an "inability to understand the way the world works" — it's that previous generations have structured the world in such a way that it primarily benefits them, often to the detriment of younger generations. Millennials are just sick of playing the boomers' game.
Yes, so we should be less like animals. People should be allowed to live without having to "earn a living" -- the daily struggle for survival would be abolished by UBI.
Actually I'm not against UBI, but I don't think that the martians argument about the money system was a good one: the current system is just much civilized than anything that existed before as far as I can tell.
UBI may be part of the next evolutionary step of society, we'll see, but I'm slightly bothered that it relies on the comfort and the wealthiness of the "first world" built to the detriment of the "third world". I personally feel that "people should be allowed to live" would be more convincing to me if it was about worldwide inequality rather than UBI in westerner society.
UBI would not abolish money. It would actually create more money for everyone, and having a guaranteed minimum income would allow people to enter into employment relationships on a purely voluntary basis, because they would have the option to abstain from work.
"Create more money"?
If you mean printing more money, than we just get inflation, otherwise giving money doesn't create any new value by itself, it's just money changing hands.
Yes, UBI would likely contribute to some inflation -- a little bit of inflation is good, necessary, and unavoidable. It would also act as a massive stimulus to the economy, while also empowering economically-disenfranchised people to enter into the market, from which they are barred from participating in without money.
One way to fund a UBI would be through a value-added tax, which would be collected at every stage of production where money is exchanged.
Inflation is not a tax: there is no government entity that collects inflation payments.
Not having any money is worse for the poor than having a basic income, even if there is inflation. The market has no direct incentive to serve those without money. The alleviation of widespread human suffering due to poverty and the massive increase in the general utility of the market to humans clearly makes UBI the moral choice.
Inflation does benefit debtors: with money being cheaper, loans are easier to pay off.
Where is the money to come from? Whether you print more and inflate it (without the consent of existing holders) or take it by force via taxation (by definition without the consent of existing holders) you undermine the basic premise of the tool that money serves as in our society.
Without wanting to sound contrarian, the mere fact that individuals have been able to amass hundreds of billions of dollars seems to indicate that as a tool of exchange, money has failed.
These hundreds of billions aren’t helping anyone on the planet find shelter, food, or improve anyone’s quality of life. It’s being used to further the wealth of the already incredibly wealthy. Not to mention, the fact that the CEOs of these companies have hundreds of billions when their employees may only be earning thousands suggests that they are contributing hundreds of thousands of times the effort or value, which can simply not be the case.
In any case, the current system has served me well as i possess knowledge that is deemed valuable at present, but i personally know dozens of people who through a variety of causes haven’t been able to extract the same, and who would benefit from a complete rethinking of the system. This again suggests that for the maximum benefit to the most people, something needs to change.
