>"This problem matters to me. Please build something to solve it" into the economy.
That is a property of the free market. We're living in that world. UBI does nothing to improve that.
I'm not saying nobody will find meaning and purpose in a world where you don't need to work for a living. I'm saying huge swaths of the population will not and it will lead to major societal problems and unrest. Some of those problems will be drug addiction and crime. We don't have good examples of large populations succeeding (by any measure you choose) where nobody needs to work for a living.
>Helping people get fed and create community, or polishing a luxury experience for a very few -- Which job has more meaning and purpose?
Your examples are contrived and just plain odd. For one thing, UBI does not mean unlimited resources. People will still need to discriminate between option A or option B - so your food truck business in Flint isn't guaranteed to succeed in an UBI world because people may opt to spend their money elsewhere. Similarly, your luxury New York business is also not guaranteed to succeed (just because a profitable New York hotel has money, doesn't mean they will buy from you). Second, business needs a stable climate in order to operate. If you have crime, and riots and social unrest, that's not a good climate for businesses to operate in. UBI does not solve it, and in fact, probably aggravates it. There is more incentive to riot when you have nothing else to fill your day with.
Huh? "line-of-business software for foodservice" and "line-of-business software to do customer relations" seem like incredibly mundane examples.
> your food truck business in Flint isn't guaranteed to succeed in an UBI world because people may opt to spend their money elsewhere
Yep! So the food truck would fail not because it is in a community mired in poverty, but because it didn't make good business choices or achieve a worthwhile purpose _as judged by those whom its work impacted_.
The core of your thesis seems to be that if given the freedom, people would turn naturally to behavior that destroys themselves and others. I'll grant thats true for up to 4% of the population, but what's stopping that 4% from silently spitting in your hamburger nowadays? You can't make a riot with 4 shitheads surrounded by 96 non-shitheads who have a sense of ownership of their community.
(But if the commercial real estate is owned by Berkshire Hathaway rather than your pewmate's uncle? Well, then fuckit. Why intervene?)
Generally, people are not total fools. They make tragic and silly choices sometimes, especially under stress. I've been to enough meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous to attest to that. But a free people left to their own devices will seek meaning and purpose by investing in relationships and churches and passion-projects. Or are you unaware of the phenomenons of people gardening and babysitting for relatives or teaching free community classes?
They are. The contrived part is your characterization of succeeding in Flint vs New York.
>So the food truck would fail not because it is in a community mired in poverty, but because it didn't make good business choices ...
Which is the case today!! There are businesses succeeding in low income communities. There is no level of income low enough that a market cannot operate in. UBI does not improve that. What business needs is a stable climate and business friendly policies. If a low-income community has issues with crime (or war, or civil strife) or the government is hostile to private business, that's a bigger factor than the fact it is a low-income community.
>The core of your thesis seems to be that if given the freedom, people would turn naturally to behavior that destroys themselves and others
Not 'freedom'. If the people's ability to work and provide themselves is taken away, then yes, it will lead to major societal issues. UBI does not solve that. There is something that changes when you go from providing for yourself, to have some other entity provide for you.
That is a property of the free market. We're living in that world. UBI does nothing to improve that.
I'm not saying nobody will find meaning and purpose in a world where you don't need to work for a living. I'm saying huge swaths of the population will not and it will lead to major societal problems and unrest. Some of those problems will be drug addiction and crime. We don't have good examples of large populations succeeding (by any measure you choose) where nobody needs to work for a living.
>Helping people get fed and create community, or polishing a luxury experience for a very few -- Which job has more meaning and purpose?
Your examples are contrived and just plain odd. For one thing, UBI does not mean unlimited resources. People will still need to discriminate between option A or option B - so your food truck business in Flint isn't guaranteed to succeed in an UBI world because people may opt to spend their money elsewhere. Similarly, your luxury New York business is also not guaranteed to succeed (just because a profitable New York hotel has money, doesn't mean they will buy from you). Second, business needs a stable climate in order to operate. If you have crime, and riots and social unrest, that's not a good climate for businesses to operate in. UBI does not solve it, and in fact, probably aggravates it. There is more incentive to riot when you have nothing else to fill your day with.
Again, UBI does not improve the free market.