All it really needs is a welfare program for the general population that doesn't punish those whose jobs have been automated.
A system how to solve that has been discussed in Germany by left-leaning parties. The idea is simple: give everyone a certain salary per month that allows them to rent a flat, buy groceries, and have a social life. Without the fear of losing their job, not being able to afford food or just becoming poor, people will do whatever they like: some will continue their job (which earns them extra pay, obviously), some will try out a business idea they have, some won't work. Or that's the idea, at least, with the assumption that people aren't lazy by nature and thus must be punished if they neither work nor actively seek for jobs (i.e. the current unemployment benefit system in Germany), but instead would like to work, except working on the stuff they like working on.
I don't know why you think socialism is a "harsh" word - those same leftist parties in Germany and the rest of Europe call themselves Socialist or Social Democratic and are proud of it.
It's only on the US where Socialism is such a term of abuse on even the left of the political spectrum.
Left wing politicians call themselves socialist in Europe because it has positive connotations in certain circles over there. In the US right wing politicians call somewhat less right wing politicians socialist because it has a negative connotation to many Americans.
They are both wrong. Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of production, not capitalism plus a welfare state.
he idea is simple: give everyone a certain salary per month that allows them to rent a flat, buy groceries, and have a social life
The cost of the welfare system in the UK is such that it would actually be cheaper to just give every man, woman and child in the UK 3000/year no questions asked, no strings attached. Could a single person live on 3000/year in London? Well it was a long time ago now, but I did, as did millions of others, when we were students. Could a family of 4 live on 12000 somewhere like Wales, today? Sure, especially if it was supplemented by a little casual work from one or both parents. And we'd need to stabilize the population too.
People say I'm a fascist because I want to abolish the welfare state, but it's not true: I merely wish to abolish the department that runs it and go direct!
Could a single person live on 3000/year in London? Well it was a long time ago now, but I did, as did millions of others, when we were students.
Are you adjusting for inflation? Did you get £3,000 a long time ago? Or did you get what is now worth £3,000? 3k in 2000 is the same as 4.2k, in '95 it's the same as 4.8k now, in '90 it's like 5.7k now.
I'm not saying it would be a necessarily desirable lifestyle mind, but if you're young and all your friends are in the same boat, that much plus a little part-time work was enough to live on, certainly.
The point it, tho', we in the UK could afford that level of minimum income guarantee, as in that's what the welfare state costs right now. If we need more then we'd need to decide where that money was going to come from.
It doesn't give you a very good life. That said, there is still a question of when we should begin heavily subsidizing non-work. I think there's a decent argument to be made that we're not at that point yet.
Also, homelessness in the US is barely related to the question of subsidizing non-work. It's more of a failure on the part of our mental health system. If you talk to a homeless guy in the US, odds are he'll have some pretty noticeable mental issue right from the get-go.
SSI (disabled from birth) is $600 a month. SSDI (disabled after working for some time, generally 10 years) is $900-$3000 a month. Food stamps top out at $200 for an individual and a little more than $600 for a family of four. Section 8 (housing subsidies) is based on a complicated formula but in NYC can amount to a $1800 subsidy for a family of four.
People on SSI + Food Stamps + Section 8 + Medicaid certainly aren't living the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but their effective income at PPP is comparable the median household income in a country like Czech Republic or Portugal.
At least in Indiana where I love, these aren't guaranteed. Food stamps only last for a year or two and then you're done, even if you are still in a bad situation. Subsidized housing is a lottery with something like 1:4 odds. Even if you are lucky enough to get these things, you aren't in a stable position, because they can be taken away from you.
I also think the comments here about how its luxury compared to a 3rd world are true, but also note that it is more expensive to live here, and there are very few fallback options if the government programs don't work out. The homeless in my town don't have a shelter they can legally sleep at, and with all of the regulations we have in place, a minimally legal structure still has a pretty high cost.
We're discussing basic income, so the point is more the survival and freeing up time to do anything one ever wanted outside of work.
Depression is a valid point though, something that's frequently omitted in such discussions, which center on the fact that if only you provided people with ATM cards, things would be nice and clean and drug-free.
It gives you a life of luxury barely imaginable to the average person in Bangladesh.
The US is strongly anti-authoritarian. Rounding up the crazies and putting them in a managed home simply is not done. It would infringe the civil rights of burned out alcoholics, schizophrenics, etc.
All it really needs is a welfare program for the general population that doesn't punish those whose jobs have been automated.
A system how to solve that has been discussed in Germany by left-leaning parties. The idea is simple: give everyone a certain salary per month that allows them to rent a flat, buy groceries, and have a social life. Without the fear of losing their job, not being able to afford food or just becoming poor, people will do whatever they like: some will continue their job (which earns them extra pay, obviously), some will try out a business idea they have, some won't work. Or that's the idea, at least, with the assumption that people aren't lazy by nature and thus must be punished if they neither work nor actively seek for jobs (i.e. the current unemployment benefit system in Germany), but instead would like to work, except working on the stuff they like working on.