&gt; <i>So instead of encouraging (or mandating?) young folks get trained or educated (or both!), we simply give them money for existing? I don&#x27;t see how that solves the bigger issue.</i><p>It solves the issue with minimum wage pointed out by jayess, at least. Employers would be able to hire people for whatever wage they like, even pennies a day if they wanted to (or financials forced them to). Meanwhile, the people working for very low wages or unable to find work at all, would be guaranteed enough to live on regardless.<p>That seems to be a goal of economic policy these days. I don&#x27;t see anyone arguing that we <i>must</i> - by dint of constrained resources - simply have some people live below the subsistence level (which is another way of saying we must leave some people to die). If that is your position then please show us that we don&#x27;t have the resources we need to keep our current population alive.<p>Because otherwise, <i>one way or another</i>, we ought to be providing people with food and housing - simply for existing. We&#x27;ve tried government housing and food stamps and soup kitchens: government housing is a disaster, food stamps seem nearly equivalent to giving people cash anyway, and soup kitchens probably can&#x27;t scale. We&#x27;ve tried minimum wage and that did mostly work while the supply (and type) of labor matched the supply (and type) of jobs available, but it&#x27;s not clear that will be the case going forward. And, even if it <i>is</i> the case going forward, basic income might still work better, anyway.<p>I&#x27;m all for educating people, or training them, etc. However it is a fact that some people will fall through the cracks, and it is a fact that not everyone can be trained or educated into a vocation that society actually needs people for. For these cases basic income seems like the most efficient means of keeping them alive, fed, and sheltered. I am open to other solutions.