Hi Joe, sorry to come across that way to you. They're not the same because:
-Social security (means tested, dehumanising and bad for self-worth/esteem)
-Pensions (only handed out to older people who are probably in a less creative phase of their lives)
-Allowances (whilst close it is unlikely to be completely unconditional and usually tied to an emotional/familial bond which comes with it's own set of baggage)
-Annuities (this is the closest of the lot but generally only rich people experience this so it would be interesting to see what happens when given to less well off sections of society).
Unconditional basic income deserves to be studied from a scientific perspective. Too many of our major political decisions are based on anecdotal evidence and they therefore don't achieve what they presumably set out to achieve. Unconditional basic income is a unique concept with it's own unique set of inputs and outcomes just as the concepts your mentioned are. We cannot just assume outcomes as that is bad science. We have to implement, test and analyse our results.
The 'unconditional' part is only important in the beginning. Once the subject qualifies (begins receiving the annuity) then the criterion is irrelevant to studying their behavior while receiving the benefit.
For the person receiving them, those things listed offer the same benefits as BI - money regularly received no matter how you behave. To determine what effect that has on people, then we need simply record those results to get a large data set.
To fund even a tiny study (a dozen people?) for a tiny amount of time (5 years?) would cost an exorbitant amount. Its kind of silly to even talk about. Especially when we have data sets of millions of people in almost the same circumstances.
I read this proposal as absurd. Its typical of Silicon Valley to imagine getting results from a tiny study (focus groups etc) that are worth anything.
-Social security (means tested, dehumanising and bad for self-worth/esteem) -Pensions (only handed out to older people who are probably in a less creative phase of their lives) -Allowances (whilst close it is unlikely to be completely unconditional and usually tied to an emotional/familial bond which comes with it's own set of baggage) -Annuities (this is the closest of the lot but generally only rich people experience this so it would be interesting to see what happens when given to less well off sections of society).
Unconditional basic income deserves to be studied from a scientific perspective. Too many of our major political decisions are based on anecdotal evidence and they therefore don't achieve what they presumably set out to achieve. Unconditional basic income is a unique concept with it's own unique set of inputs and outcomes just as the concepts your mentioned are. We cannot just assume outcomes as that is bad science. We have to implement, test and analyse our results.
If you are interested in this approach to governance I highly recommend reading this article to stimulate your interest: http://www.demoshelsinki.fi/en/2015/12/08/this-is-why-finlan...