Another issue: as far as I can tell, he does not account for people switching from regular jobs to the basic job and the corresponding loss of productivity from not working regular jobs.
I also noticed, when trying to figure out whether he accounted for that or not:
Here, “non_worker” actually refers to workers outside the basic job
But then he defines the number of basic workers in such a way that a decreasing number of non-workers also leads to a decreasing number of people on the basic job.
Edit: and probably much more importantly, he counts the basic income as a cost as given, but not as a benefit as received. It’s a monetary transfer, and thus destroys wealth only to the extent that it changes incentives (wealth efffect → less incentive to work for the poor, higher marginal taxes → less incentive to work for the rich). A correct calculation needs to assess the effect of these incentives and not count the transfer as if it were destruction of wealth.
Further edit: of course, that point is part of “it does not account for the extra value for individuals of having a basic income”, now also paying attention to the people in the labour force receiving a basic income, and also looking at it from a wealth standpoint v. utility standpoint. I suppose in the end it should be a utility standpoint that should be used, but one needs to take into account effects on wealth in assessing the utility as well.
Another issue: as far as I can tell, he does not account for people switching from regular jobs to the basic job and the corresponding loss of productivity from not working regular jobs.
I also noticed, when trying to figure out whether he accounted for that or not:
But then he defines the number of basic workers in such a way that a decreasing number of non-workers also leads to a decreasing number of people on the basic job.
Edit: and probably much more importantly, he counts the basic income as a cost as given, but not as a benefit as received. It’s a monetary transfer, and thus destroys wealth only to the extent that it changes incentives (wealth efffect → less incentive to work for the poor, higher marginal taxes → less incentive to work for the rich). A correct calculation needs to assess the effect of these incentives and not count the transfer as if it were destruction of wealth.
Further edit: of course, that point is part of “it does not account for the extra value for individuals of having a basic income”, now also paying attention to the people in the labour force receiving a basic income, and also looking at it from a wealth standpoint v. utility standpoint. I suppose in the end it should be a utility standpoint that should be used, but one needs to take into account effects on wealth in assessing the utility as well.