In a paper published on Academia.edu
Frederick Harry Pitts, Lorena Lombardozzi and Neil Warner warn that:
Basic income may not be the ideal response to automation and technological unemployment envisaged by its proponents. In fact, it risks embalming our current economy defined by low-skilled, low-paid, and unrewarding work for longer than would otherwise be the case
They support this claim by asserting that the Speenhamland System was a type of basic income and then point out how the system failed.
However, from Wiki: The authorities at Speenhamland approved a means-tested sliding-scale of wage supplements in order to mitigate the worst effects of rural poverty. Families were paid extra to top up wages to a set level according to a table. This level varied according to the number of children and the price of bread.
This is what already happens with working families tax credit. It is not what most people would agree is a system of basic income. Straw man argument, case dismissed.
Debate Magazine
