It doesn't sound all that similar on the surface to OP's response based on my initial read of both.

It seems like you're proposing a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI?

> a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI?

No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed. You should not starve if you can't find work. That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure. (Which, in our current model, occurs at both ends of the income spectrum.)

▲

bpt3 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed.

That's why I called it a "highly regulated UBI", which might not have been clear. You're proposing that all citizens receive the basics for survival in kind instead of the cash equivalent (which is how a UBI would work).

I think I prefer this model over what the OP ended up suggesting, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be in practice in the US.

> That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure.

Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system?

	▲	JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system? I suppose so, given they’re subsisting. It should not luxurious, however, and would probably carry with it a modicum of indignity. (Which is fine as long as they aren’t discriminated against.)