I should have scare-quoted "lazy" to make it more clear that I meant it in the tongue-in-cheek sense.
I'll grant you that the Mandatory Minimum Work Week (MMWW) is a plausible alternative to Basic Income (BI) with two caveats. One, that you would probably want to implement it more as "Mandatory Minimum Vacation" so as to leave alone jobs that fundamentally require time blocks of a certain size and two, instead of a strict rule use progressive fees for violation so that the incentive landscape can accommodate exceptional circumstances. For the sake of brevity let's call this "MMWW+".
> I feel like you are missing the point that the "bottom" has a much better, easier, fairer chance
That's a statement, not an argument. If you can back it up I'd be interested, because the only tiebreaking argument I've heard between BI and MMWW+ favors BI due to efficiency. MMWW+ cuts a swath through the whole labor force resulting in a very uneven effect across professions. Surgeons already make $500k/yr, what will happen if you effectively cut the surgeon labor supply by 10%? Either a huge price shock or they pay the fees for violating MMWW+, and those costs are going to get conveyed right back to the consumer due to relative elasticity. Contrast to BI which effectively identifies the component of the labor force which is cheapest to remove and addresses it in particular while more or less leaving everyone else alone (modulo a small bump towards the mean which you can eliminate if you so choose at the expense of damping marginal incentives somewhere near the bottom).
> [MMWW is] more utopian than what are we faced in capitalist societies now, but goes against business profit maximization
BI, MMWW, MMWW+, and all other alternative schemes run contrary to current vested interests. Since the cost is common to all of them it should not affect an analysis of which one is best unless we have reason to believe that one is significantly more palatable than another. For instance, MI>BI and MMWW+>MMWW but I don't see a compelling reason to believe that MI>MMWW+ or MI<MMWW+.
> The recent uptick in free lance jobs is rough for this very reason. It's less risky to sell most your leisure time to large companies. That's my personal diagnosis.
"Diagnosis" implies identification of a root cause, but that seems more like an effect, and I'm not sure how it fits in to your larger argument.
> destroy the [8-9]-[5-6] scourge imbued unto us by unionized industrialists of the past and craft new culture.
You realize that workdays were longer before the unions forced the "scourge" onto the industrialists, right? They argued for the exact same thing that you argue for, and for the exact same reason.
> the non risk averse must continue(create) their own entrepreneurship endeavors
The single most convincing argument I've heard in favor of BI / MI is that in reduces risks associated with entrepreneurship and lengthens runways, even for professions that don't command a large salary.
I'll grant you that the Mandatory Minimum Work Week (MMWW) is a plausible alternative to Basic Income (BI) with two caveats. One, that you would probably want to implement it more as "Mandatory Minimum Vacation" so as to leave alone jobs that fundamentally require time blocks of a certain size and two, instead of a strict rule use progressive fees for violation so that the incentive landscape can accommodate exceptional circumstances. For the sake of brevity let's call this "MMWW+".
> I feel like you are missing the point that the "bottom" has a much better, easier, fairer chance
That's a statement, not an argument. If you can back it up I'd be interested, because the only tiebreaking argument I've heard between BI and MMWW+ favors BI due to efficiency. MMWW+ cuts a swath through the whole labor force resulting in a very uneven effect across professions. Surgeons already make $500k/yr, what will happen if you effectively cut the surgeon labor supply by 10%? Either a huge price shock or they pay the fees for violating MMWW+, and those costs are going to get conveyed right back to the consumer due to relative elasticity. Contrast to BI which effectively identifies the component of the labor force which is cheapest to remove and addresses it in particular while more or less leaving everyone else alone (modulo a small bump towards the mean which you can eliminate if you so choose at the expense of damping marginal incentives somewhere near the bottom).
> [MMWW is] more utopian than what are we faced in capitalist societies now, but goes against business profit maximization
BI, MMWW, MMWW+, and all other alternative schemes run contrary to current vested interests. Since the cost is common to all of them it should not affect an analysis of which one is best unless we have reason to believe that one is significantly more palatable than another. For instance, MI>BI and MMWW+>MMWW but I don't see a compelling reason to believe that MI>MMWW+ or MI<MMWW+.
> The recent uptick in free lance jobs is rough for this very reason. It's less risky to sell most your leisure time to large companies. That's my personal diagnosis.
"Diagnosis" implies identification of a root cause, but that seems more like an effect, and I'm not sure how it fits in to your larger argument.
> destroy the [8-9]-[5-6] scourge imbued unto us by unionized industrialists of the past and craft new culture.
You realize that workdays were longer before the unions forced the "scourge" onto the industrialists, right? They argued for the exact same thing that you argue for, and for the exact same reason.
> the non risk averse must continue(create) their own entrepreneurship endeavors
The single most convincing argument I've heard in favor of BI / MI is that in reduces risks associated with entrepreneurship and lengthens runways, even for professions that don't command a large salary.