because if you bring in an influx of color and foreign diversity, you get people who have less in common, less shared values and don't look out for each other. Get a massive influx of brown muslims in your white country, then find out that you no longer cooperate with each other like you did before. It's basically the way in the U.S. that the two party system also uses race and immigration to drive another wedge between citizens. Believe me, you want homogenity. It's better for progress than diversity. Everyone tells the story that diversity somehow is strength. Nope, never has been, it's a story that just feels good but isn't true. The U.S. progresses in spite of diversity and conflict, not because of it.
in what way does having a diverse population pose problems to basic income specifically? you are just stating a general problem.
basic income has no effect on diversity or homogeneity. perhaps it might encourage people to immigrate, but that's hardly a reason not to do it. having a country that is so desirable others would like to immigrate into it is a clear indication of doing something right. besides I think its obvious you would only qualify for basic income as a citizen.
Yes, that's why Australia and Canada are such disasters. In both of those countries immigrants, the children of immigrants and the grand-children of immigrants form the vast majority of the population of the country.
And in those countries, experience shows that the grand-children of immigrants have far more similar values, desires, opinions and habits as their peers than they do to contemporaries in the original home of their grandparents.
The average black family in the United States has been in the United States for longer than the average white family. That blacks and whites in the United States are not essentially homogeneous even though they mostly went to the same schools, participated in the same economy, spoke the same language and experienced the same media is purely an artifact of deliberate exclusion.
The advantage of basic income is that it's fair to everyone. Prejudices and nepotism have no effect on it, leading to the fact that its dynamics will be driven by "pure" market forces.
At least I can't figure out a way to "screw the system" which by definition just gives everyone an equal amount of money.
I don't think I understand what you meant by "expectations," and I don't know if you meant this comment to be anything but an ideological thought, but this is what I know:
Capitalism runs off of inequality of all sorts. Capitalism's entire history is filled with instances of the ruling class systematically serving up xenophobic and racially divisive propaganda (in order to justify expanding imperially, in order to justify inexpensive labor, etc.), with no sign of slowing down. As such, I can find no evidence that cultural tranquility is possible under the global capitalism. The inequality that capitalism continues to deliver breeds dangerous ideological heterogeneity between the people of the working class.
It's my belief that equality shouldn't be the goal of capitalism, rather a fair representation of talent and productivity.
Someone hard-working with a 130 IQ versus someone depressed or maladjusted with a 90 IQ are, in fact, in entirely different classes. It isn't "dangerous" to admit that, it's simply reality. Capitalism does a decent job handling those extremes.
The dangerous ideological heterogeneity I was referring to: see Ferguson, EU vs. Greece, US vs. immigrants... Regardless:
> Someone hard-working with a 130 IQ versus someone depressed or maladjusted with a 90 IQ
Capitalism doesn't do a "decent job handling those extremes," it does a fantastic job creating those extremes. The latter person you mentioned is either highly exploited and/or rejected from society and given a tragic, humiliating life. Our capitalism is divisive, unjust, and destructive.
What creates those extremes is genetics and poor parenting (considering that IQ is ~80% hereditary,) and in some infrequent cases environmental pollution (heavy metals in the government supplied water.)
Capitalism just deals with the results, in this case human capital.
