The article didn't "ignore this completely". It set up a framework within which you can easily express that argument. Go do it.
There's absolutely no data to support any numbers for this, how could I possibly guess?
That's why I don't like this post. It would have been really interesting if there had been any basis at all for the numbers, but a model for something this complicated backed by nothing is worse than useless - it's misleading.
Stucchio didn't propose a magic python script that answers the question of whether we should a basic income or basic job. He simply proposed a tool for making the debate more concrete. The debate still happens. It just gets less stupid.
No. it makes the debate less concrete.
The model is absolutely 100% meaningless. An equally valid model would be:
I assume that basic job has a cost of $1 trillion (+/- $500 million) and basic income has a cost of $3.25-3.5 trillion
How does that improve any debate?
This whole thread is really annoying me because it's just hiding bullshit behind "maths". There are no insights, no conclusions, nothing. Just some numbers. Most annoying of all is the stupid "write some fucking code!" counter-argument. No. I wont write code with bullshit numbers to try and convince people of something that has no data to support it
People are going to go away from reading this article actually convinced that basic job is better than basic income based on what is essentially this guys uninformed opinion. That is bad