Some criticism: > Pros
> - homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)
> - small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
> Cons
> - it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?
> - the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes
> - cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students
> - the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
...good?
> - may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy
> My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.
> If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
Unless there is another guy who does that already.
> Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
I don't understand this one
> Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think