I just wonder how society will cope as more and more work becomes automated leaving many without jobs

which is why actual necessary regulation is necessary

to prevent that

That's very true. It is always the more profitable option. We are long overdue for a UBI.

you must not regulate businesses in many respects because it stimulates growth and helps the owner, consumer and humble worker

you see economic competition is the driving force behind the economy

my main beef with UBI is that work imo is not just a way to get money to live and support yourself, people work to make goods and provide services to enrich the lives of other humans

this day in age however, government regulation has strangled small businesses

and thus, monopolies have formed everywhere

government is not the solution, government is the problem

every time government tried to "help" the consumer it's fucked them over

I would prefer a situation with 100% employment for the able bodied directed by the state to meet peoples needs make sure we all have are necessities then work for there

the government is directly responsible for the financial crisis of 2007

*from

There is no moral or logical reason as to why a technologically-advanced country is unable to provide a Universal Basic Income for it's citizens. A UBI can be supported by people adhering to various ideological positions. Hell, Friedman and Hayek voiced support for it.

capitalism would work if left unimpeded and with slight regulation here and there

that is a moral standpoint, not an economic standpoint

communism would be a true utopia and the idea of it is great

however, in reality it is doomed to fail

I think capitalism leads to charles dickens type nightmare of the past where people were working insane hours and barely scraping by

the capitalist system, with all its flaws, has proven to be best for workers

i will admit there are many flaws

possibly even more than communism

Support for a UBI is not simply a moral statement. It's been supported by numerous mainstream economists from both ends of the political spectrum. It would be highly beneficial in more ways than one.

I think having a huge part of the population not laboring to improve their lives or others would be the issue

that may be true, but you must keep this in mind also: you may have affordable healthcare, but where will that be in 20 years?

it will be the exact same healthcare as 20 years ago

the innovation stops when government steps in

I think we can use the state to fix major societal issues but it would need to take a lot more wealth from the rich and companies

not to mention how the government will pay for universal healthcare

through raising your taxes

which nobody needs

the state should not be in peoples' lives

you may think this because of your economic situation, but it's not the answer

I am ok to pay more taxes if it means people get the goods and services they need for a happy healthy life

it just makes matters worse

no, if you pay more for taxes you will be worse off in your life

why would you support that

your already small wage will get smaller with more taxes

it's a false promise by corrupt politicians

@quiscalus I don't think that would be an issue when the laborer would be free to engage in meaningful work, and not have to sell their labor-power to an employer in order to engage in low-paying, overly-stressful work for long periods of time. It would also enable many, many people to not have to rely on government services deemed costly and inefficient.