> But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks

Part of the purpose of a union is to negotiate the costs for hard labor. Unions can still exist and arguably have more negotiation power through the threat of not working forever. I think unions are an important step for our species in that the working force can negotiate with the leader force rather than pray for a peice of cheese with their bread. Part of me worries that participating will be considered unnecessary or even undesirable since "Big Gov is here to protect you from the evil cooperations"

> costs of us manufactured goods goes up

Chyna, chyna, chyna. But really, globalization effectively allows companies to exploit other countries if the us citizens dont want to play ball. Perhaps slave like conditions for other people is a side effect of refusing to do shit work for shit pay

> realestate/rental prices will rise to just below universal income

Perhaps Im cynical but I view all landlords as "how much can I take from you before you leave?" If a landlord knows they can get $1000 out if someone. Why not? Doesnt matter if its a poor neughborhood or college students. As demand for n

> "Those who want more money [work]"

So basically we have inflation and on top of that if you dont have a job your screwed. Prices dont stay the same as more money is available. They go up. And knowing that people can make even more makes prices go even higher

> local community jobs dont exist if no one leaves them

This is an interesting concept. How many people does it take to work a job 24/7? More importantly, how many people can be serviced per 6 hr shift? And how many hours can a job be worked? What industries are necessary for a community to survive without over dependence on a centralized manufacturer or capital? Must a community exist that exports an important good or city that connected communities are dependent on?

Im not a fan at "throwing money at problems". Much more intetested in finding long lasting and realistic solutions that are in line with how we got here. If free money can get us even further, so be it!

> time for innovation comes from imbalance of jobs and who controls them

If company A has a near monopoly on jobs in the area all people wantjng a job must go to company A. Company A now can say "we omly select people willing to work 16 hour days 6 days a weak for $1 an hour". Obvious issue

If building wingdings takes 4 years of education and puts indivuduals in severe debt (because colleges charge absurd sums), they certainly want more money. Company B is the only multi billion dollar company that is capable of paying a 10 man workforce an above average wage, company B can now say "you must work 16 hour days, 6 days a weak but you will make $101 dollars an hour!". Debt payment is $90, but at least your making $10 more than company A

The claim that "less work produces better results" is simply a hypothesis that doesnt account for fear as a driving motivator.

As more companies are able to provide for their employees in the way the employee needs financially, the more relaxed each company must become to get the employees they are looking for.

If company C offers only $80 an hour but you only work 5 hour days 5 days a week and they hire more people. This allows 3 people a day to have 5 hours > of free time and a livable wage. But can only exist through negotiation power and competition.

The reason why most successful companies run people into the ground is because it works. Amazon and walmart are great examples of this. Google only offers utopia in order to attract the greatest minds. But that is because they believe the value of a great mind on your team is worth more than what they spend.

I certainly support free transportation. A place like Flint can only exist because there is no escspe.