1) I think that the difference comes from how you look at the data. In the past, jobs that were displaced were replaced by other forms of unskilled or minimally

1) I think that the difference comes from how you look at the data. In the past, jobs that were displaced were replaced by other forms of unskilled or minimally skilled labour. The total pool of unskilled/minimally skilled jobs never shrunk. It is still too soon to tell what effect intelligent automation will have on that total pool. It could very well be that for every job automation technology displaces, it creates ten more. But if those jobs are highly skilled jobs that the existing labour force can't transition into? Then we have a problem. 4) I think that perfect employment is a good goal, but how we get there is something else entirely. We can create more jobs, we can "re-educate" workers, we can decrease hours to create more shifts, but all of this still leaves a lot of people in the cracks. I think that one of the main benefits of a UBI is that it guarantees that nobody falls through the cracks. I don't see how UBIs would entirely destroy labour unions either, since labour unions are often about more than setting minimum hours and negotiating standard compensations. Unions provide a lot more utility than that so I don't see workers abandoning their unions just because they get a check in the mail from the government every month. If that was the case, the union probably had very little utility to begin with IMO. I don't know if a UBI is the right solution for solving poverty or worker inequality. But I don't think the author makes a convincing argument for an alternative, and I don't think doing nothing is a solution either.