I'd actually typed out an elaborate reply, but HN told me not to post that fast. The thing about both poor and rural locations is... they don't have the public

I'd actually typed out an elaborate reply, but HN told me not to post that fast. The thing about both poor and rural locations is... they don't have the public funding or private companies for a lot of stuff we take for granted in rich urban cores. Stuff like: * Medical clinics * Firefighting * Policing * Maintenance on buildings * Broadband internet infrastructure * Plumbing and sewage infrastructure * Electrical infrastructure * Roads and bridges It's not so much that UBI would end up paying the rural poor to satisfy their psychological need to feel useful, as it would send them money they can spend on pressing material needs that the rest of society have decided don't deserve to be filled if it doesn't benefit "evil capitalists". I mean, come on, do you really want to object that rural electrification or sewage should starve for lack of funding? Because that's what's already happening with the lack of infrastructure funding in many places. Hell, there's a lot of rich urban areas which have let their basic infrastructure go to crap (looking at you, MBTA!) due to immature political slap-fights. If UBI means that people have money to spend, which they can pump through their local economy, which generates a little bit more tax revenue to improve crumbling infrastructure and address basic needs, then it's a good idea. (Sure, we could spend the same state money on direct infrastructure spending, but that would be industrial policy, and thus horrific, evil Communism.)