1. This sounds like a variation of the welfare argument that has been around forever. Just because some may abuse a system does not make the ideas for the syste

1. This sounds like a variation of the welfare argument that has been around forever. Just because some may abuse a system does not make the ideas for the system invalid. As globalization and automation advance you will see others who could benefit from it aside from the stereotypical homeless person. 2. If the premise for UBI is sound then many of the people you mention in the service sector will eventually be without jobs anyway. "Where will the jobs come from then?" is actually a great question to ask when considering the basis for implementing something like UBI. In my opinion, the fundamental problem with UBI has to do with the perceived value of money. If everyone suddenly has $2,000 a month, that $2,000 will quickly have less purchasing power associated with it. On the other hand, if capital controls all of the means of production through automation, business will not have a market for their products as there will be no workers earning a salary to purchase the products. This is the biggest question for capitalism moving forward. I'm reminded of (the myth?) around Henry Ford and paying his workers more money. This may not have been done so his workers can afford a car, but by doubling the pay of his workers, the floor on wages in industrial Detroit followed. Whether or not it was his intention, the effect of workers having more money meant more sales. I feel like there is a lesson here for how we handle automation moving forward.