Missed the forest for the pedantries.<p>In an employment market, I am the supplier, my boss is the consumer. I hold a monopoly over my supply. All of my competitors offer my employer a slightly different product. The market is a monopolistic competitive market.  On the other hand, my boss holds a temporary monopoly on my income, whether I eat or not.<p>With a GBI, these monopolistic <i>parts</i> of the market may be removed. My boss does not have to choose between me and another employee offering slightly different products, we can both be hired for the distinct bits of work we are can provide, and for an agreed price we value the work at, not an amount we need to satisfy our need to live. ie.it opens the employment market up to purer competition.<p><i>Is</i> <i>the</i> <i>argument</i> <i>for</i> <i>BI</i> <i>really...</i><p>Let me be clear, I don&#x27;t think this is a good thing, but that is the sense I get from pro-GBI advocates. The scary thing is it most probably would be massive, in time, and there is little good evidence on the knock-on effects. I get why anti-GBI advocates are scared, they stand to lose money, but pro-GBI advocates should be scared too. So I guess what surprises me is they both should be arguing for trials, surely?