&gt; massive skewing of wage payments away from younger people in many competitive areas of employment, because now that the taxpayer will cover living costs and assuming removal of minimum wages there&#x27;s absolutely no reason to pay trainees, apprentices (or the likes of runners desperate to make it in television) any non-trivial sum until they&#x27;ve spend a long time &quot;proving their worth&quot;.<p>That really only applies in industries where people would do the work regardless of pay (&quot;passion&quot; based industries like film). And even then it only makes sense for capital intensive roles (e.g. it wouldn&#x27;t apply to music, software, painting, comedy, etc).<p>For most industries, in the face of steady demand (for workers) and a drop in supply (of workers), compensation for trainees, apprentices, etc will increase.<p>&gt; regional cost-of-living differences and a guaranteed permanent income encourage former job-seekers to relocate to areas where their prospect of getting a job is minimal.<p>Good. It stops companies from externalising their costs onto the most vulnerable in society.<p>For example at the moment most companies in my city are located in the middle of town. Companies are happy with this situation only because they can externalise most of the costs.<p>For example most of the offices in my city are ~1.5 hours travel away from the poorer areas of town. But its where the jobs are. This means a lot of low income wage workers have no choice but to spend ~3hours&#x2F;day in unpaid travel time. That is hardly fair.<p>Introduce BI and what happens? Low income earners refuse to donate ~3hours&#x2F;day unpaid labor to companies. Companies will either compensate the low income earners (great outcome!), move offices closer to the low income earners (great outcome!), decentralise (great outcome!), or be forced into more automation (great outcome!).<p>&gt; massive distortion of low-end wages, particularly for unpleasant, useful but not particularly revenue-generating jobs such as cleaning.<p>Actually, what we have now is a distortion of the market. BI would simply cause a market correction.<p>&gt; a surprising amount of BI revenue will be captured by low-end rents, and other costs that people with more cash to spend at the bottom of the pyramid can&#x27;t avoid.<p>Probably not, because like you mentioned above, you actually significantly increase the supply of land and housing available because its no longer tied to jobs.<p>And if you only doubled the amount of vacant housing you would send the property market into &quot;free-fall&quot; - aka back to affordability.