Where did you get this economic model from?
From the Swiss initiative (already brought up by another poster) and some logical extrapolation of current trends.
1) Two 45 year olds could live in a house with a 20 year old, each get this free $1000 per month, and have a household income of $36,000 - tax free? Pretty sweet deal, right?
Sure, and why not? Part of the whole rationale behind this approach is that we no longer micromanage people. We don't pay social workers out to snoop on people to see how many are living under the same roof, or how "needy" they are. We simply hand people a check. Much less bureaucracy, much more efficiency. Not to mention freedom. And no disincentive for people to find employment--you still get your exact same universal income whether you work or not. If anything, this would enhance the tax base--no more working under the table to avoid the welfare office/unemployment office knowing you have income. Some people probably would bunch up under the same roof--and why not? Why should we care?
2) For these blue-collar workers unable to find employment, and subsisting on this $1000/month, do you really believe that these people have the financial discipline to set aside a retirement fund? What happens if their retirement fund is $0 at age 65. They have no social security, and SOL at age 85 when they can't work? (Totally unrelated point - if such a society exists, in all likelyhood, our markets would be diametrically different, which you haven't taken into account).
You're still thinking under the current paradigm. The person would continue to get their $1000 a month, until death. What need is there to "save for retirement?" Yes, if a person wants a higher standard of living, they can exchange their labor for additional income, and save whatever portion of that income they want, just as they do today. The difference is we're not employing legions of bureaucrats with complex algorithms and big pensions to decide exactly how much each person is "entitled" to based on reams of rules, policies, guidelines and procedures.
3) You're getting rid of disability insurance - so how does one go about getting long-term nursing care for being disabled? Usually this is included in most people's current employer provided insurance. If you are planning to include this within your broad "universal healthcare" suggestion, you clearly haven't done your research. That is economically unsustainable based on my understanding of how you are describing the economic climate of this future time period, and until you provide any sources, it's difficult to take this seriously.
I think we have to ask ourselves why healthcare is so expensive in the first place. The reason is that medicine is basically a guild, with a very small number (relative to the general population) of practitioners with highly specialized knowledge, able to command a high premium for this knowledge. Machines/AI is going to bring the cost of everything
down. Most routine medicine will be practiced by robots. The knowledge humans currently spend the better part of a decade in medical school carefully and laboriously gleaning, will be imaged into the exabyte drive of a med-robot in a matter of minutes. We already have robot surgeons assisting humans, and algorithms in supercomputers examining X-rays and spotting cancer cells that human eyes miss. Powers of supercomputers today will be in every doctor's office ten years from now, and in the palm of your hand twenty years hence. Yes, there will still be a role for humans, but it will be an auxiliary role where mundane, day-to-day medicine is concerned.
We will also be practicing more medicine ourselves. Twice over the past year, I self-diagnosed and treated medical conditions I had based on Internet research. Last century, I would have either had to make a time-consuming trip to a library, or gone to a physician. (I did have to go to an urgent care once, but only to obtain a prescription--if the substance I needed hadn't been scheduled by bureaucrats, I could have just obtained it myself at the local drugstore).
I don't even know why I am bothering to point out the flaws, considering it seems this is a figment of your imagination. My point isn't to criticize your views, but only to show that you're not considering a host of different factors.
Everything we see around us and take for granted was once a "figment of (someone's) imagination." The forum we're on right here once existed only in Vekseid's mind, yet here we are. And yes, I'm sure there are factors I'm not considering, and that what I've proposed here would need to be adjusted and tweaked, probably many times, along the path to implementation. What doesn't?
Many of your suggestions here seem to be very libertarian in nature, which surprises me, since you seem to be quite averse to many right-leaning principles.
I'm a pragmatist. If I had to describe myself politically, it would be "technocratic, a little Left of Center, with skepticism of Big Anything." I don't like the Right because they seem hell-bent on concentrating as much wealth as possible in the hands of as few people as possible. That's a prescription for disaster. America is already in the danger zone insofar as poverty and inequality of wealth is concerned, and the Right wants more and more inequality. However, I'm also skeptical of the hardcore Left and Progressives. I don't think government micromanagement and tweaking of everything is the answer, either. I think the State has a role to play, but it should act behind the scenes, at high levels, and leave everyday decisions to individuals. Hence, my idea to redistribute wealth, but to do so without creating a bureaucratic colossus.