There already is something similar to UBI. People don't starve, they have shelter, and they generally get taken care off when they have medical emergencies. That's true in most countries. What you get at that level is typically not great. But it is provided for by societies and governments across the world and lots of people are dependent on that.

That current system is actually more expensive than UBI. At its best it would be about as expensive. For example, some countries spend almost as much on unemployment programs as they do on the actual unemployment benefits. Which, if you think about it is mildly ridiculous. People that show up at a hospital are not going to die abandoned in the gutter (well mostly, Michael Moore documented a few negative examples for this in the US). And of course, having your life saved might bankrupt you in the US. Even if you are insured. And even there they'll likely patch you up at least. And in most other countries, everybody is insured so it's not a problem. The modern sign of poverty is being morbidly obese because of the excess of low quality nutrition people seem to be able to get their hands on via food stamps and what little benefits they can scrape together. Which then causes health issues. Which further burdens the unemployment and benefits system.

All this is stupid, inefficient, costly, and not that great if you are on the receiving end (to put it mildly). But formalizing the status quo in UBI form might make things a bit more efficient and better. It would still not be great or that attractive as a lifestyle. But then the message becomes "just get a job if you want/need more". Don't worry about starving. Worry about getting something nice for yourself and work to secure that. Most people have more ambition than just coasting on benefits. And would you employ the ones that don't?

People think of this in closed world terms (somebody has to pay for it), not realizing that most economic growth is a complex system with money being created and distributed (in complex ways) by central banks, which then causes inflation to happen, and spending to compensate for that. A lot of jobs are more about distributing money to people and getting them to spend it than getting people to do something that adds value. The most important function many people have in our economy is just spending their money. Skipping the part where these people pretend to be useful in some bullshit job isn't that big of a deal.

1. This isn't at all obvious to me. Look at the number of people who continue working well into retirement or the people who volunteer their time. I tried sitting on my ass for three months after college and it drove me so crazy I picked up WebGL despite having zero intention of using it in my career.

2. Most UBI proposals I've seen involve replacing existing programs with UBI. My personal favorite proposal is a flat tax that's fully redistributed. There's no deficit possible here, if tax revenue goes down, so do payments.

> Look at the number of people who continue working well into retirement or the people who volunteer their time.

And those people are a fraction of people who don't continue working when they don't have to.

You can't make decisions based on the behaviour of such a small minority.

That was an example off the top of my head. Is that the most represenative sample? Another group that doesn't need money includes doctors, lawyers, and executives in their 40s and 50s. I don't see many of them quitting the moment they're able. What do you feel the appropriate rate for the entire population is? What's the rate required to sustain society?

The only decision I intend to make (and the only one I feel qualified to make) is that I'd like to see more data. We shouldn't be making decisions off of assumptions either way.

Well we don't have enough people working today to sustain society, so it seems to be in the wrong direction.

>Look at the number of people who continue working well into retirement or the people who volunteer their time.

Only 20% of people 65 or older in the US continue to work, and I imagine most of that 20% are doing part time or intermittent work.

Nice stat! The national average is 60%. Wonder how many of those half-retired folks still need the money?

No idea, but the low numbers still working suggest that for most people UBI would lead to a significant decrease in the amount of people working and the amount of work each person does.

> 1. People will stop working if they don't need to and won't need to in future. This is obvious to anyone who has met people.

Tons of people work jobs they don't like, instead of jobs they would prefer, because the former pays a ton better than the latter, even though they could (barely, perhaps) get by on the lower salary.

They do this because they like stuff, want prestige, and maybe want to raise a family in circumstances other than poverty.

It's not obvious to me at all that UBI at levels anyone is even half-seriously proposing would cause more than a very few people to stop working.

> 2. We obviously can't afford UBI. Most governments have severe deficits even without UBI. "Tax the rich! Then we'll be able to afford it!".. yes well that's orthogonal. Let me know when you figure out how to do that.

That's not at all obvious. I'm not rich, but I recall when I made far less money and was taxed at a marginal rate which was 4% higher than the one which applies to me now. In the U.S., we've made a conscious decision to keep cutting taxes and running large deficits. We could decide to raise taxes and pay for UBI. Yes, that's a political problem, but it's not at all the problem that we can't afford UBI.

==1. People will stop working if they don't need to and won't need to in future. This is obvious to anyone who has met people.==

You are arguing against a proposal nobody is making. In this study, €1,200/month isn't really enough that people wouldn't need to work. The average wage in Germany was €4,479/month in 2023.

Yes, the studies are a waste of money when you've already made up your mind about the way the world "obviously" works, and aren't willing to test your assumptions or change your mind.

1. If this was true the wealthy would not work, and yet a large majority still do, socialites and other classes are very small minorities of the wealthy.