My impression is that costs are second most common argument against; usually, people point out that a decent UBI could probably be covered solely from dropping all other forms of welfare and simplification of bureaucracy that follows.
> You are going to need a citation for this being the obvious outcome. Every advancement that has wiped out massive amounts of industries has just resulted in an increase in expectations for quality of life for members of society and subsequently demand for new things creating more jobs.
Start with CGP Grey's "Humans Need Not Apply", then continue to every single topic about automation on HN in the past few years. It's a pretty well-discussed issue.
> If everyone took your view of replacement jobs being pointless, we would have never advanced once we reached the point of having the technology required to feed people consistently.
Being a replacement job doesn't make it pointless; being pointless makes it pointless.
My argument is that the market is entirely able to provide pointless jobs - especially in aggregate, where one person's job cancels out results of another. As an example, one could point to a big part of advertising industry. The problem with such jobs is that they're zero-sum games, capable of wasting ever-increasing amounts of resources.
As for stopping advancement - fortunately, sustenance is not the only motivation leading to progress, so I think we totally should stop forcing people to work once we can reliably feed and shelter them.