That is
not the problem.
To me, it seems important to tread with humbleness here because UBI is not a product of modern science. We are not the first to consider it, and it’s never been considered quite an acceptable solution. Why is that?
The problem is, as often with economics, a problem with value and it’s ways of fluctuating across geography, networks, business and social structures in a matter of literally no time at all. Time is merely fuel to the fire.
Social programs are created by a government in the sense of a government that is of the people. Governments are not inherently just rulers of the land. They are ideally institutions built by people for the purpose of maintaining a state of civility and addressing common concern that might undermine that state of civility.
Social programs, or safety nets, serve a very specific purpose: to maintain a floor of minimum dignity (or less) considered acceptible in the sought civil state. If this is defined in terms of money, that level of dignity is then held victim to the precarity of value in a capitalist society; and that is not a floor I would be willing to touch with a ten foot pole; certainly no dignified person would expect another to either.
With commodities necessary to survive, it’s obvious how this can go wrong. We are talking about food and shelter here. Social housing is well-proven and extremely efficient. As it stands, masses of people in the US can’t afford housing at their current wage.
The best argument for UBI is as another economic stimulus, which is absolutely needed to prolong the final crash. The question seems to be who is included in the beneficiaries.
So, like much of this type of thing, if we don’t agree to collectively give a shit about other people in the first place, it’s not worth wasting time over.