> It does for the vast majority who will choose to happily live under the UBI level.

Even if the vast majority did make that decision (which I don't think is plausible under any UBI that would be sustainable in even the very short term in the near future) it would eliminate wage signals it would be a result of shifted wage signals, and the response of the market to those signals.

If the vast majority quit their jobs to take UBI instead, the wage to UBI ratio would go up, since employers would have to pay more to attract the workers that have alternatives. So some of the people would be lured back to the job market because of increased wages. The job market would find a new equilibrium (with wages likely higher than they are now). Prices would also go up, but likely not enough to completely offset the UBI (since velocity of money will increase - we're redistributing wealth from those with low propensity to spend to those with a higher propensity).

Basically, what we had during the pandemic was a mini-UBI experiment (even though it was not universal). Wages at the low end went up - exactly what you would want to see under a successful UBI program (because of giving people alternatives). Unfortunately, we funded this one via deficits (hence why the rich also got richer). If it was funded via a tax, we'd see the lower end wages increase, and the upper middle/upper class get squeezed a bit (which is completely intentional).

The last effect would likely trigger a voting backlash (since upper-middle/upper class folks have lots of voting power), but it's still UBI working as intended