Private money being wasted due to inefficiencies at the office (as you say, a misallocation) is surely entirely different than a government-granted right to not produce anything yet still be supported.
The important thing is that people are prevented from enjoying themselves for at least eight hours a day.
Otherwise, they will not grow.
True UBI would create the largest, most indolent, and most socioeconomically isolated consumption class the world has ever seen — until it collapses under its own weight.
The wealth and culture gap would become nearly insurmountable for anyone otherwise capable of upward mobility out of the UBI class.
... sidenote; I personally think that something completely inefficient "is not that bad". Much worse is work that is directly detrimental for society as a whole, even if it does make a few people rich. Now that is terrible.
They then buy food, housing, medical, transportation, fuel, entertainment, (optionally) raise kids, by things kids want, take vacations, have hobbies
They're still most likely a net positive to the economy.
Why?
If you are in the camp that think companies sole purpose is shareholder profit then this is perverse.
If you are not in that camp you can probably agree that we should aspire to the best life for most people.
(As a European this comment really dissonates. I do realise that it does not for Americans)
As a European, odds are that you're used to a monoethnic country where "most people", "society", and "government" are kind of interchangeable, and people find it easier to sacrifice themselves for the greater good -- as you say, aspire to the best life for most people, even if it might mean that the decisions being made are not optimal for one's own circumstances.
I myself hail from such a country (though outside of Europe), and you are right that the American viewpoint, or that of any other large, multiethnic country, is quite different. Implementing policies that require taxpayers to support others that are culturally different and therefore harder to empathize with is an order of magnitude more difficult; and it is becoming yet more difficult in America as time goes by, due to the reduced emphasis in assimilating to the mainstream ("white") culture.
There's basically no way you can start a new state if you'd want to opt out of the existing ones, and even moving from one to another is quite the undertaking. Imagine Atlassian saying "sure, you're free to stop working with and paying us, but we believe that we've been instrumental in building your company, and we believe that entitles us to 20% of your company if you want to work with someone else".
But even if it actually was millions of completely unproductive jobs, I fail to see how that would be an argument for adding a few dozen millions more and not a reason to get rid of the ones that exist and cost us money that we could otherwise invest into important things that are currently underfunded.
I wasn't making the argument that every government job is useless, I was simply reminding that it's not true that unproductive private jobs can be weeded out simply with competition or customer care.
go buy treasury bonds, they pay almost 5 percent. ibonds pay more. why? they just do. and companies and rich people buy them all the time.