Because the concept itself is a lie and panderous ploy for voters. If UBI was universal, nobody would work and UBI would have no funding source since government can only ever be funded by tax revenue by people who work.
If you take a literal definition of "nobody", this is 100% wrong.
UBI should only give you a bare minimum. Cheap food. Cheap housing. Cheap clothes. The bare essentials, with very little discretionary income.
There are a lot of people where this is all they want. They have no ambitions. No life goals. These people would take UBI and not work.
But most people want more. They want better food. Better housing. More entertainment options. Funds to fuel a hobby. Money to travel. These people will still work. And they'll be happier about it, knowing that they don't have to work.
Minimum wage jobs are filled with people that can't get anything better and are just taking what they can get. You could swap them out with people that are there because they want to be.
That doesn't strike me as inevitable.
My parents provided me with free housing and food for over 20 years with no strings attached. They never told me to get a job or to help pay the bills. While my less fortunate peers wasted their lives working at McDonald's, I had the privilege of being able to study and experiment with different careers without needing to worry about food and shelter.
Behind every highly productive worker is hundreds of thousands of dollars of FREE support that they did not work for or earn in any way.
The only problem is that how much support you get depends on what family you happen to be born into. When the government provides that support instead, it means everyone gets equal opportunity and it doesn't matter what family you come from.
FTFY
They count on existing people poor enough to work miserable jobs that no one would do if not for the threat of homelessness and starvation. They count on the coercion inherent to the system to keep things chugging along.
Someone gotta collect that garbage, and the sewer won't unclog itself.
What's your answer then? Robots? "These dirty but necessary jobs should pay better" would be a reasonable take, "let's give free money to everybody" seems a bit less so to me.
My answer is that a system that forces people into miserable jobs for miserable payment is inherently an unfair system.
Would you be alright with slavery because no one else would pick cotton or cut sugar cane while being threatened with a whip because "these dirty but necessary jobs should should be better"?
> would be a reasonable take, "let's give free money to everybody" seems a bit less so to me.
Giving free money to everybody would result in undesirable jobs either having their conditions improved or eliminated entirely. If unclogging sewers is necessary, people would only do it for the proper payment.
[citation needed]
The argument was that "if everyone gets UBI no one will work".
Many people choose not to work even without UBI. Many people would still work even with UBI.
I probably still would work, mostly because I'm greedy. I like money. It's colorful and buy things.
Personal perspective in this discussion is less than useful as it fails to address the reason why UBI is a good thing. It attempts to remove the coercion inherent to the existing system, where people are essentially forced into servitude under threat of homelessness and starvation.
What would the actual difference be though? How many more people would choose not to work if they received UBI? This is just hand-waving that question away with a "more, but it doesn't matter" answer. I understand GP said "if everyone gets UBI no one will work", which was clearly an exaggeration and shouldn't be taken verbatim. But the number of people who would stop working is not 0, nor can you say with any certainty it wouldn't be enough to cause major problems.
>Personal perspective in this discussion is less than useful as it fails to address the reason why UBI is a good thing.
Ah so personal perspectives are only useful if they reinforce that UBI is a good thing, gotcha
>It attempts to remove the coercion inherent to the existing system, where people are essentially forced into servitude under threat of homelessness and starvation.
Which system are you referring to? Physical reality? Resources are finite. Every living thing on this planet has to work to survive, with the possible exceptions of pets and zoo animals, neither of which are conditions I aspire to. It's a great testament to our kindness and empathy that we're willing to help those who are unable to provide for themselves, and we should. But until we're able to replicate matter like Star Trek this concept of "I have the inherent right to be provided for indefinitely regardless of circumstance" is nonsensical and destructive
Why does this matter? I suppose people should be free to choose to work without threat of homelessness and starvation. Do you disagree with this notion?
> Which system are you referring to? Physical reality? Resources are finite.
The current system that society uses to organize itself in democratic countries where discussion of UBI is a thing, obviously.
Resources being finite is true, but meaningless to this discussion. Market forces should cause the cost of things and align incentives So that goods and services are still produced, but without forcing people in a system of coercion.
> Ah so personal perspectives are only useful if they reinforce that UBI is a good thing, gotcha
This line clearly shows you are unwilling to argue in good faith. I will reply no further. Feel free to have the last word.