Maybe in the distant future we do not need people to work. But we are currently dealing with the largest retiree population our country has ever had, and more money chasing after fewer goods and services nearly crippled our economy with stagflation. It takes two weeks to get a plumber right now in our area.
If you also hope to implement UBI nationwide, you need some expectation that it pays for itself with productivity gains. Otherwise it will all get inflated away into nothing.
Having an hour less in the work week should be balanced against being productive for longer.
Exactly. If I have to have 3 jobs, then with this money I "only" work 2 jobs, I'm working less but almost certainly have a better quality of life.
I want to live in a society where people have time to actually live.
For almost all of human history, you had to work to survive. Working is living. And yet you want to not work? So all of the resources you will need, who is going to provide them? I'm sorry, but I'd rather I not work and you work to provide the resources I need.
Because significant portion of UPI proponents argue that it will promote working more and higher productivity. The typical argument is that it will remove barriers that prevent better worker-job matching.
Working less is not so bad, but their income (before transfers) also went down. That means they did not replace poorly paying jobs with better paying ones (or they did with net decrease), nor started a business.
The issue is that social safety net is meant for people who's income is seemingly too low. If the net effect is to decrease that even lower, then yes its a concern.
(for clarity, I read the link not the paper)
I don't think realists really needed any evidence that normal people would love to quit their job and play computer games all day, but I guess this study wasn't for them.