As an employer, UBI and universal healthcare might slash payroll costs and eliminate most of the hiring process.
As a founder, UBI might remove the funding barrier to entry.
What's the downside, and who is it a downside for?
I'm not opposed to the idea of UBI, I think we should at least set up the framework, so we can turn the dial up or down, depending on how things go with AI and robotics. The issues mentioned are some downsides I do think about and why I don't think it's as straightforward as "give everyone money and they'll start doing art."
I think universal healthcare alone would let a lot of people choose the job they want, instead of the job they feel they need.
To your point, how funds get distributed could be up for debate. Maybe instead of sending them to everyone, some kind of productive work that benefits society is required, and the fund would provide a way to get paid for work that normally pays little to nothing. The problem with this, is that the administration of such a program is expensive, error-prone, and full of bureaucracy, just like most other welfare programs. I'd like to think something like UBI would replace most of the other programs, to dramatically cut administration overhead for the countless programs that exist today.
There are some people that will do hazmat cleanup for the love of the game, but probably not enough, for example.
UBI is a better way to accomplish that! The alternative, and what we currently do, is to means test people to determine if they are worthy of getting assistance. The problem with that is:
1. someone has to do the means testing, so you have to run an expensive bureaucracy to administer that testing
2. people might be needy in different ways, so you create multiple of these bureaucratic programs to cater to different types of need
3. now, in order to get help, people have to navigate multiple bureaucratic programs to prove their need. This ends up missing people who need help the most
Think of UBI like a tax credit for people who work and an assistance program for people who are unable to prove their need -- all wrapped into a single efficient program with minimal administrative overhead and minimal paperwork.
Of course the strawman's proponents will use it as an example of why we should write the whole idea off entirely, rather than test the validity of the concern and discuss options that provide some form of equity to a wider population.
Based on some of my personal experience and on informal interviews with folks I've known, the floor for that "some level" is so low that I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
> UBI removes that.
To twist this a bit, one could say similar things about the move from community aid to aid you're legally entitled to receive -whether that's because you paid for it, or because it's welfare-. Making everyone dependent on community aid means that receiving aid is contingent on pleasing those who control access to that aid as well as those who directly provide that aid. Society might be -superficially- more polite if those who are consistently rude or angry, or were frequently too distressed or in pain to summon the energy to be polite were refused aid, but -IMO- we'd be way worse off in that society than one in which everyone is entitled to aid, regardless of their attitude. [0]
[0] Note carefully that I'm following your lead and specifically talking about attitude and sociability. "Gotchas" such as "Well, what if someone kills every aid giver who comes to give them aid. What then?" are out of scope... but the answer to that one is "Well, you imprison that someone for life and ensure that they can't harm any aid giver that comes to give them aid while they're in prison.".