You are assuming that a person working is always better than a person not working, but if some of the nascent technologies become mainstream (AI, robotics), it

You are assuming that a person working is always better than a person not working, but if some of the nascent technologies become mainstream (AI, robotics), it might be that the aggregate offer of jobs dries out. In those conditions, what justifies incentives to jobs that no one needs? Wouldn't it be possible that such a scheme becomes more expensive than a UBI scheme? Another solution would be to heavily regulate AI, robotics etc. in a way that human jobs are still needed, but that would mean paying a very high price in terms of international competitiveness.