UBI really stands for "Unemployment Benefit Increase" - since that is effectively what it ends up being once you look past the monetary obfuscation and net ever

UBI really stands for "Unemployment Benefit Increase" - since that is effectively what it ends up being once you look past the monetary obfuscation and net everything off. It has to be sufficient to allow people to live on permanently, or it isn't an actual income. Any less and it becomes a wage subsidy to private employers, and we already know that doesn't work thanks to many years experience with 'tax credits' or 'Earned Income Tax Credits' (depending on your jurisdiction). Ultimately if there are fewer jobs than there are people that want them, then wages get competed down - particularly in the secondary job market where individuals are near interchangeable. Give people money and the wages get competed down further. Which is what we see with the few retired people who continue to work. Very often they will volunteer just for something to do. Offer a competing public job and you get a different effect. People move to that job and earn a wage. There is no argument about 'living incomes' then - if you are giving up your 8 hours you deserve a living wage. Private employers have to compete to get labour, rather than having it subsidised. Private wages are held up - particularly in the secondary job market which is changed overnight from a 'gig' economy into a 'talent' economy. The private firms at that level will struggle pass the cost on, because if they do then those on the public job scheme will be permitted to replace them. You can't do that with an unemployed buffer stock. You can with an employed one that you can direct. The resolution process in the 'battle of the markups' is moved from wage earners to low capital depth operations that frankly add very little value and ought to be competed out of existence by their higher capital depth competitors.