>Many people choose not to work even without UBI. Many people would still work even with UBI. What would the actual difference be though? How many more people

>Many people choose not to work even without UBI. Many people would still work even with UBI. 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