[damq]

It's a bad idea for the same reason all other variants of socialism are a bad idea: it disincentivizes productivity. If it's possible to afford housing and food without working, some percentage of the population that would otherwise be working will choose to stop working.

[JoeAltmaier]

Wake up! Jobs are disappearing as automation increases. The ultimate result is no jobs and lots of goods. If we don't do something, the transition will be a mess - less and less spendable money to buy more and more available goods.

[skinnymuch]

But a lot of jobs aren’t that necessary. What’s your definition of productivity?

[krapp]

>If it's possible to afford housing and food without working, some percentage of the population that would otherwise be working will choose to stop working.

Fine. Those are the people who don't actually care about their jobs beyond the bare minimum needed to get a paycheck - the people no employer actually wants to hire. Not having to work to live means having more flexibility to choose the work you want, and the labor pool consists of people who want to work. If you want to live in a meager apartment for subsistence, then you can do so on UBI. If you want a better place to live, more stuff, etc, then you can work.

There would be fewer people working, yes, but let's not forget that all industries are automating as much labor away as they can, regardless.

Capitalism and socialism exist on completely different axes - it was never the purpose of employment to provide employees with enough means to live, or a sense of purpose or the "dignity of honest labor." So let's stop pretending capitalism can or should provide for the social welfare.