One should also add that a hobby can be productive. A UBI could result in a revival of the arts and crafts: painters, sculptors, woodworkers, etc - all of which could be economically and culturally productive.

I wouldn't choose to stop coding, personally - it is one of my passions, but in a society with a UBI I could see cutting hours and spending more time with my daughter, fishing, etc.

Awesome. Nice of other people to get out and work so that you can go fishing.

No need for the hostile tone. The push for a UBI is directly tied with increasing automation in virtually all sectors, there's going to be less work to go around as we go forward - is it really fair to judge someone for being okay with taking more time for themselves when there's less for them to do?

I would go crazy if I didn't have code to write, it's not like I'll ever stop working if I wasn't forced to - but I wouldn't mind to cut back my week and spend time on my own endeavors if it wouldn't be a crushing blow financially.

So my point stands. The working people are supporting the hobbyists. Even if you are not working, someone is producing your food and your clothes and shelter. That stuff does not become "free" merely because "robots made work redundant" or "everyone gets free UBI" or some other nonsense. In any society, some people carry the water while others drink it. The idea of UBI is that someone should be able to practice a hobby while others labor to feed him and clothe him. This is a fringe notion that those who work find repugnant.

Currently rich societies support many people who drink the water while carrying none. But the social contract is that they get state support because they are elderly or infirm or disabled or simply down on their luck. There is no widespread support for the idea that people are entitled to carry no water and, moreover, to live a leisurely life of hobby, merely because they were lucky enough to be born in a rich country.

You keep referencing human labor, so you aren't getting it. There won't be a meaningful number of people working in the future because humans will add less value to the market than automation. I won't try to predict when the human unemployment "tipping point" occurs, but it will occur.

What is your proposed solution for when the market economy collapses due to demand side economics ceasing to exist?

History is full of people making ridiculous claims like this. Years ago no one would have imagined that anyone would work in a society like ours, where extraordinary efficient agriculture means everyone can eat. But people still work, because things like better healthcare and iPhones have a cost.

Human wants will expand to fill humankind's greater productive output, just as it has in the past. So I do "get it." I just think you're wrong.