Perhaps they’d produce art, or seek out experiences and education that wouldn’t otherwise be afforded to them. Maybe they’d take on risk and start that business they’d always dreamed of if they weren’t taking of their parent with dementia or having to work fewer days to watch their newborn.
Maybe risking their and their children’s health and educations because they might not be compelled to tirelessly feed their lives into a labor machine like they were once is too simple and dehumanizing a way to think.
I’m not for UBI yet because society is still too unbalanced in favor of rent seekers, but I could see it being the next target on the agenda within the decade, assuming a Sanders presidency.
Income inequality is a problem of massively unequal political and economic power, and of insider knowledge and class-cultural arbitrage - not a problem of income.
If - hypothetically - all the jobs required to provide food, shelter, and other basics were taken over by robots, there would be no reason at all not to provide them for free, and give everyone the political and economic freedom to do whatever they wanted.
It's a fair bet that while most people would do nothing much of interest - including most of those who are currently rent seekers - there would still be enough competitive drive to inspire a decent chunk of the population to excel in art, music, science, math, and other productive activities.
That would be real freedom as a birthright - not as the freedom from economic slavery that can only be earned by contributing to that slavery, as now, but as a true inalienable right.
I've heard this concern before, but what's the assumption that is being made? That UBI will drive more people to cities and increase demand? That landlords would simply increase rent knowing renters have a larger income? That people's long term expectations of inflation changes?
The notion being put forward here is that the more money Joe Sixpack has, the more things will crop up to extract some.
This one seems a serious problem. Home sales too, since sellers know people could make larger mortgage payments.
Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners?
I regularly rent out the guest bedroom in my house. When I do so, I do not run complex formulas to figure out what a particular tenant might be able to afford. I simply look at rents for similar units in the area, and bump it up or down slightly based on the various features and amenities the room has. I don't charge a corporate executive higher rent than I charge a college student. Their ability to pay is not relevant.
You might be thinking "okay, but what if everyone's income went up in an UBI scenario?" Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase, because we would have the same level of competition we have today.
The market is all the collusion necessary.
? Do you think these rents are set by God or something? The fact that it's a dynamic system doesn't change the fact that the equilibrium (and thus prices) are set through supply and demand.
People receive UBI, more people are able to move out and buy/rent an apartment or house, landlords are getting more applicants and apartment buildings start filling up, some landlords increase price to compensate for increased demand, average rent for an area goes up, the rest of the landlords increase their prices to match the market
> I simply look at rents for similar units in the area
Iterate that and the rents rise until they reach a new, higher global equilibrium.
Which is why I'd prefer to see UBH (Universal Basic Housing).
Only if there is insufficient competition to keep prices down and the market is already broken, which is the case in some areas but not most. In the more notable cases like housing UBI still helps by freeing people to live anywhere instead of cities with plentiful jobs, and even that is largely an artificial problem in developed countries with birth rates below replacement levels.
Honestly, I find this idea laughable. If the last 10 years have taught me anything, it's that people will spend every spare minute they have staring at their phones or streaming TV.
I think if the culture was ingrained to gain a source of prestige based off of what they contribute for free, that would incentivize people to pursue those Nobel endeavors. But that sort of culture shift would take Star trek levels of time to get to.
Denmark has kind of an UBI: a single mom + one kid, no work for past 20 years, gets more than $2300 per month. Such a person has enough money for food, good apartment, etc. All what UBI wants to provide.
But many of these people end up depressed, inactive, feels like a failure, etc. Many just give completely up.
They don't feel "UBI" is like having a long vacation and a meaningful life.
budget: (notice that the mom can afford a $1000/month apartment) https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article...
> But many of these people end up depressed, inactive, feels like a failure, etc. Many just give completely up.
How would these people feel without the money, though? Presumably this group is at high risk for depression to begin with, and alleviating their material deprivation may well be doing a lot of good, even if their average life satisfaction is still not great. (This doesn't mean there's no better way, but I would be really wary of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.)
I would love UBI, because it would transform what I could do with my time. Instead of working 9–5 on software for a company, I could build whatever I want. There are tons of app ideas floating around in my head that I just don’t have time to build. And I could release them for free or cheap, because my survival wouldn’t depend on them being profitable.
With UBI, I would expect to see many more people building open–source software. I would expect many more going into the arts. I would expect many more doing volunteer work. There are so many fulfilling and valuable things to do that are not easily profitable!
Hell, yes. There are a vast number of low-education people with what the HN crowd would call "old fashioned attitudes". From https://archive.is/CCTXs#selection-1205.100-1205.363:
"'Being a man means supporting your family,' says Mr Davis. 'You’ve got to do whatever it takes so they eat, [or] you’re no man at all.' Being a man, says Mr Redden, means you 'work hard, provide for your kids, have a car and [maybe] get your own house some day.'"
What would UBI do for them? It isn't going to fulfill their emotional or spiritual needs. (What they really need is a universal jobs program, IMO.)
> "With UBI, I would expect to see many more people building open–source software. I would expect many more going into the arts. I would expect many more doing volunteer work. There are so many fulfilling and valuable things to do that are not easily profitable!"
Funny, then why aren't people on public assistance already doing all these things you imagine? As others have noted, EU nations provide benefits better than any UBI proposal likely to succeed in the US. So where is this magical wave of creativity?
Could it be (shock, horror) that the vast majority of people don't have the creativity to build things or make art and don't feel they would be fulfilled by volunteer work?
In the current system, if you want to do X, you have to prove to the people who are willing to pay you a living wage/market rate to do X that you are worth hiring to do it.
Under a (hypothetical) post-scarcity system, if you want to do X, you find a group that's working on X and say you want to spend some of your time working on it, and you do it, possibly getting trained first if you don't yet have all the skills needed. Depending on the particular work and/or the particular system that's been implemented, either your financial needs are entirely taken care of by the UBI, or you get the UBI and then you may get paid some extra to do X—but the amount you would be paid to do it would be determined by completely different factors than under today's system.
This more-or-less eliminates the gap between what people want to do with their time and what society will let them do with it...though it will still require a cultural shift away from the idea of the Rugged Individualist Man Providing For His Otherwise Helpless Woman And Children With Nothing But The Sweat Of His Brow.
What if men providing resources to their families is a drive that runs deeper than some kind of vestigial macho chauvinism? We already have mass depression, isolation, falling educational outcomes, suicide, and even radicalization of men who are unable to find purpose to attach themselves to in the modern economy.
Are we to gloss over the function and instincts of half the population as an attitude problem? Social engineering is way too easy inside a theoretical bubble, where expecting billions of people to fundamentally reconstruct their entire identities can be handwaved in two words. Progressivism is supposed to meet people’s social needs, not dictate them.
If it is true—and I do not for a second believe it is—that the latter is an actual biological drive in men specifically, then that's something we need to work on developing strategies to mitigate and work through in a healthy way, because it's not helpful in our modern society. Y'know, much like our panic response is not helpful in our modern society, and when someone has an overdeveloped one, we treat it as a mental illness to be treated, not a "function and instinct" that needs to be catered to.
Personally, I find the idea that men have a biological imperative to be the sole reason their families survive to be nothing more than a ludicrous extension of modern toxic masculinity, on par with "of course men will rape women, once they get aroused they can't help themselves, they have a biological imperative to propagate their genes."
Back to the claim, sexual dimorphism and sexual division of labor are such a fundamental and ubiquitous element of human physiology and society that it is a mistake to assume there is no adaptation to speak of, or that the role of the male provider is suddenly maladaptive.
It may be that we can restructure society by common agreement in a different way that continues to harness the productivity of testosterone. That is not what you are espousing. Your ideas are a form of social high modernism which assumes the sexes are interchangeable as a premise, then categorizes any deviation as toxic and unhealthy (or even on par with rape apology, which is just... you've got to be kidding).
I don't see any basis to believe this other than that it simplifies the theory and makes utopia seem within reach. But we do have evidence to believe that sexual division of labor is effective (in a word, "civilization") and we are also seeing festering male issues in the decades since we've been experimenting with the alternative premise.
Highly educated people like lawyers also suffer from self-doubt and stress, e.g. thinking "there must be something wrong with me since nobody wants to hire me".
The "lawyers union" in Denmark asked 127 unemployed lawyers who recently graduated. 65% percent responded that unemployement "to a large degree" negatively affect their everyday lives. Only 3% responded that they are not affected at all. (in Danish) https://www.djoefbladet.dk/artikler/2013/8/ledighed-kan-kn-a...
So even people who are highly educated and for whom it should be easy to do a lot of fulfilling activity, still wants a job. They talk about the emotional burden, they don't talk about wanting more money.
EDIT: Also, at least here the unemployment benefits are predicated on actively seeking a job. If you actually go and admit you don't want a job, that can backfire in a situation that sucks to start with.
I was unemployed for nearly 2 years and it was a fucking nightmare. Because I had no idea what would happen to my life next week or next month. It's an unsustainable and extremely hostile situation. Can't make any long term plans, can't start any project that requires investment. The only way out of that situation is to get a job, which is everything you need to focus on, in place of all those interesting and fulfilling free-time activities one could think of doing during a period of true freedom and financial independence.
A steady, guaranteed, stable source of income would've changed it completely. You wouldn't need to deal with the stress of trying to find a way out of a terrible situation.
I don't think most pensioners, for instance, think that they've got into a fucking nightmare of a situation. Sure, some get depressed because suddenly their days aren't filled with the activity and people they're used to. But I think most pensioners are quite content as long as they are healthy, have enough money for comfort, have friends, and are free to find activities for themselves. And yes, some even get something that resembles a job. Maybe volunteer somewhere. It's still a rather different situation compared to being employed, and usually volunteers have only as much responsibility as they volunteer for, and they can pretty much quit or reduce their load any time. Around here, becoming a pensioner is something that is mostly celebrated. You can rest in ease knowing that you've earned your future and no longer need to compete in the rat race.
I can say that I enjoyed the heck out of long summer vacations and time between studies when I had zero pressure to worry about getting a job. I would FIRE if I could. There are so many things I want to do with my life, and 9-5 only gets in the way.
If you’re on a sickness benefit you’re supposed to be too sick to work. If you’re on an unemployment benefit you’re supposed to be finding a job. If you spend most of your time doing volunteer work you’ll probably lose your benefit.
Because public assistance in the US sucks. It's designed to. It is political tool more than social policy. There's a word of difference between these two things:
1. We as a society value families and children, so stay home and take care of yours, and we'll make sure you have enough resources to meet your needs. 2. Better get a job soon, parasite, your benefits expire next month.
In which of those situations do you feel safe, or free to create? Or to nurture, itself the greatest act of creativity? Is it not enough labor for society to raise a family? Must every mother also constantly be generating profits for someone else?
This is not my direct experience -- I consider myself fortunate -- but I've seen plenty of it. Getting public assistance is humiliating, time-consuming, and uncertain.
Humiliating - asking for public assistance immediately labels you as a problem and a failure, even for many of those tasked with providing assistance.
There are limited resources (artificially limited, because of course we can always afford weapons programs and tax breaks for owners of capital and real estate). The public assistance system is non-trivially optimized to weed out people who don't need it, in order to conserve these resources, and this process can be fraught and combative. "Prove to me that you're a failure" is the message and the context.
Time-consuming - it takes forever. People on public assistance are often assumed to have no jobs. They have to go (usually slowly, on mass transit if they're lucky) from one government office to another, making and keeping appointments weeks or months ahead. They have to do this often while they live in car that provides shelter, but not transportation, since they can't afford gas.
Uncertain - a large portion of the US political apparatus has for decades spent vast energy and resources in reducing public assistance, and in demonizing those who use it ("welfare mothers"). As we speak the US administration is pushing through further reductions, designed (they say) to "push people from welfare to work."
No surprise that people in that context don't feel free or safe enough to create.
Some people can work productively on their hobbies without a job kicking them in the pants every morning. But those people are so motivated, they're going to be doing real jobs anyway!
I live in a country with generous social welfare. Nobody is really too poor to pursue hobbies while unemployed. But they don't seem to be doing it. They do drugs instead. They probably feel useless and bad about life. Having a free house and food and healthcare doesn't help. We have a high suicide rate. Uselessness is an awful thing for humans.
Where is all the long term unemployed people's open source software and apps and arts? There's no shortage of unemployed people and those hobbies cost almost zero money, just time. So why aren't we already flooded with them? Or are we?
I'm not sure about your specific country though, I'd guess it's true in all countries(the majority of unemployed people aren't the kinds of people who write software in their free time) but I'm not sure and I'm interested in what you think. I also wonder, if UBI were implemented would it still be true that the motivated, creative people would be the ones who continue to work anyway? I think a larger portion of unmotivated people would drop their jobs and live off of UBI, but there would still be a sizeable portion of people leaving their jobs to pursue creative projects. I myself would definitely quit and start working on my game full time, I did it before without any kind of financial safety net and made some progress, but of course had to go back to work before getting close enough to completion. Having UBI would be life-changing for me
One of the most lingering takeaways from Sebastian Junger’s book “Tribe” for me is how being a valued member of ones society is necessary for mental health. I worry that without addressing those other aspects of mental health, UBI can easily funnel into societal troubles like substance abuse as opposed to creative efforts
Lots of people know what they'd like to do with their lives which would be important for (some) 'other people'. But often, those pursuits are not likely to be highly profitable soon ... if ever. (Many, many famous creatives never got to enjoy their fame.)
Most of them will never be able to afford to (happily, creatively, eagerly) pursue what they'd prefer. Not when they must invest (unhappily, dully, compulsively) most of their energies keeping body-and-soul-together while helping others fulfill their dreams.
We can do better.
Is this alimony/child support? And if it isn't, does alimony and child support not exist in Denmark?
My point is: UBI should only enable people to subsist on government income if they are willing to live in cheap areas with not-so-comfortable living conditions. Some people will jump at this chance, and that's fine. Many other people will decide they want to live in more desirable locations or increase their standard of living and will need to supplement UBI with other income accordingly. If we try to make UBI location-specific it opens up all kinds of arbitrage opportunities and weird incentives that I don't think most people want.
How about family ties? How about ties to their friends and community? These are human beings you are talking about, not robots. At a time when societal problems relating to atomization are increasingly evident (e.g. https://psmag.com/social-justice/americans-are-staying-as-fa...), we hardly need to encourage more of it.
> "UBI should only enable people to subsist on government income if they are willing to live in cheap areas with not-so-comfortable living conditions."
Oooh, yes. We could also give these cheap areas with not-so-comfortable living conditions some snazzy label like, say, "ghetto", "favela" or "slum". /s
All your substantive points can be expressed in the curious style instead. Just be thoughtful, respectful, and open rather than snarky, indignant, and confrontational.
The reality is if we end up with a large amount of people that are not working then our economy is going to be totally hosed because it runs on consumption. If people don't have the money to consume then it just stops functioning.
Giving people free money is like putting a bunch of taped together printer paper over a hole in the wall and calling it "fixed".
When you automate the entire economy, salaries also go down toward zero. That's even part of what allows prices to go down.
So, did workers become richer or poorer on the process? It's a 0/0 situation, and the answer to that question will depend entirely on the path both curves take into 0. But UBI makes that all irrelevant by adding a minimum bound on the numerator. For the purpose of fighting the problems of automation any reasonable amount will do, it doesn't matter that it looks too low today.
But of course, there are other goals that one can reach by UBI, and none of the above apply to those ones.
1 - There are obvious exceptions, some things are truly limited, and some things are limited by the government, culture, or other such forces. The cost of those are the real limit that will say whether the UBI value is too low, not today's cost of living.
Not at all. There are still plenty of limited factors in the production function. The capital itself isn’t unlimited, so you need to price in opportunity costs for using it. Much of the capital needs to support people providing services, so you’re still limited by the labor force for doing things that people prefer having humans do, like knowledge work or personal services.
And then you have to contend with the fact that resources are finite and capacity to extract them is too. We’re a very long way away from automated labor being so effective and so ubiquitous that it fully realizes all the benefits you’re talking about.
In the foreseeable future, it’ll probably be rather unpleasant as shitty robots replace competent humans, meaning the quality of services and products we get are bad but the good versions are prohibitively expensive. And the jobs making things start going away so nobody has the money income to get quality versions of things.
Even if this happens for most other needs / products, housing isn't a commodity, and I expect won't ever be. It will generally be demand driven in terms of relative housing costs, and if you're of the mindset that inequality in and of itself is the problem, the lowest tier housing will never be enough, no matter how sufficient.
Which will just lead to a larger part of newly disposable income being spent on housing.
We already know people pay based on what they can afford.
Unemployment isn't our major problem right now. The problem is that the jobs available for many people pay very little. Back when I made $18K/year, that extra 10-15K/mo would have been enormously helpful. I certainly wouldn't have stopped working; I would have paid down my credit cards and had an easier time training myself to write software.
In the meantime, with most people having at least low-paying jobs, we can start with something more modest.
For the combination of higher taxes and UBI you need to look at how the net effects vary across the population. This isn't easy to do without understanding the taxes, and those tend not to be emphasized. (Yang's proposal has a big hole in it; the taxes aren't enough and he relies on economic growth to make up for it, which is a common dodge many politicians use for big proposals. Not that economic growth can't happen but it's not that predictable for something that hasn't been tried. You don't know when the next recession will be.)
In a zero-sum redistribution scheme intended to reduce inequality, if you're of average or high income you might not directly benefit at all, but that's no reason not to support it. You buy fire insurance for the worst case, not because you plan to make money at it in the average case. You get security from it that's not shown in the estimated average payoff.
It's unsustainable nonsense, and incompatible with any sort of long-term stable future. The economic battery whose poles are the first-world consumer and the third-world sweatshop worker will run down eventually, and it's long past time to start thinking about how we'll adapt when that happens.
I fail to see the major disaster if it becomes somebody else instead.
E: to the downvoters, look up how money gets "printed" in the USA
_If_ the world saw a significant increase in the amount of automation in the foreseeable future, which is by no means certain at all, a less "utopian" solution would be shorter work weeks, and more guaranteed days off IMO. That would create more jobs than there are people and lead to the increase of the minimum wage through market mechanisms. It has to be coupled with Trump-style protectionist trade policy to be viable, however.
Being idle is not a healthy way to live. Being (much) less busy while still being able to support yourself is.
The "robots will take our jobs" argument is just one of the arguments for why we should do this decoupling, among many good arguments, but is the easiest to swallow.
The main problem UBI is solving is expensive duplication of function between status quo means tested social safety net programs and the tax system. A secondary problem that it can solve if benefits are tied to revenues and the right dedicated revenue stream is chosen has to do with calibration of benefits in status quo safety net programs.
> At this time, the amount of UBI should be below what allows a comfortable life, because it would lead to a feedback loop in which people would be increasingly demotivated to work.
As long as you don't automatically tie UBI to inflation this is self limiting since excessive demotivation causes critical labor shortages driving both wages and final goods prices up which (1) lowers the quality of life which can be maintained on UBI so it isn't as comfortable as the nominal benefit would seem to provide, and (2) raises the marginal benefit from chosing to work, both of which serve to negate demotivation.
No easier than general tax cuts—or implementing a UBI—are now.
Why does it make more sense to redistribute the outputs of the robots rather than redistributing the ownership of the robots so that everyone gets and equal share of the output?
The latter approach addresses the root cause of inequality (unequal access to resources) rather than trying to put a bandaid over the wound by constantly having to siphon the money back.
Is there any evidence for this? Is there evidence the money won't go right back into the lottery, consumption of unhealthy food, other vices, or right back into increased rent? What percentage of people will turn around and commit to an unnecessary more expensive car payment?
If you hand people cash, but don't correct a lack of financial knowledge, health knowledge, and overcoming marketing, why do you think it will be spent wisely? Aren't lottery windfalls exact evidence of the opposite?
At at an extreme minimum UBI should come with a budgeting framework. At a more extreme level it may be better as food stamps, health care, and retirement funding. Remember, the Freedom Dividend is instead of other, more directly allocated forms of social support. For those on SNAP and other cash equivalent programs, it's less than $1000 in net benefit, which makes it more net increase in welfare for the middle class than the poorest. A person who currently gets $600 in welfare will be able to upgrade to $1000, gaining $400, but somebody who currently qualifies for nothing gets $1000 more. So sure, the poorest are getting slightly more, but is it really actually tackling inequality, for the poorest to have the smallest net gain in the program?
Suppose 50% of the population is on UBI. Those 50% all need housing. What do you think the probability of the market generating optimal housing is? I’m guessing close to zero.
Planned housing can do far better.
The same with food. Let’s assume part of UBI is given as food stamps and only certain items qualify for use of food stamps. Combine this with required education (class you must attend to get UBI) and the quality of food consumed can increase significantly, helping to lower obesity and all the related problems.
I'm obviously cynical about regulatory capture and dairy, livestock, etc industries lobbying to get their products certified as healthier than they are. With pizza being a vegetable and all now.
I hate the argument that the market will correct with low income housing. The presence of housing alone isn't the problem, it's the desirability of the location and access to infrastructure like groceries and hospitals. Low income housing thrown on the edge of a city causes ghettos. Creating a livable are requires some level of more complex urban planning.
This is the prevailing view among technologists, a group that includes large swathes of romantic people who view themselves as something akin to wizards. Meanwhile, mainstream economics just sees a lot of business as usual.
It doesn't matter how they utilize it, UBI is still reducing inequality. You are allowing families to purchase things they wouldn't have had the money for otherwise. Quality of life purchases that the well-off take for granted.
Meanwhile, the employees who work hard to contribute to GDP and grow the company see a fixed salary. They do not see those dividends for the rest of their lives, instead when they leave a company it's over. Why? Why don't employees build up dividend streams from the companies they helped build? Why do Amazon employees get paid minimum wage and are denied bathroom breaks when Bezos' net worth can swing $9B in a single day? Why aren't all employees, from Janitor to CEO receiving dividends from the success of the company?
It all seems ridiculous to me. We need to encourage people to work hard and innovate, not sit on piles of capital and assets.
I'm someone who invests heavily and takes advantage of the system. But I see the flaws and it really bothers me.
This (and other forms of return) is the motivation for the investor to put up the initial capital.
Do you have an alternative proposal to handle the common case where someone who wants to work hard and innovate needs capital to do so?
External shareholders could still see a return. But I think the days of seeing massive returns on capital need to be over. It should be a fight just to beat inflation imho.
To be honest though I'm still thinking about this a lot and don't have an exact answer. So this idea is in flux. That doesn't mean it's not a problem though.
If fact, its generally considered a poor idea to own shares in the company you work for - if the company takes a downturn, not only do your shares lose value, you're probably also out of a job.
That's not true at all. Investments from the rich contribute greatly to the economy -- otherwise they would not be investments. Let's say that I had a billion dollars, and all I did was stick it into a savings account. The bank uses that to fund mortgages, LoCs, provide business loans, etc. Those all have a direct effect on the economy.
More likely the rich are investing in a combination of VC, real estate, and the stock market. Those are ALL job creators.
Really the only thing you can do with money that DOESN'T contribute to economic growth is bury it in the ground or spend it overseas.
Money spent well causes the economy to grow. Mindlessly spending money on things that aren't worth their cost is simply waste, and causes the economy to shrink.
In economics it is generally assumed that money wouldn't be spent if the transaction wasn't expected to generate a net benefit for the spender. If you make spending money a goal in its own right, however, then that is no longer true, and spending can result in a net loss instead.
Except the fortunate rich who own the housing that the UBI beneficiaries will pay for.
I can see UBI making a few people very, very, wealthy.
Indeed, if UBI becomes a significant possibility (but before it's a certainty), I think that buying low-end rental properties would be a good idea as I'd expect UBI to result in a net increase in household formation. This is literally giving people freedom and agency with which to live their lives in the way they choose.
My guess is the now-incredibly-rich rentiers (with guaranteed income) will start lobbying the government for concessions (e.g. restriction on new housing, tax-breaks) that further distort the very inequality UBI is trying to solve.
No one loves UBI and its noble objectives more than I: but I'm worried about this inherent failure mode.
I think when people approach this problem as "how do we best punish the rich?" rather than "how do we best help the poor?", it's very easy to get stuck spinning in circles.
(IMO) No one should care that there are very rich people. We should instead care that there are not very poor people.
I’m sure, by contrast, you could do UBI in a country with robust state housing and healthcare programs, like for example Austria, and avoid these concerns.
For example, I currently live in a second-tier Midwestern city in the midst of a housing crisis. Wages aren’t great relative to their respective industries, but rents and home prices are still skyrocketing. There’s no influx of new construction outside of the luxury sector in a few neighborhoods, a lot of which sits empty. Meanwhile, existing landlords just collect ever larger checks from their properties without meaningful continued investment.
Median rent in Toledo, OH is $550/mo. With a median household income of $33,687, renters clearly could pay more, but there's no shortage letting landlords demand more.
There is one of your assumptions.
It is more likey be captured by connected rentiers who exclude the more efficient.
IMO
The way I see it, the main problem that UBI is solving is inequality, it's a rich to poor transfer. Excessive inequality is bad because the aggregate utility goes down (rich people don't gain much from an additional dollar, so it's more effectively used by a poor person).
Transfering cash directly is the most efficient way of decreasing inequality, so UBI is the right approach. At this time, the amount of UBI should be below what allows a comfortable life, because it would lead to a feedback loop in which people would be increasingly demotivated to work.
And what about robots? There is a danger that automation will further exacerbate income inequality, so redistribution is a natural response, because it would increase the effective wages of low income jobs. It seems unlikely that robots will literally take our jobs, you can probably always be someone's slave (not literally) for $5 / hour.