I have an acquaintance who works at min wage jobs just long enough to qualify for unemployment, then he manages to get laid off. He lives off the unemployment until it runs out, then gets another min wage job, and the cycle repeats as long as I've known him. He's quite content with this arrangement.
Thus, UBI can reduce the degree of low wage exploitation at both the worker's side (getting laid off asap for unemployment) and the business's side (exploitative policies countered by stronger unions and more incentive to unionize) while at the same time providing a fixed rate cost and less bureaucracy needed compared to the current welfare systems
Just saying, seems like a win-win to me.
How would he be more successful by not working at all?
> He would likely overall save the corporations he's being employed on and off by money by reducing their turnover.
Businesses are used to high turnover with lower paid employees. It's ok, though, because their jobs tend to be interchangeable and easy for someone new to get up to speed on.
> win-win
The lose part is supporting people who would otherwise work and contribute to the economy. I don't know many people, but the fact that I personally know several that would not work if they didn't have to means that there are likely plenty of them. (I'm talking about able-bodied adults without dependents.)
Why do you think that having everyone contribute to the economy should be the goal? Are you absolutely certain that your acquaintance does not have a positive impact on those around him while he is not working?
Also I see no mention at all of frictional unemployment as part of Mr. Stucchio's conclusions and if I suddenly had the ability to look for new jobs I would certainly take advantage.
The 10% number is created because people would now have actual OPTIONS, which is exactly what you want to create with this program. It's one of the goals. I don't see the disincentive being an issue except that it might increase wages in a tight economy which, is an actual thing people also want to do with these kinds of programs.
As for the personal opinion: obviously you're entitled to it, however I'd recommend a deeper look. Are you drawing this conclusion from personal experience? Do you know people whose parents never worked and are you really saying they're at a disadvantage because their family never worked, or is the real cause of the disadvantage of the "entrenchments of poverty" the lack of money?
The issue seems to be less "look at this poor role model - they never worked, so neither will their kids" but rather "we didn't have any money to actually consider a life that would allow me to focus on the things that make one successful, but rather food was difficult, and we were one broken arm away from bankruptcy". There seems to be a bias in your opinion. Please go speak with or listen to some actual human stories. I don't know anyone who would be less likely to be successful as a result of UBI. (Nor am I sold that it's a magic bullet either - it would be very costly)