Why? Because it contains them. Otherwise, where would they be? If they have little interest in holding down a job, they're probably out committing crimes, or sitting in jail for those crimes. So the thinking goes that UBI is a way to contain them without having to jail them.
I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem, but I think it's tempting to think this way.
A universal jobs program makes more sense as a form of containment; it needn't even be particularly onerous.
My objection to it is that it'll be too easy to go after social programs, which for some I assume is the point--"you have the money, you don't need SNAP/Medicare/Social Security/etc". This proposal seems too much like an opportunistic attempt to trial the UBI. It'll be moderately successful on some metric, I'm sure, and that'll be used to push a permanent UBI.
You're right that it'll require a pretty fundamental shift in attitude. Some folks will still think people like that are losers. That's fine. But maybe we'll get to a point where they won't think such people, losers that they may be, are doing anything they're not entitled to be doing. That's the kind of shift in perception that's required to make it work.
We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices.
The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I truly hope that does not change.
Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment.
People have choices, and choices have consequences.
Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of "freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path for it, anyway.
I agree with the sentiment that everyone is entitled to do as they wish, even if I don't like it. This includes the choice to do nothing.
What I do not agree with is their choice to do nothing being subsidized by myself and everyone else who works and contributes to the economy and tax revenue. You are entitled to do whatever you want, but not on someone else's dime.
No one is entitled to things merely by virtue of existing, doubly so if they are able to work or provide for themselves and choose not to.
The only thing I disagree with is that I should have the choice to not pay for other people's choices of not doing nothing. If they want to be like that, they can as long as they don't interfere with everyone else's choice.
in a weird way it dangerously exposes people as, according to "the economy", particularly not valuable. the framing will go: these people are literally doing nothing and we're supporting them financially, no questions asked. that will draw a fair amount of outrage, i assume, given that the US can't even get that done for older and poorer people.
that's why i think if you buy in to UBI, you sort of need whatever else Yang brought with it - measuring societal value differently, etc. otherwise you are looking at a situation where certain persons are going to be portrayed as truly valueless, bc in the US the economy dominates so much. and i don't think that bodes well for those people.