The book goes into great length of the pathology of the welfare system and its non-profit charity profiteers. Of course that was 27 years ago.
It obviously depends on the UBI. If it covered children, it would be absolutely better for the recipients. If it does not cover children, as in Yang's plan, then it is questionable, but it still could benefit a lot because many do not get it at all:
https://medium.com/basic-income/there-is-no-policy-proposal-...
If UBI were to replace social services like general assistance, housing assistance, SNAP, WIC, CHIP, Medicaid etc, it would cause many people to choose eating over healthcare, or paying rent over seeing a doctor and eating.
In my opinion, general UBI needs to be issued alongside programs that target specific issues that are endemic to our current economic order. That includes programs that fight hunger, and the lack of access to affordable housing, healthcare and education.
We give mothers baby formula because we want babies to have adequate nutrition. If you hand out cash, some percentage of people will buy beer instead.
We have the programs we have now because giving away cash didn’t work. Recipients drank it away and landlords gouged them.
A program like Section 8 for housing balances those issues — the landlord gets paid on time every month, but is on the hook for a minimum standard of maintenance and livability. That’s why we don’t have children in tenements anymore.
Every once in awhile politicians and academics who know everything show up with a magic wand. UBI is no different.