Obviously, becasue the cause is unemployment, not whether it is voluntary or not.
>but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did?
Yes, because it is a logical error, as I explained above.
>Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence
The evidence is that most people don't like working. I've never met anyone who went to work on a day off; I've seen countless people to get out of it.
>counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way.
They are as you say: limited. We would only see the effects after UBI becomes "a thing" that allows people to slack off, not a trial. And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
> And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
From the misspelling of education to the apparent breathlessness with which this prognostication is offered up as a fait accompli, it's perfection itself!
We live in a world in which for some strange reason people try to educate children and work at jobs making more than subsistence wage, and even try to get raises and promotions, and even when they get a job making six times the average, they keep working and advancing, but no, if UBI is enacted, civil unrest and world war will be the least of our problems. CHILDREN WILL CEASE TO LEARN!
Hahahahahahahaha! Okay, NOW carry on.
[0]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiv...
If Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's hysterical claims, then it definitely isn't a useful datapoint for supporting them.
The number of people who quit their jobs to depend on "Covid money" rounds down to zero. There just wasn't enough "Covid money" for that. Many people were unemployed during the early days of the pandemic, but not voluntarily.
Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence and the counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. But carry on. Civil unrest and a world war await.