What do you consider as "productive"? Look at animals in a zoo, do they look productive to you? They have "a universal basic income", they simply don't need to be productive. Humans, just like animals, are productive when they are trying to achieve something (catch food, find mates, and for social animals to establish their position in a society which leads to food, mates etc.). E.g. you are developing OSS -- ask yourself why? Forget about money for a second. Are you doing it for yourself only, just for a pure fun of manipulating characters? Or you expect your software to be used by others? Revered by others? So if it's useful for others do you expect them to use it for free and pay you through taxes via the universal basic income (relying on a government to do a "fair" distribution), or maybe just pay you directly thus showing that very reverence? So it's just a distribution problem. If you don't want to worry about selling your software, then let others do it (it's called "working for a company"). As opposed to a government, which can pay for a work not needed for anybody (not very efficient, but that's what governments do all the time). Want to spend more time with your family? Don't buy the latest iPhone or an expensive car and work remotely part time, you will be able to spend more time with your family. There are tons of possibilities. Yet people do want the latest iPhone and then complain they don't have time to spend with their family or do "what the like".

A lot of people have to work two jobs just to afford food and shelter. Granted there are also people trying to live a Champaign lifestyle on a lemonade budget, but how do you address the first group?

This world is not fair, do you know how to fix it? I don't. There are different models with different degrees of fairness, but all have their downsides.

> Look at animals in a zoo, do they look productive to you? They have "a universal basic income", they simply don't need to be productive.

They are also functionally in a prison...

So is all of humanity, we call them jobs and debt. Almost all of those animals lives would be considered luxury by human standards. No worries about food, a safe place to sleep, or predators.

It isn't about productivity by itself. It is about aligning production with consumption. It is wildly naive of Westerners to believe there is so much excess production in the world that we can just pay people to not work. The US got their "UBI" in 2020, and it was Americans sitting around while foreigners labored in factories, docks, and ships to produce and deliver the consumed products.

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of waste in the global economy, but if we want to improve quality of life then we should focus on the mechanisms which cause that waste in the first place (e.g. targeting GDP growth.) If we solved those excesses (a very tall order), then why would it be fair for one group to be over-consume at the cost of another groups over-production?

You not being able to imagine it only means your imagination doesn't go far enough. I have personally had experience with people who in fact would rather live off their parents' wealth in a hedonistic manner rather than working. One person hasn't finished his studies after 10 years and still spends his days traveling world wide first class using his parents' allowance.

Lockdowns were already a test of exactly what you're saying here.

When almost no one had to work economics became ridiculous, people were paying $40 for a $15 meal to be delivered to them, fiscal policy became clinically insane, tech stocks minted a new bubble. Are you proposing that bubble should be more permanent? The real economics of 'figure it out or lose your lunch' is much better policing than 'figure it out or go back to UBI'.

Burning an entire generation so the next one will be better isn't good policy.