Doubt that. People will always want more than just a basic life.

If you want the latest yeezy shoes then you better get a well paying job even if you got a basic income.

[delayed]

Good point, in regards to concerns about inflation devaluing UBI's can be addressed through progressive taxation, which ensures fair funding without burdening the less well-off. Targeted government spending and investments in essential services can also mitigate potential inflation while promoting economic growth. Crafting effective UBI policies involves striking a balance between economic considerations and social support systems to maximize positive outcomes.

Looks like you got some common questions that maybe this site can explain as well.

https://basicincomeaustralia.com/faq/

How does progressive taxation stop inflation? “Effective UBI” policies is the goal but doesn’t describe a solution to any particular problem.

My worry is that as long as every city with desirable jobs is housing constrained, UBI will basically be a subsidy for landlords and existing landowners.

It's not a silver bullet for everything, but it will at least avoid the effect of people picking non optimal jobs just because they need food on the table.

Ideally this will be combined with good urban design to encourage higher density living and good public transportation with a decentralized city layout.

>Ultimately, UBI doesn’t create more resources in an economy - it just makes more nominal cash flow through it.

You're assuming a competitive equilibrium. At that point you have reached optimality and it is impossible to improve, which then leads to the apparent conclusion that doing anything at all can make things only worse, not better.

"The current allocation of money is perfect. Optimality demands that these people stay homeless."

Only to then be disproven by this study as it proved net societal savings, which is impossible under the competitive equilibrium model.

The thing about assuming competitive is that it implies either that rational actors are non deterministic turing machines or P = NP.

> You're assuming a competitive equilibrium

No. That’s a different topic. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter how we distribute money — there is a finite number of real value in an economy.

Believe it or not people don’t actually like being a burden. People like feeling like their lives and actions are worth something.

Believe it or not, there is people out there that consider that almost a human right

That what? Not starving?

To receive for life cash transfers from State

You're extrapolating your own experience to the entire population. I can assure you there are people out there who are happy to be burden. I know several.

The big question is: do you want to cripple your society in order to avoid supporting those people?

I don’t think those are the only two options.

Maybe not, but it's a surprisingly popular option. Policy-makers are often so afraid that someone undeserving might be helped by a policy that they'd rather hurt deserving people or spend more money to weed out the undeserving people that it would cost to just help them.

And this is not an opinion, it is a fact in Argentina since 2001

I think it's an opinion, not objective fact. I respect your opinion but as a fellow argentinian I don't think this is true in every case, or even in most cases.