Quite the opposite. I basically retired at 40. A few of my coworkers did the same. Most people, when given the means to quit working, choose to retire.
Most people don't retire at age X because they have reached age X, they do it because they finally are eligible for a pension.
But yeah, I guess many people dont want to work because their options for work suck. It is not that many of those their contribution is not basically 0 or negative now as it is and with robots/ai coming in the coming 50 years, I rather have them living a human life with social housing, free playstations and basic income instead of slaving away at something useless just because of some weird idea that any work is better than no work to spend their short life on.
You do get that's anecdotal, right?
And that a basic income will mean you don't die from starvation, but won't give you the kind of comfortable lifestyle that you and a few of your ex-coworkers presumably scored from some happenstance in your employment arc, right?
And that there's lots of research about how 'most people' do not in fact stop working, at least within the confines of the trials done, right?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess your monthly spending exceeds $10-20k and is probably well north of $100k.
This feels like a bizarre take on quite a different arrangement.
That demographic has planned for ~40 years for tha transition, and in many cases is strongly encouraged by their industry / government / superannuation scheme, etc - to stop working at that age.
Extrapolating that back to providing a safety net to 20-40yo's just seems to miss everything about UBI - unless it's a 'I didn't have this, so no one else should' position?
All the research we're seeing - in very small, time-boxed, precarious trials - indicate that we'll probably get a positive result out of implementing this more broadly, without a drop-dead date attached.
The counter-argument always seems to be 'Oh, but we might not...' (and then some opinions).