I posted a more detailed sibling comment on this thread, but that's not why UBI works. it just shifts what the "bare minimum" is. Most Americans aren't fighting to get the best tent spot while out on the streets because they can't afford housing or begging for food on the streets. UBI isn't solving that, except as a welfare replacement for a small percentage of the population (and not a great replacement either). maybe with UBI, everyone who lives in a crappy apartment can now afford a nicer apartment, but costs for the nicer apartment would naturally go up as well. In other words, most people won't quit their jobs because of UBI, they would just temporarily afford nicer things. Those that do quit their jobs can not work and not worry about starving, but that's not a new condition. if you don't want to work in America, you won't starve. maybe housing would be a problem but the people for whom housing would be a problem if they stopped working are not typically the same people who would be content with the cheapest/worst livable condition (UBI).

In short, it is silly to expect UBI to be a means by which people would work only if they want to work, and they would pursue their passions and dreams instead. That kind of a society I think is possible, but it would also have to reach a level of wealth where money itself is not required (think star trek).

UBI can be used as a replacement for existing welfare programs, but you're not pursuing arts or starting a business on it. My point was, people will still prioritize earning more money when on UBI instead of pursue their passions because it won't be enough. UBI is not a safety net, if a middle class salary person fails, they would have to work hourly lower wage work, that's why they keep working their middle class job, it isn't because they fear starvation or losing their shelter.

UBI would relieve stress for the lowest earning people, but it won't result in pursuit of passion for most people. economically speaking, because most people can afford certain things (like rent) the price of those things will go up, things are priced based on what potential consumers are willing to pay. If rent costs $1000 for a specific type of unit, but suddenly everyone on UBI can afford that easily, the landlord would raise the rent, the cost of things won't remain static when wages rise for a large portion of the population. Increased demand without increased cost is loss of potential revenue. The quality of life for people on UBI would be barely surviving, and UBI would need to increase constantly to keep people from becoming homeless or starving.

This is the "Cobra effect" embodied. It provides a perverse incentive. healthcare in the US is out of control for this reason. health care providers keep increasing cost, because the patient is not the client, the insurance company is, so long as everyone is getting insurance, the cost of care is the maximum reliably predictable pay out by the insurance company. Not increasing cost is just bad business. You will have to also force all kinds of businesses from raising prices if it can work, and even when it works UBI will result in subsidizing low-wager workers for businesses, because they'll still have to work some job to afford anything outside of food,shelter and the basics.

A practical alternative to UBI is a local tax on businesses, kind of like a property tax but this tax is based on an inverse of an assessment of wages, rent, welfare pay out and other social conditions in the area. the higher wages are, lower rent is,etc.. the lower the tax is, it might even result in a credit. An inverse of a perverse incentive like UBI. Unemployment would also be partially funded through this, the unemployed would forever get a UBI like pay out so long as they are pursuing education or work of some kind based on what is in demand in their area. Businesses get a healthy talent pool to choose from and cost of living is balanced.