> I don't think UBI is feasible, it is anathema to the human condition to be content with the bare minimum.

Hm? That is exactly why UBI works, no? As the name indicates, the bare minimum is taken care so that you can work towards "the best life possible for our loved ones" without worrying about starving, sickness or homelessness.

In contrast, if you were wrong and people would be content with the bare minimum, then UBI would be a bad idea. Though then they could just commit some felonies and be content with having a cell, bread and water for the rest of their lives, no?

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).