[ndriscoll]

Because they're saying if they could sustain themselves, they'd have their job be to... eat at restaurants, play video games, travel, try on clothes, wear makeup, etc. Basically be an exact conservative caricature of socialists.

[kjkjadksj]

The irony is that its a caricature of rich nepo babies under consumer capitalism vs socialism. In a pure socialist society (good example of this is US government or military jobs) you still work and there wouldn’t be such striking wealth inequality on display.

[throw10920]

Having previously worked for the US government and knowing multiple people in the US military, there's both significant wealth inequality, and significant downgrades in quality of life compared to the private industry.

[ndriscoll]

Sure, but then you're either not providing UBI (e.g. it is conditioned on working), or requiring forced labor so actual jobs are still done.

[kjkjadksj]

Jobs can still pay on top of ubi which would be enough incentive to hold them. You may as well ask why any navy cook would strive to be general when peeling potatos is less stress. The answer is also higher pay.

[ndriscoll]

> A majority (53%) of Gen Zers surveyed considered influencing a respectable career choice, and a similar percentage would be willing to leave their current jobs if they could sustain their lifestyle as an influencer.

There's some wiggle-room on what "their lifestyle" means, but I doubt that the positive answer is biased toward e.g. HENRYs, and in fact it's likely biased in the other direction. If UBI can match whatever their current lifestyle is (or even exceed it, e.g. paying for a personal living space instead of roommates), then these people are essentially saying that they'd be happy not to work.