I think of the average person I know, who works, has hobbies, who might have a side business, play a sport, participate in local theater, volunteer at a religious institution or charity, belong to a club, etc. Those people will also be "on UBI".

I think, if they didn't have to work full time (or more), they would still be 'productive' members of society, engaging /even more/ in all those things they are already doing when they aren't working. They might continue working full-time, or part time, or on weekends, or take contracting gigs. They might be more apt to quit, or at least speak up, when a workplace is mis-managed, because the downside isn't as painful as just hanging in there. In that case, a truly bad workplace will see that fact more accurately reflected in turnover.

I don't have a problem with people who aren't working on UBI. They probably already get some government benefits; UBI doesn't change that or enable them any more than what we have now.

What UBI offers in addition, is that those productive, self-motivating people would have the freedom for self-direction, instead of stuff they have to do to pay the rent. I would rather subsidize them and get the people who could use their physics or mathematics PhD instead of slinging frappucinos.

As a programmer, I know a number of people who would probably devote a major chunk of time to their startup or open source project rather than nudge layouts on corporate pages, if they didn't have to. They would be doing it already if they didn't put their income and health insurance in jeopardy.

If the cost of that is to allow a few people to sit on the couch more comfortably, so be it.