On your first point, I agree with you that it's a deeply held belief. But that doesn't make it reasonable. That's why I think it's worth the effort trying to question it, especially at a time when there's so much discussion and fear around job loss.

Regarding UBI, I've also read a lot of different opinions on it, and all the ways it can be implemented to do more harm than good. My own view is that the only reason we even see it proposed from the very wealthy is that they're looking ahead at the direction all this is heading and see it as inevitable (to stave off riots and mass protests that could affect their wealth more than UBI would), so they want their version of UBI to be the one that wins out. That doesn't make UBI as a concept a bad idea, it just means it's going to be a struggle to get a version of it that actually lets us live a decent life. But to even get to that point in the discussion, we have to win more people over to the idea that not having a job isn't such a bad thing, and doesn't say anything about your worth as a human being.

Would be even better if there wasn't need to be paid at all. I find it somewhat funny/ironic/strange that I've never encountered the argument "members of families - especially the young - don't pay each other for services". That's a core, universal, functional economy. Also works/worked for "villagers" in some parts of the world. People should be able to get what they need, and shouldn't have to provide anything in return. Now AI is moving us in that natural direction and people are fighting tooth and nail to keep things unnatural.