When thinking about UBI, it's important to understand the reasons why some may suggest it as a necessary solution in the first place and why the case is frequently overstated. Even beyond those issues, the concept of implementing UBI as a public policy solution has significant shortcomings that should be discussed.
Several years ago, there were some alarming reports that estimated that up to 47 percent of jobs in the U.S. were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years. These kinds of studies prompted some initial discussions of technological unemployment and what a public policy response might include. However, a more recent study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) puts that figure at only 10 percent. Additionally, the World Economic Forum predicts that robots will displace 75 million jobs globally by 2022 but create 133 million new ones - a net positive. So, more recent data suggests that the effect of technology on job opportunities will be negligible. This conclusion applies to our current situation and into the future, as echoed by the World Bank.
Comment: Predictions by most professional economists are notoriously wrong. Keep that in mind when reading the catastrophizing predictions and the less extreme ones.
Comment: Big societal and policy changes are usually plagued with uncertainty. The best thing they have going for them is that they sound good to one demographic or another. What's actually needed is a change in the culture of policy-making where new policies are tested empirically to see which will actually do what they are ostensibly designed to do. If they fail the test, they shouldn't be widely implemented. Perhaps some will eventually pass the test. So it's time to get thinking and experimenting on a small scale, as with the UBI trials referenced above. Of course that assumes there is the political will to do so.