taking this away from name-calling and taunts and back to Trek, what one side has consistently FAILED to show is why a post-work citizenry would be such a "disaster" when we have groups in society already, such as the comfortably rich or retired people, who don't have to work and seemed to find productive ways of spending their time.
Even a cursory analysis of the current socio-economic environment is enough to establish this 'why':
A society can afford to pay a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved to its citizens when there are no longer any crappy jobs that can't be automated.
Only then, the majority of the population will not work (instead living out their fantasies in the holodeck/insert hedonistic image here), and the ones that do work will do it out of passion.
Nowadays, some crappy jobs are automated, but FAR from all (meaning, the demand for mostly unqualified jobs declined, but the supply stayed the same - which resulted in a weaker negotiating position for the workers, which led to mostly stagnating wages).
But these remaining jobs have to be done by someone. Meaning, there must be an incentive to work. Paying a substantial negative-income tax with no work involved removes this incentive; as such, at present it's not in the cards.
this is a circular argument. If we paid a GBI(or NIT) that would INCENTIVIZE the automation of the remaining crappy jobs because then every citizen receiving a basic level of support wouldn't be wage slaves needing to do a crappy job just to get food, clothing, etc. This would cause work conditions to improve by giving employees more power(sort of the same way that labor unions do-anything that levels the playing field between employer and employee makes work conditions better)