I think consumerism is the incentive to work, even with a basic income. If your state provides you with enough for food, shelter, clothing, and a little discretionary cash, it'll show. The friends who work and can afford nicer houses, tastier food, and newer clothing will notice. So will the people you take on dates.
Ultimately, I think people will want to work. It gives them something to do and the money to afford things they want but don't need. If everyone followed Keynes, we would be happy with working ten hours a week to maintain a 1930s standard of living.
Although I agree with you I'm not sure how it would play out in practice.
I played MMORPGs a long time ago on french speaking servers and the amount of unemployed people playing that game and that had zero incentive or motivation to go work was incredible.
Of course this is an example but not everyone want's to be a productive member of society.
Why should they? I like my work even though I don't like working. I think it's depressing to think that a technologically utopian humanity would insist on work as a requirement to live.
From a public policy standpoint, paying people to essentially stay at home and be passive consumers can be quite beneficial. They aren't supporting themselves through crime and they're placated to the degree that they won't want to protest the establishment. And if they want anything more out of life than the basics, they'll have to work for it. Living on welfare alone (even if it's nationally guaranteed) doesn't sound like attractive mate material to me.
Exception: could result in poorly handled out of wedlock births. Possible mitigation by increasing benefits to incentivize birth control?
As a kid, when my Dad was laid off I got discounted school lunch by buying and redeeming colored plastic tokens. Took me a while to figure out the other kids saw using them as a social stigma.
So, yes, kids and adults will still be able to associate higher cost goods with higher social status. But changing benefits to cash instead of alternative, restricted currencies like food stamps will lessen the opportunities to identify and stigmatize those who are struggling financially.
I agree. The "welfare queen" or "SNAP for steaks" stereotypes are assisted by their immediate visual presence, enough to make even one encounter turn people off of the welfare scheme, especially if they see it as freeloaders on their paycheck. If the theme is less "makers and takers" and more "we're all in it together," we may find ourselves looking at our fellow citizens in a more egalitarian light, knowing that the minimum is not one to be feared, but avoided, if possible, and desired.
Considering a public policy perspective, I would be hell of a lot less interested in the ongoing class war if I knew at any time I could go and live out in the woods with my girlfriend and neither of us would have to worry about being hauled into debtors prison for student loans.
Ultimately, I think people will want to work. It gives them something to do and the money to afford things they want but don't need. If everyone followed Keynes, we would be happy with working ten hours a week to maintain a 1930s standard of living.