[home_boi]

It's the opposite. The utility of money decreases as the amount of money owned/earned goes up. $9/hr to a person without basic income is worth more than $9/hr to a person with basic income.

Now people need more money to gain the same utility as they could have previously gained without basic income.

Why would people wash dishes if they didn't need to pay the bills?

[aninhumer]

I think there's a lot of untapped utility in better quality jobs, that doesn't get explored at the moment because people's first priority is getting enough money to survive.

Maybe no one wants to wash dishes (so buy a machine), but I imagine quite a lot of people actually enjoy being waiters, since you get to be directly helpful to a lot of people every day.

And now you're not afraid of being fired, you can even start to negotiate about the parts that suck. Obnoxious customers? Hey that restaurant down the street pays a bit less, but they're also willing to throw people out for being jerks. Maybe not going home upset once a month is worth a lot more to you than a new TV.

Things like this might not even cost the business very much, but they've never considered them because people take what they're given.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Sure, a dishwasher might not need to work to pay for rent and heat, but...

Can they afford nice clothing to attract people they like?

Can they save up for college? For their kids?

Can they play the latest games? See the latest movies?

Do they enjoy cigarettes, alcohol, or other recreational drugs?

Do they like to eat out?

Do they want a higher standard of living when they "retire?"

[home_boi]

People would be less willing to work for those goods than for rent and heat, so employers would have to pay higher wages.

[ambicapter]

Those people sound useless. The same way its less expensive to house the homeless than to chase around with cops, I feel like its better to just pay them to stay in their own little world.