[lawpoop]

I personally doubt it, but that remains to be seen. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I think more people would take a "staycation" for a while, then get bored, and go into new endeavors, like starting a new business, writing a novel, becoming seriously involved in volunteering, continue working in their degree field, etc.

If people were only motivated by the stick, no one would seek a raise or change jobs for a pay increase. But nonetheless, people still seek to move upwards.

[jjn2009]

There is a healthy balance of stick and carrot, they both have their place. But the main motivation behind work is largely stick. Once you achieve a certain level of income it becomes normalized over time and work is done to maintain this lifestyle and the pain from losing what you have.

You have an extremely rosy view of the average person if you think thats how the vast majority of people are going to spend their time on UBI. I imagine people on UBI will act like any other person who I've met whose parents do not kick them out of their home and provide them with basic needs.

In my experience these people are not doing anything worthwhile or ground breaking, and its intuitive to any individual why this is the case. Nobody glorifies or looks up to this subset of the population yet you put on a pedestal the man or woman who has no worry of basic needs by way of the government payout.

[lawpoop]

But the people "on UBI" will be everyone. It seems like you're thinking of "the people on UBI" as only those who don't have a steady job, live at their parent's house, etc.

I think of the average person I know, who works, has hobbies, who might have a side business, play a sport, participate in local theater, volunteer at a religious institution or charity, belong to a club, etc. Those people will also be "on UBI".

I think, if they didn't have to work full time (or more), they would still be 'productive' members of society, engaging /even more/ in all those things they are already doing when they aren't working. They might continue working full-time, or part time, or on weekends, or take contracting gigs. They might be more apt to quit, or at least speak up, when a workplace is mis-managed, because the downside isn't as painful as just hanging in there. In that case, a truly bad workplace will see that fact more accurately reflected in turnover.

I don't have a problem with people who aren't working on UBI. They probably already get some government benefits; UBI doesn't change that or enable them any more than what we have now.

What UBI offers in addition, is that those productive, self-motivating people would have the freedom for self-direction, instead of stuff they have to do to pay the rent. I would rather subsidize them and get the people who could use their physics or mathematics PhD instead of slinging frappucinos.

As a programmer, I know a number of people who would probably devote a major chunk of time to their startup or open source project rather than nudge layouts on corporate pages, if they didn't have to. They would be doing it already if they didn't put their income and health insurance in jeopardy.

If the cost of that is to allow a few people to sit on the couch more comfortably, so be it.

[jjn2009]

>But the people "on UBI" will be everyone.

This is exactly what I'm trying to point out is the issue, if everyone had parents who gave them handouts we should expect the trend to be towards our stereotypical view of a deadbeat who lives at their parents house. All these people who you are talking about had the privilege of having a healthy combination of both the carrot and the stick, and while you are completely right they could provide value if they had UBI now if they instead lived in UBI for generations their priorities could have been completely different. If we imbalance this important piece of society too much we will be running a modern day behavioral sink experiment on the population.