Also note that, unlike welfare/EI/disability programs today, a basic income isn't regressive toward those who want to work. You don't suddenly lose your basic income when you take that $2/hr job, so there's no disincentive to taking it.
If I accept a lower pay job, I'm doing my part on lowering the pay for that job in the collective bargaining between employer/employee. You might think it's not detrimental for you, but it's detrimental for everyone who competes for that job. And, as your argument is truthful, it will become a spiral: no disincentive in accepting the $2/hr job, then no disincentive in the $1.95/hr job, then ... for n iterations until there's no disincentive in doing it for free, for the experience or the kicks.
And, of course, in the end the benefit will go the usual beneficiaries.
You say this like it's a bad thing. Study after study show that people perform their best creative work when it's decoupled from extrinsic reward.
If basic income covers all of your needs and allows you to do what you enjoy for the sheer pleasure of it, what's wrong with that?
as an example - what I do to earn money, while enjoying it mildly as abstractly creative process (software development) is vastly different from what I do in my free time (mountaineering, travelling, general wilderness adventures). You cannot buy my vote on this with some basic 1000 USD income, if you tax high earners like hell on the other side.
One thing I saw consistently all around the globe - people need motivation to give their best and try hard, only few deliver without it for sheer pleasure. It doesn't have to be monetary one, but this one is universal and quite well oiled principle. BI doesn't offer me anything - I want to work, I don't have an issue finding next job, and if there is anything between, we have working social system that helps me. What does BI offer to somebody like me?
...currently. Things change, and you may one day find you do have an issue finding your next job. As someone who has been in that situation in the past, relying on a "working social system", I would much rather have guaranteed basic income to fall back on (in addition to universal health care, which is even more urgently needed where I live).
What's wrong is a potential increase in income inequality and worst wealth distribution.
A corporation or somebody from a upper class will be getting richer from the work being done while the guy(s) doing the work with the basic income will stay at the same level. I don't think we should increase our inequality metrics even further.
But I agree with you on the whole. The serfs should just be grateful I'm not beating them.
http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
you deal with it with progressive taxation
And, empirically, you can see it. In my country (Portugal), with a supposedly agressive progressive taxation, inequality measures (Gini and Palma) are increasing. And the amount of luxury cars too. :)
This means that in the overall collective environment jobs that are undesirable (garbage collecting is the normal example) will actually pay more than something like being an political intern. But people could do both of these jobs and still have money for housing/food/etc.
Only if you assume one's time is worthless.