<p>Brian's answer surely hit a major part of the issue - the level of the UBI. Yet, there are other aspects of the problem.</p>

<ol>
<li>People like to work. There is a huge amount of sociological literature showing that people derive considerable non-pecuniary benefits from work, or alternative, that lack of work leads to several personal (and social) undesirables (for example, <a href="http://www.danpink.com/books/drive/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>, <a href="http://www.andrewoswald.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Work_Disappears" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>). As Voltaire <a href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/2058.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">said</a>, </li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
  <p>Work keeps at bay three great evils: boredom, vice, and need.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thus, many people will like to work. This is the <strong>supply side</strong> of the labour market.</p>

<ol start="2">
<li>Firms will still need workers. Provided capital and robots do not take over all jobs, firms will still require some workers. If the supply of labour across skill levels is not high enough, then either migration will occur (perhaps politically undesirable, but historically favoured by firms), or wages will go up. The latter will induce more people to work. </li>
</ol>

<p>The key is, then, not only the level of UBI, but whether there will be enough jobs. Perhaps there will not be, at least not for the current working week. Maybe Keynes' <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#Economic_Possibilities_for_our_Grandchildren_.281930.29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">prediction</a> of a 15-hour working week might finally become true.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-21T16:58:52.297Z
Most of people hate their jobs. Now in 2021 we can see the labor shortage and that's not even coming from guaranteed basic income but only from stimulus. What happens if the money are guaranteed monthly. Trust me, the labor shortage will be a norm.
Grasper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-21T21:01:55.107Z
if there is a labour shortage, labour costs will rise to balance it
njzk2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T14:16:59.067Z
@njzk2 which will ruin businesses and forces bankruptcy. Giving people more money won't attract people to do a job they hate. There is many articles written saying pay increase won't make much difference.
Grasper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T18:06:22.990Z
Ah. So let's force people into jobs they hate, keeping people miserable, in order to save businesses from bankruptcy, then?
njzk2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-24T16:02:59.987Z
well, that's how it works now. So yes but we can minimize suffering from work when we offer more options or opportunities so people don't feel stuck in one place. But giving people free money would destroy the current system.
Grasper
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-27T15:34:50.850Z
2017-05-27T15:34:50.850Z
luchonacho
<p>The level of the basic income would have to be set at a level that the majority of the population is still willing to work to get more money than the basic amount, so that required work is still done. (The robots are not going to be taking over all the jobs for some time). From the proposals I have seen, it would be near the poverty level in the developed countries.</p>

<p>At that level, I believe there have been enough experiments to validate that most people would want to work to earn more than the minimum. There is a lot of studies showing that many people want to contribute, rather than sit around.</p>

<p>The problem may be effect on tax system. <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/16851/universal-basic-income-menial-tasks">This other question on menial tasks seems to be related to your question.</a> If there is no increased taxation to match the increased transfers, inflation would be quite high, given the size of the program. (This is discussed in my answer on the linked question in more detail.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-26T23:55:59.480Z
But they can only work part time. Or the expenses will raise if all people have enough moneyto buy stuff.
Grasper
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-27T11:29:20.240Z
The usual proposal is that the transfer is unconditional; everyone gets the amount, even if they work full time. If not, it's just another welfare program. Prices would rise if the extra spending is not offset with tax; I discussed that in my answer on the question I linked.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-26T21:52:43.293Z
2017-05-27T11:31:15.753Z
2017-05-27T11:31:15.753Z
Brian Romanchuk
<p>After reading an article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wiki</a> and watching the Ted <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash" rel="nofollow noreferrer">video</a> on basic income system in a society and even M.Zuckerberg <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">talks about it</a>, nobody really addresses the issue of the workforce availability.</p>

<p>If every person is guaranteed a basic income who is there left to work/be employed? I think only more ambitious people will work. What will motivate the rest of the people? </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-12T17:52:04.607Z
the same thing that motivate workers in the neoclassical theory. The fact that they value the revenu of that work more than the free time that they exchange against it.
njzk2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-21T17:00:13.310Z
@njzk2, most people hate their jobs. Unless you provide them with something meaningful which is rare, people will not work.
Grasper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-21T21:03:07.017Z
If I have free time, I can exchange it against a salary, and get more value out of the rest of my free time. Consider this: basic income are usually number around 500-1000$/month. Conservatively, from capital income, that's the interest from, say 300k at 4%. Quite a few people have 300k worth of assets, yet most of them choose to keep working. Very few people stop working once they reach this kind of number.
njzk2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T14:11:36.267Z
@njzk2, you aren't exchanging free time, you are exchanging your work that might not be worth of your effort if you get 1k for free. For a couple 2k can be enough to live from paycheck to paycheck. Sitting on the porch and smoking. Some might move to a different country/area with lower expenses but still get benefits from the US. You would be surprised how many will stop working if they get just some money to get by. Once you realize how comfortable it is not to do anything, you will not work. My argument is most will not work unless you force them in some way. Taking away health benefits..
Grasper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T18:02:48.647Z
You don't seem to see my point. A lot of people are already in a position to stop working and still receive 1k per month in interest from the capital they already own. Most of them keep working. Consider this: if you had nothing to do, would you exchange 1 day of work for the possibility of a good restaurant? Or a month of work for the money to go on vacation somewhere for a bit?
njzk2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T16:07:37.413Z
@njzk2, yes but that would only be a part time job just to get extra money so I can go on vacation or to a restaurant. Basically people will only work part time or just little bit. It would not sustain businesses. Imagine if employees of a restaurant would work only when they feel like it then you won't have a restaurant...And that's my whole point...I will not be able to go on vacation if there are no employees cleaning hotels and so on...Remember, 85% of people hate their jobs according to statistics.
Grasper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T19:38:49.250Z
We would find a new balance. Possibly people would not work 40 hours a week for low salary in jobs that are not fun. But possibly they would, to save money in order to get a degree and do something they enjoy. Currently, the price of unskilled labor is very low because people are forced to work for survival. Surely a situation where that's not the case would bring better redistribution of the richness. Amazon would have to pay their warehouse workers higher wages, and the 100 billion that Bezos just made would be split among those 1 million employees amazon has. (That's 100k per person, btw)
njzk2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-24T15:58:43.867Z
@njzk2, that would create inflation and we would be back where we started. I don't think humanity is ready for something like this. It would only work if we have robots who will produce food and all other human necessities. People will only work on intellectual jobs that requires creativity or exploration but I don't think everyone will be interested. Most won't... It's all utopia...
Grasper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-25T22:11:18.863Z
At this point you're speculating. I'm not saying I know what will happen, but I disagree that _most_ people will just stop doing anything. There is a good chance that terrible jobs will become obsolete, yes, that it will make some business models invalid and some products unavailable. But that means realizing that free shipping only exists because some fellow human beings work in bad conditions. (Some experiments have been conducted on small-ish scales, mostly with interesting results)
njzk2
<unemployment><basic-income>
How is workforce guaranteed in basic income system?
Grasper
# How is workforce guaranteed in basic income system?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-26)

After reading an article on [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) and watching the Ted [video](https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash) on basic income system in a society and even M.Zuckerberg [talks about it](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html), nobody really addresses the issue of the workforce availability.

If every person is guaranteed a basic income who is there left to work/be employed? I think only more ambitious people will work. What will motivate the rest of the people?

**Tags:** unemployment, basic-income

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: the same thing that motivate workers in the neoclassical theory. The fact that they value the revenu of that work more than the free time that they exchange against it.  
> **username_0**: @username_1, most people hate their jobs. Unless you provide them with something meaningful which is rare, people will not work.  
> **username_1**: If I have free time, I can exchange it against a salary, and get more value out of the rest of my free time. Consider this: basic income are usually number around 500-1000$/month. Conservatively, from capital income, that's the interest from, say 300k at 4%. Quite a few people have 300k worth of assets, yet most of them choose to keep working. Very few people stop working once they reach this kind of number.  
> **username_0**: @username_1, you aren't exchanging free time, you are exchanging your work that might not be worth of your effort if you get 1k for free. For a couple 2k can be enough to live from paycheck to paycheck. Sitting on the porch and smoking. Some might move to a different country/area with lower expenses but still get benefits from the US. You would be surprised how many will stop working if they get just some money to get by. Once you realize how comfortable it is not to do anything, you will not work. My argument is most will not work unless you force them in some way. Taking away health benefits..  
> **username_1**: You don't seem to see my point. A lot of people are already in a position to stop working and still receive 1k per month in interest from the capital they already own. Most of them keep working. Consider this: if you had nothing to do, would you exchange 1 day of work for the possibility of a good restaurant? Or a month of work for the money to go on vacation somewhere for a bit?  
> **username_0**: @username_1, yes but that would only be a part time job just to get extra money so I can go on vacation or to a restaurant. Basically people will only work part time or just little bit. It would not sustain businesses. Imagine if employees of a restaurant would work only when they feel like it then you won't have a restaurant...And that's my whole point...I will not be able to go on vacation if there are no employees cleaning hotels and so on...Remember, 85% of people hate their jobs according to statistics.  
> **username_1**: We would find a new balance. Possibly people would not work 40 hours a week for low salary in jobs that are not fun. But possibly they would, to save money in order to get a degree and do something they enjoy. Currently, the price of unskilled labor is very low because people are forced to work for survival. Surely a situation where that's not the case would bring better redistribution of the richness. Amazon would have to pay their warehouse workers higher wages, and the 100 billion that Bezos just made would be split among those 1 million employees amazon has. (That's 100k per person, btw)  
> **username_0**: @username_1, that would create inflation and we would be back where we started. I don't think humanity is ready for something like this. It would only work if we have robots who will produce food and all other human necessities. People will only work on intellectual jobs that requires creativity or exploration but I don't think everyone will be interested. Most won't... It's all utopia...  
> **username_1**: At this point you're speculating. I'm not saying I know what will happen, but I disagree that _most_ people will just stop doing anything. There is a good chance that terrible jobs will become obsolete, yes, that it will make some business models invalid and some products unavailable. But that means realizing that free shipping only exists because some fellow human beings work in bad conditions. (Some experiments have been conducted on small-ish scales, mostly with interesting results)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-05-27. Score: 3

Brian's answer surely hit a major part of the issue - the level of the UBI. Yet, there are other aspects of the problem.

1. People like to work. There is a huge amount of sociological literature showing that people derive considerable non-pecuniary benefits from work, or alternative, that lack of work leads to several personal (and social) undesirables (for example, [here](http://www.danpink.com/books/drive/), [here](http://www.andrewoswald.com/), and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Work_Disappears)). As Voltaire [said](http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/2058.html),

> Work keeps at bay three great evils: boredom, vice, and need.

Thus, many people will like to work. This is the **supply side** of the labour market.

2. Firms will still need workers. Provided capital and robots do not take over all jobs, firms will still require some workers. If the supply of labour across skill levels is not high enough, then either migration will occur (perhaps politically undesirable, but historically favoured by firms), or wages will go up. The latter will induce more people to work.

The key is, then, not only the level of UBI, but whether there will be enough jobs. Perhaps there will not be, at least not for the current working week. Maybe Keynes' [prediction](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#Economic_Possibilities_for_our_Grandchildren_.281930.29) of a 15-hour working week might finally become true.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Most of people hate their jobs. Now in 2021 we can see the labor shortage and that's not even coming from guaranteed basic income but only from stimulus. What happens if the money are guaranteed monthly. Trust me, the labor shortage will be a norm.  
> **username_1**: if there is a labour shortage, labour costs will rise to balance it  
> **username_0**: @username_1 which will ruin businesses and forces bankruptcy. Giving people more money won't attract people to do a job they hate. There is many articles written saying pay increase won't make much difference.  
> **username_1**: Ah. So let's force people into jobs they hate, keeping people miserable, in order to save businesses from bankruptcy, then?  
> **username_0**: well, that's how it works now. So yes but we can minimize suffering from work when we offer more options or opportunities so people don't feel stuck in one place. But giving people free money would destroy the current system.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-05-26. Score: 1

The level of the basic income would have to be set at a level that the majority of the population is still willing to work to get more money than the basic amount, so that required work is still done. (The robots are not going to be taking over all the jobs for some time). From the proposals I have seen, it would be near the poverty level in the developed countries.

At that level, I believe there have been enough experiments to validate that most people would want to work to earn more than the minimum. There is a lot of studies showing that many people want to contribute, rather than sit around.

The problem may be effect on tax system. [This other question on menial tasks seems to be related to your question.](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/16851/universal-basic-income-menial-tasks) If there is no increased taxation to match the increased transfers, inflation would be quite high, given the size of the program. (This is discussed in my answer on the linked question in more detail.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But they can only work part time. Or the expenses will raise if all people have enough moneyto buy stuff.  
> **username_3**: The usual proposal is that the transfer is unconditional; everyone gets the amount, even if they work full time. If not, it's just another welfare program. Prices would rise if the extra spending is not offset with tax; I discussed that in my answer on the question I linked.  

---

