> If people find those things fulfilling to do themselves, they will do them (and basic income allows them to do it unpaid). If other people want them to do those things, they will pay for it. If no-one wants them to do those things, there's no value in them doing it.
So it will bring down salaries - why bother with paying a salary when you can get volunteers on basic income for free?
Unpaid work by basic income receivers is an interesting question on its own - on the side of the employee there would be the question of motivation; on the side of the employer there would be questions of reliability - can one trust an unpaid employee to appear at work reliably and in time ?
I think it's not a source but a removal of distortions. If there are a lot of people with PhDs but what society really needs is a few ditch diggers, then it's right that ditch diggers be highly paid. If theoretical research is "difficult" but fun and rewarding and ditch digging is "easy" but boring and stigmatized, it's right that ditch diggers be paid more than researchers - and note that this will also mean more effort is devoted to automating ditch digging than automating research.
I don't think that the same number of people will still feel motivated to acquire a PhD if they know that in any event ditch digging will get you more money to begin with.
If people don't want to get a PhD, and we don't have much need for people with PhDs, then reducing the number of people who get a PhD sounds like mission accomplished.
So it will bring down salaries - why bother with paying a salary when you can get volunteers on basic income for free?
Unpaid work by basic income receivers is an interesting question on its own - on the side of the employee there would be the question of motivation; on the side of the employer there would be questions of reliability - can one trust an unpaid employee to appear at work reliably and in time ?