I’m retired (71 
) and have enough to live on comfortably. 
I choose to teach both chess and bridge (to keen adult beginners.)
It is because:
Right. It would only take a little bit of work for low cost hobbies. Just part time, like I said. Because most people will want to do something that costs at least a little bit of money.
If my work could be the work I currently do (which is basically publishing whatever hobbies and nonsense I get up to, on YouTube, and I love it), I would certainly work. I would do that even if it didn’t pay anything and didn’t yield any upgrade over the ‘basics’ allowance the OP describes.
If my work was the last job I did (managing IT for a company that continually complained and blamed me for technical debt, at the same time as denying me any agency to improve the situation), I’d take the ‘do what you want to do all day’ option.
So I think my answer on how many people would work is ‘it depends’ - if you can work doing whatever you love doing, I think the percentage would be high - maybe 75%, certainly more than 50% - if ‘work’ is some sort of assigned, non-chosen thing, maybe less than 25%
Isn’t what the OP posits a tad higher? They do not mention medical care or a need to save for retirement. And is a similar standard of living offered no matter the family size? It seems different if a family of 4 has to live off of the income of 1 or 2 WalMart checkers, as opposed to all 4 having their basic needs covered.
While I personally believe (with insufficient data) that some percentage of folk are competitive, I also believe many are - if not greedy, at least acquisitive. And another portion desires privacy/the ability to exclude. How hard would I work to have my own private backyard, if, with no work, I could just use public spaces? And, even if I do not call it competitiveness, another group of people wants to “better their and their families’ situation/prospects.”
I imagine at least 50% of people would work at least part-time. I actually know more than 1 person who ENJOYS many aspects of accountancy. Sure, maybe not a CPA for a large firm, but they enjoy the activity. You may know the kind of person - who has elaborate household budgets and accounts on Quickbooks…
And - yeah, if garbage collector is the highest paid job you could get given your skills and abilities, I imagine plenty of folk would collect garbage in order to take a vacation, etc.
Interesting hypothetical. And discussion.
So what if food shelter etc is provided but any outlays for activities of fun or interest cost tokens that you can earn by doing tasks that are not onerous but are not enjoyable? Sure hobbies can be cheap but few are free, most cost something, some get up there.
What balance would you strike? What balance would most people strike?
Ignore any status issue. And your mindset is only competing against your past accomplishments in your hobby.
Yeah, I think more people would go for that, but that’s sort of what we have at the moment (the tokens being ‘money’)
I think a lot of people would work even if they didn’t get paid for doing work and still had the same option of just sitting back and goofing off.
No bossy supervisors: they have nothing to hold over your head. You’re here voluntarily, making a contribution.
Yeah, volition vs coercion is a big factor, or at least it is in my estimation.
When I paid off my mortgage and basically didn’t have the fear of losing my home hanging over me, my relationship with work changed abruptly and dramatically (and interestingly, their relationship and treatment of me changed abruptly too, as soon as I mentioned the mortgage was gone).
I do know that person…my company’s accountant. She’s great at it and seems to really dig it. She’s just built that way and I love her for it (in a truly platonic way).
I’m just not sure how many would sign up for the schooling necessary if an AI (or whatever) was doing their job.
Not any longer, they aren’t. Have you looked at a seed catalog lately?
But gardeners often get excess produce (or flowers.) And other people want them, but don’t want to grow them. I expect many people will be able to make money from their hobbies – which is part of what I meant by saying most people would work, but a lot of them would call it play.
Depends what you mean by ‘work’ to some extent, I guess.
Although my main income until retirement was from software engineering, I’m also a fairly serious musician.
I spend quite a few hours a week in my home studio recording with musician friends.
And from time to time do weekend warrier gigs for beer money.
I’m sure I’d be doing this even if there was no money involved.
One other facet of such a society, that AHunter3 alluded to, is that an employer’s threats to fire an employee would hold much less power than before. There would be much less for the employee to fear.
One thing that’s just occurred to me: in a post-scarcity society as described, getting a “super extravagant residence” is going to be much harder than it is today. Consider: Where does that extra income come from?
In our society, “super extravagant” wealth most often comes from jobs that wouldn’t exist in such a society. Would we have billionaire CEOs in this world? Not likely, those jobs would probably be done by AI systems, that’s what makes the post-scarcity possible. We won’t have other, financial-system based jobs like bankers and stock brokers who make billions by just pushing around paper.
Making millions or billions would take actual talent of some sort. Invent something the AI can’t, and that lots of people want, over and above the basic needs provided. Create Art of some form that is also popular. Something like that. And that requires talents that most people will lack.
Other jobs that people might still do because they find them fulfilling, like doctors, teachers, and the like, will probably pay well, but not “super extravagant lifestyle” well. You’ll have a nice house in the suburbs, instead of a two bedroom apartment, or something.
See, even describing those without “jobs” in this world as “slackers who lives on the UBI dole” is based so much on our cultural biases. You picture them as slobs lying on a couch eating and playing video games all day, because that’s what we think when we say “slacker”.
But most people won’t just play video games all day. They’ll still get out of the house and do things. They’ll go biking or surfing, they’ll play pick up football or baseball, they’ll visit museums or parks. People will still want to hang out with the star quarterback of the local football team, no matter what else he might be doing with his life.
I can’t see that society actually existing. Sure, some people might be willing to give up improving once they’ve got their daily gruel, but most people won’t. I wouldn’t accept this level of “UBI” as the final endpoint of society, and I’d bet good money that no one else here would, either.
When I think of a sustainable UBI world, it has to be at least what we’d consider to be a middle-class lifestyle. Say the equivalent of $60,000/year income as of today (we can play with that number, but it will be “enough to live, not just survive”). The key is, you’d still have some choice as to how to spend that money. Less house, more food, less car, more hobbies, things like that. Those choices will affect how people perceive you. I’m pretty sure the golden boy surfer is always going to be more attractive than the beer drinking video gamer, for example.
Without getting too caught up in the “how this all works” question, I believe that a lot of what keeps the gears of the economy moving is a vast sea of people doing work that is not particularly rewarding, but they do it because they need a job.
All the talk of “people will get bored and want to work because they just need to be productive by nature” is only as true as there are jobs available that those people want to do more than whatever else they can imagine (within their means). One can be productive without clocking in at 8am every day.
As long as “working” looks the same as it does today, I expect only a small percentage of people would opt into that, if their needs were met in a comfortable fashion.
To add to that, it’s almost always easier to avoid expense than it is to make money. The human desire to not work is very strong, for many folks.
If you gave me a guaranteed $30,000 UBI per year, but my yearly expenses exceeded $30,000, I would probably try to find a way to cut back my expenses rather than go out and find some job as additional income. (Yes, I am a slacker hog…)
Also, imagine this interaction:
“Hey, a bunch of us are going to spend the next three days down at the beach- the weather is supposed to be great! We have some lawn games, we’ll grill, and generally just hang out. Join us!”
“I wish I could, but I have to work.”
“Ok, well, maybe next week on Tuesday afternoon, you and I could take 3 hours and go to the coffee shop and read books or play a board game?”
“Nah, can’t. I’ll be at work.”
… when you don’t really have to work. The freedom of schedule in this society is so remarkable and unlike anything that most of us experience in our adult lives. How many people would opt out of that kind of freedom? Would opt out of the opportunities for social engagement, personal growth, skill development, learning, relaxing, etc, in order to commit to 40 hours a week in order to make money to… do some of those things in the 4-6 hours a day that are not committed to one’s job, grooming, eating, or sleeping?
I’m thinking about that right now, as I sit inside on a nice day, working.