I'm assuming you intend to reference the discussion of disability benefits late in that article; the key difference between that and basic income is that disability benefits are received by people who are judged to be occupationally disabled, which fall into two groups:

(1) People who have worked and are actually physically unable to do so any longer (and, generally, for the same reason, inhibited in other important life functions), and

(2) People who wish not to work so much that they have engaged in elaborate frauds to be adjudicated unable to work.

And, in both cases, actually receiving money from work reduces their eligibility for payments and may jeopardize their eligibility to receive benefits at all.

I think its quite reasonable to believe that neither of those (nor the two combined) would be representative in their use of money and their actions when receiving a certain amount of money, on top of the fact that receiving money which is partially conditioned on non-work induces different behaviors (even in the same set of people) than receiving unconditional funds.

The article discuss the fact that most of those who are consuming disability benefits are not, in fact, physically unable to work.

This is readily apparent from the fact that disability claims are strongly correlated with the economy; recessions do not cause people to become paraplegics. And this rise is in spite of workplaces and daily life becoming safer.

NPR also has an expose on rampant disability fraud, although they of course use more polite language: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

> The article discuss the fact that most of those who are consuming disability benefits are not, in fact, physically unable to work.

That's a non-sequitur, as the distribution between group (1) and group (2) in the GP post is immaterial to the argument made there.

If you want to address the points actually made in the post you are responding to instead of throwing out irrelevancies, feel free to do so.

But is it the possibility of starving that motivates men to work today? I don't think so. It's the drive for a mate that motivates men to get off the couch, and that won't change.

Perhaps if they weren't facing such grim futures, they'd be a bit less prone to escapism?