Eh universal healthcare would probably increase 'drive' at a macro level as it doesn't chain the overqualified or highly productive individual to crappy jobs that happen to have good insurance.
Not to mention you lose the overhead of dealing with insurance, for you and your family.
But yeah, I could see a class of people who would use UBI to permanently slack off whereas they would be highly productive otherwise.
Edit: Note I'm from Canada and have taken healthcare for granted until I went to the US. My experience has been overwhelming positive with universal healthcare, and the only complaint is I've had to wait a few hours per emergency visit. Zero wait when serious though.
Re:What If Andrew Yang Was Right?
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday March 17, 2020 @07:31AM
(#22603818)
> But yeah, I could see a class of people who would use UBI to permanently slack off whereas they would be highly productive otherwise.
If you're highly productive, willing to live on a minimal payout, and highly prioritize time away from work, then by all rights you should already be on sabbatical eight months a year or something.
Re:What If Andrew Yang Was Right?
by SuoDuanDao on Tuesday March 17, 2020 @07:44AM
(#22603891)
If more workplaces allowed that, I'd probably be less preoccupied with UBI.
Trust me, having a safety net isn't going to kill your drive.
Re:What If Andrew Yang Was Right?
by whateveracct on Tuesday March 17, 2020 @10:58AM
(#22605451)
I agree. My point is a safety net doesn't feel safe when it's one election away from being neutered.
UBI and M4A would encourage me (and others) to pursue less lucrative pursuits (arts, research, gamedev, entrepreneurship, etc) but it would be hard for me to quit my nice tech job salary if there's the specter of the GOP potentially killing the benefits that enable my pursuit.
And that doesn't even compare to the effect that uncertainty has on the less fortunate.