Perhaps not, but so long as the market can offer something to everyone people will still have incentive to work. Basic Income doesn't mean you can afford everything without working.
The market is extraordinarily good at producing carrots yet we seem hell-bent on using sticks. I think there's room to improve on that front.
For a lot of them, for example, they'll see this as their chance to switch from feigning interest in Achievement-based work, to genuinely striving at Explorational work: likely in the form of making (and perhaps trying to sell) artistic works all day, or doing original mathematical/scientific/philosophical research.
I imagine that you'll see a sudden glut of Great American Novels, itch-scratching open-source software, and enough treatise to compare to Venice in the 1600s, but relatively few dishwashers. :)
We might also see a resurgence in Social work: people who can now afford to spend all day doing volunteer work for various causes. I'm unsure as to the impact of this, but it would probably be a minor revolution and solve several "just needs more bodies" welfare problems (like getting everyone immunized for things, or having an appropriate number of daycares/preschools.)
Besides, even Great American Novelists have use for money. They could buy equipment for a roadtrip, buy a nicer computer for writing, buy services that help them focus on more writing (e.g. pay other people to be dishwashers), and so on. In turn, this gives them incentive to work. It's capitalism as usual, it just doesn't fetishize the 40 hour workweek.
EDIT: just saw you added social work to your list. You're beating me at my own game, perhaps I'd better stop preaching to the choir?
How do we make BI happen?
"About four labor credits are required per day, which translates to anywhere from two to six hours of work depending on the number of credits that are awarded per hour for a given job. Unpleasant jobs, like cleaning sewers, are given higher credit values than easy ones. Members are free to choose their jobs each day, except those that require special training, like medicine."
I recommend that book. (I read it when I was a teenager, more than twenty years ago.)
Also, to 'lifeisstillgood, Bartle actually expands on his paradigm in the book Designing Virtual Worlds, where he introduces another axis for the four types (bringing it to eight) and also specifies two progressions between the types as players grow.
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Virtual-Worlds-Richard-Bartl...
The man is alive and kicking and will probably take questions.
[0] "Your Drive to Compete May Come Down to Dopamine" http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/02/your-drive-to-compete-...
[1] "Amphetamine Spurs Slackers to Work and Workers to Slack — at Least For Rats" http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/29/amphetamine-spurs-slac...
.
... some research by Michael T. Treadway and nine others.
[2] "Dopaminergic Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Human Effort-Based Decision-Making" http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/18/6170.full
> " ... We found that individual differences in [dopamine] function in the left striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex were correlated with a willingness to expend greater effort for larger rewards, particularly when probability of reward receipt was low. ... "
You could argue that this mechanism is a neurochemical amplifier of entrepreneurial behavior.
The drive to seek "intermittent rewards/thrills" isn't universal. Specifically, in people with naturally low dopamine responsivity[1][2], it's almost non-existent. Within this group, you don't tend to see anyone who enjoys casinos and/or casual-social-mobile games, for example; they experience no dopamine hit from one session, so they aren't drawn to replay.
There's a categorization system of psychological reward profiles, originally derived from MMO play-styles, called the Bartle test (http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm). Of the four Bartle types, people with low dopamine responsivity are almost never "Achievers"--instead tending to focus on the other three. Here's the description of the category:
> Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this. Exploration is necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of wringing points from it. Socialising is a relaxing method of discovering what other players know about the business of accumulating points, that their knowledge can be applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way, or to gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other players).
In a business context, people who aren't Achievers are almost[3] inherently MacLeod "Losers."
---
[1] Low dopamine responsivity is diagnosed around 7% of the time as ADD/ADHD. It is so widely prevalent in modern populations, though, that many doctors refuse to recognize, diagnose, or treat for that condition, dismissing it as "a healthy psychological state which just doesn't mesh very well with the expectations of the labor market." However, you will frequently find that someone treated for ADD/ADHD, whether or not it is a real condition, will become a Bartle "Achiever" where they previously were not.
[2] People who have had chronically-low dopamine responsivity their whole lives also tend, more than the median member of the population, to self-identify as either "nerds" or "creatives" (or both.) When you don't derive any internal "rush" from competing with others (whether "doing the sports" or "going into finance" or "making the sale"), you tend to need to "make your own fun"--which leads to such pursuits as programming, science-fiction, and Minecraft; or to painting, writing, composing, et al. There is a reason, besides their market value, that an MBA in a down market will "hustle", while an Illustration-major will work as a barrista.
[3] The "Explorer" play-style/reward-profile gives them the ability to also be "Technocrats" (in your terminology), though.