Because there is a reduced incentive to work whenever you don't have to work to make a basic living. Who, therefore, is going to pick up the trash, clean the toilets, etc.? With a high minimum wage, on the other hand, there is actually an increased incentive to work, and you will probably draw many people off the dole and back into the workplace.
You treat "reduced incentive to work" as if it means "zero incentive to work." More incentive to work is not always better. We could increase incentive to work even more: Eliminate all charity and welfare programs. Or heck, death penalty for failure to hold a job!
When we have more people trying to work than we have work available (as exhibited by a high unemployment rate), reducing incentive to work is a feature not a bug - provided we don't reduce incentive to work too much.
Who is going to pick up the trash and clean the toilets? People who want the extra money more than they want to avoid doing those jobs. And yes, those jobs will have to pay more, but there's nothing wrong with that - that's obviously part of the outcome of a minimum wage too.
Moreover, "draw many people off the dole" points at another huge issue - with needs-based assistance that goes away when you start working (or working for enough), the change in my situation when I start working is the wage offered minus the assistance I'm losing, substantially lowering the effective wage at the low end. A basic income does not have that problem.
Yes, that makes sense. I guess it all depends on the level of the basic income. It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably.
Wouldn't it be great if the people who did the crappy jobs like picking up the rubbish and cleaning the toilets got paid a decent amount of money! There's your incentive
