10,000 isn't basic income its like slightly more than welfare for a basic income to be meaningful in a city like los angeles you're talking at least 70k if a person has even any hope of having a roommate situation. The other alternative is to give everybody everything they need in life at no cost, but 10k in los angeles is a joke, if they tax it you're talking still talking about having a choice between food and a youth hostel bed on that low an income.
You wouldn't need to live in a city like Los Angeles. Without job security to tie you to a location, you would move to areas of the country/state where cost of living was lowest.
Additionally, if you wanted to live a middle class lifestyle, you would have a job. That's the incentive to keep working. The basic income is to keep people at an above-poverty income level, not to keep everyone at middle class. In fact, the mere definition of the term means you couldn't have everyone at middle class.
> "at least 70k"
you gotta get back on earth man. When I got my first job in San Francisco I was making 65k, had 1 roommate in a nice apartment in the Mission, lived well, and was still able to save money.
And LA is cheaper than SF.
We've had this 10k basic income since the 1930s its called welfare, to reiterate what I just said basic income has to secure a middle class lifestyle for it to be meaningful.
