Can this be extrapolated into what the employment landscape would look like with a minimum income for all? If unemployment benefits mitigate against relocation, would minimum income mitigate against even seeking a job?
One acquaintance I have suggests removing people from her stack of applicants would be a good thing - those remaining would probably have more of a tendency to be the kind of reliable employee she seeks.
I think most serious economists would agree that unemployment benefits of any sort mitigate against seeking jobs.
I don't mean this in an ideological "if you don't agree you're not serious" sense, I actually think I've seen a very similar question in a paper titled something like Where is there Consensus among American Economists? A survey of 40 Propositions - there are several dangerously-similarly-titled papers though and I don't have the tools or motivation to look them up right now. (JSTOR etc). It's pretty well-predicted by theory and I believe that there exist studies that back it up a little.
Of course the real question, as most in economics, isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, but a marginal one: How much unemployment benefit maximizes the utility experienced by society? Would spending more of our national resources on these benefits, or spending less, help or hinder our current situation?
One acquaintance I have suggests removing people from her stack of applicants would be a good thing - those remaining would probably have more of a tendency to be the kind of reliable employee she seeks.