my main concern with this is that the working class will lose social status compared to those who don't work. In fact it could give those who don't work more status than the working class (my broad definition of working class would include anyone who does not have enough to stop working) because they have much more time. i don't think this is something we want to see. Although its arguably better than the current welfare system it still hurts hard-working people with little wealth. i would argue for a basic income in terms of food, shelter and some facilities, but not money. this will keep a clear class difference between the working class and dependent people. which means unemployment still means misery and work still means happiness. it would keep the incentive intact without being cruel.
Does your concern depend on the "dependents" receiving basic income, but the "working class" not receiving basic income? Or, does it depend on basic income possibly changing the signifiers of social status?
If it's the first case,
Most proponents of Basic Income want to implement either Universal Basic Income (everyone gets the same check, regardless of their means), or a Basic Income which drops off proportionally with earned income.
In a Universal Basic Income scenario, someone who chooses to work should always have more income than someone who does not work. Given how much social status is currently centered around wealth and income, a worker should have more social status than a non-worker.
If it's the second case, where we assume implementing UBI will change the markers of social status - I think this is pretty unlikely. For the foreseeable future, having more income than someone else means being able to buy rarer or higher-quality luxuries. Humans value rarity and scarcity.
