Oh geez, why are we delving into the physics of the analogy?
Let's get back to economics, which is what UBI is all about. We use the term "friction" in economics as analogous to the concept in physics, not as a direct application. Unemployment is "friction" in the economy, but is also a lubricant in that: on the one hand, it is wasted potential (income from employment), and on the other, it is necessary to allow labor to move from one application to another. High unemployment is an indication of inefficient application of labor within the economy.
But let's look at the bigger picture: personal income is used for purchase of necessary items as well as luxury items and savings. A UBI increases the availability of that "purchasing power" for everyone, and would create some ability for even those at the lower end of the income spectrum to have some ability to "save." The more purchasing power within the economy, the more demand. As demand increases, prices or supply (or both) will increase to fulfill demand. One of the problems with some economic formulae is putting the cart before the horse (e.g., "
supply-side" economics). Supply in excess of demand creates (or exacerbates) "boom-bust" cycles.
The lack of income in the lower echelons of the populace is actually a drag on the overall economy ("friction"). That is also why government austerity programs tend to create/amplify recessions, and why Keynesian economics advocates for increased government spending to counteract economic downturns. UBI would provide, generally speaking, a "floor" to economic activity which would help stabilize the macro economy. It is not primarily about transfer of wealth through taxation, but decreasing external effects on the overall economy in the same way that social security, unemployment compensation and universal healthcare tend to do.
As with many supply-side economic theories, the argument about "disincentivizing" work is mostly a red herring:
Tim Worstall, a writer and blogger, has argued that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work because such schemes typically cause people to lose benefits at around the same rate that their income rises (a form of welfare trap where the marginal tax rate is 100 percent). He has asserted that this particular disincentive is not a property shared by basic income as the rate of increase is positive at all incomes.[17]
In one study, even when the benefits are not permanent, the hours worked—by the recipients of the benefit—are observed to decline by 5 percent, a decrease of two hours in a typical 40-hour work week:
While experiments have been conducted in the United States and Canada, those participating knew that their benefits were not permanent and, consequently, they were not likely to change their behaviour as much or in the same manner had the GAI been ongoing. As a result, total hours worked fell by about five percent on average. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for the main earner. Further, the negative work effect was higher the more generous the benefit level.[13]
However, in studies of the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba, in the 1970s, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.[18] Under Mincome, "the reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women."[19]
Another study that contradicted such decline in work incentive was a pilot project implemented in 2008 and 2009 in the Namibian village of Omitara; the assessment of the project after its conclusion found that economic activity actually increased, particularly through the launch of small businesses, and reinforcement of the local market by increasing households' buying power.[20] However the residents of Omitara were described as suffering "dehumanising levels of poverty" before the introduction of the pilot,[21] and as such the project's relevance to potential implementations in developed economies is not known.
(from Wikipedia) Often the benefits of the program are more "social" than strictly economic (e.g., leaving more time for family care, increasing household income and savings, and additional social flexibility - such as allowing movement within the general economy).
One of the arguments that has been raised here I feel the need to respond to: It has been argued that the basic income would be insufficient in particularly high-cost areas. That assumes (incorrectly) that those dependent on the UBI would be fixed in place. Instead, the availability of the benefit would allow those who are otherwise economically limited to move to lower-cost-of-living environs. Indeed, it naturally spread the population around the country, and would NOT disproportionately affect one State over another (assuming that it is nationally universal) as the benefit would move with the recipient and not become a burden on the receiving State.
Personally, I think the advantages far outweigh potential problems. It would also get us "ahead of the curve" in the upcoming reduction of employment availability.
