Well, yes =)

That is one of the reasons why I'm not advocating a model of "more people should work and consume less - we should have voluntary down-shifting as a mass movement to bring a refrom in the society!". But what I'm asking for is a society which gives people more social, psychological and economical freedom to find their own ways of living. On level of legislation, something like "basic income guarantee" might be a good way to provide people more freedom to combine studying, part-time working, voluntary work, NGO activism, parenting and what not. To make it more frexible to sometimes work more and sometimes work less, to sometimes pay more taxes and sometimes contribute in other ways, like doing voluntary work. Actually, I don't see the basic income guarantee as a way to promote down-shifting - I believe on the contrary that it might engourage people to work more, as it would be easier to accept part-time jobs, or to have variable working hours.

(for our non-Finnish readers; in Finland we have a rather complicated social security system, where benefits are granted differently depending on if the person is completely unemployed, or doing part-time work, or studying, or staying at home taking care of children. That leads to situations like if an unemployed person accepts a part-time job with a small salary, he or she might have to wait for couple of months to get an adjusted sum of unemployement benefit. With basic income guarantee we could get rid of all the hassle. People just would get the basic income no matter what, choose their working hours without any extra bureaucracy.)

That being said, I admit that I don't really know if The Wrong Outcome -argument applies also to the basic income guarantee model - wouldn't that just lead to worsening of salaries, and to more unpredictable and unstable working hours, so that more and more workers could keep themselves barely fed, without enough economical stability to buy a home or so; while the rich would just keep on getting richer and richer?