Are you in support of UBI?
Hello, I'm not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?
288
Comments159
While I'd prefer to fully dismantle the whole capitalist system, I can accept UBI as the most realistic compromise we're likely to get in our lifetimes.
I'd be happy to see our kids get it in their lifetime - I lost hope to see it myself with how backwards my country is
Here's a good breakdown: https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/unboxing-universal-basic-income/
As for my thoughts, yes there would be a noticeable impact at first, but UBI would help stabilise and strengthen the economy in the long term because purchasing power and demand will increase. If supply can keep up, prices won't go up. Companies can't just raise prices as that's called price fixing. Antitrust laws should be there to prevent that, but your mileage may vary depending on your country. That means that if some companies decide to raise prices because of more purchasing power, some smart company is going to charge less to gain more market share. So we're still doing capitalism, but there's a social safety net.
Also, people will still go to work to find purpose. Except "work" in this case could mean the freedom and flexibility to contribute locally, or take higher risks like entrepreneurship or becoming an artist.
Here is how this turns out in reality: Company A raises prices because they are greedy bastards. Company B is then impressed with the sheer display of dominance by A and raises prices accordingly to "keep up".
Your thinking is correct and that's how it should work, maybe it even did in the 60s, but it just isn't the case anymore.
You're forgetting "customers see how much prices are up, and just stay home" or "company C, looking to break in, undercuts A and B and changes the market."
A real UBI is a great fix for capitalism, since it makes "f it, I'll just stay at home" possible.
Your first example only works for goods that are completely optional, which is very rarely the case. For example, smartphones. Nobody technically needs one, but almost everyone in western countries has one. If every company that makes a smartphone increases their prices, people will still buy them because they basically need them. I believe this is the principle of inelastic demand (or low elasticity) -- car fuel is a more traditional example.
Your second example doesn't work when the cost of entry into the market is really high. This is very common in high tech. Take semiconductors for example. There's basically one big name in chip manufacturing (TSMC) and a few runner-ups (Samsung, Intel, etc.). The latest node is infamous for being very expensive and low capacity. Why aren't there new competitors constantly breaking in to the market?
UBI is a great idea and will help things, but it's not perfect so we shouldn't expect it to just completely fix capitalism. The best way to fix capitalism is to get governments (which are all in charge of capitalism) to fix it with regulations. UBI will be a major regulation/step in the right direction.
When there's a dozen manufacturers, they won't all do it. As I mentioned, this is price fixing and illegal in a lot of countries.
Secondly, what's stopping someone from creating another company to undercut all of those greedy bastards to corner the market?
They can't coordinate together to fix prices, but there is nothing legally stopping them from watching each other's public behavior and adjusting their pricing to match.
All B has to do is not raise their prices as much as A.
Ita already working like that post pandemic.
My pie in the sky hope for UBI is that it would be large enough so that you don't need to work to live, maybe with some frugality.
At that point I'd be fine with scrapping minimum wage altogether. Companies would have to offer a job/salary that attracts people who aren't desperate.
It would be much easier to quit a job. And I think it would broadly increase the value of labor. Automation would increase, but that wouldn't be a problem, because its no longer a problem to be unemployed.
Exactly, UBI (or direct payments from the gov, whatever works ig) to support everyone's basic needs. Housing properly sized to each family, food, water, electric, heating/cooling, healthcare and yes even internet. Maybe even a little extra disposable so people can have recreational activities and you know, live.
If you want luxury items, like the latest, greatest most expensive iPhone or whatever thats where you need to get a job to earn extra above the UBI
I love the idea but how would it be paid for? Quick back of the envelope sums says if you pay every adult the government living wage in the UK, it would cost around 950bn... uk government expenditure for everything is just under 700bn a year at the moment...
I don't know how it would be paid for. It's probably prohibitively expensive. But I think it would be cheaper than the product of UBI*population. Poverty is very expensive for a country, and would be reduced by like 80% (made up number).
I'd draw money from my other pie in the sky policies, like ~100% marginal tax on wealth above $500M, and on incomes above $5M/yr. Realistically, I think this would cause wealth flight, so it would have to be global to work.
I don't expect any of this to happen in my lifetime. A more realistic hope is a UBI that you can't survive on, but that keeps you from poverty. Maybe a UBI that equals the poverty line. But then I'd want to keep the minimum wage.
I'm a fan of UB I+S. Universal basic income AND universal basic services. Plus
highthigh taxes for the rich. And workplace democracy. And a massive shift of the economy to the nonprofit sector: if what yourcompanymultimillion corporation is providing is a utility, you can't have making a profit be your fiduciary responsibility.Basically, fuck capitalism, I want socialism.
Nobody should be rich and tall! \s
Lol, fixed
Exactly this. Beware of the Silicon Valley tech bros selling their version of UBI. It’s a Trojan horse they want to use to cut all social services.
Though i dont disagree in theory, beware of the utility part you mentioned. A plumber is providing a service and im not sure why he shouldnt make a small profit on top of his ubi in that world of yours. Can you elaborate?
I'm thinking more of the "commanding heights of the economy", rather than small time professionals. So, I'm talking Amazon, Google, Walmart, that stuff.
I know what you meant, and i dont disagree with the core of it really. Just really think about your wording, as it hits more people than youd think :)
Got it. I edited for clarity.
Let's say 50k is average income
Basic income is 10k
The average person would get 10k in UBI but pay 10k more in taxes
They will have 50k dollars
Someone that makes 100k would get the 10k in UBI but would have to pay 20k more in taxes.
They will have 90k dollars
Someone making 15k (federal min wage) would get 10k in UBI and pay nothing in taxes
They will have 25k dollars
This is simplified, but the idea is that all three people still made 165k combined. Just the person at the bottom got some help.
UBI does not increase the total amount of money in the economy. Just moves it from the rich to the poor.
The average person is still going to have the same spending power
UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism. Other systems could have a UI like communism. But it's the flaws of capitalism that needs it to correct itself.
Social programs exist in capitalism and have existed for years. They are just a complex way of solving a basic problem. "How do we get poor people money?"
Personally, I'd be for UBMI (Universal Bare Minimum Income). Everyone should be provided bare minimum from the society. Food, water, shelter, etc. If you can afford to pay it back, great, if you can't, that's fine too. But when people talk about UBI it's always "how much??". And it should be the bare minimum to survive and not be forced to run the capitalism rat race. If you're content to sit in a small shelter and eat 3 meals a day, the government should give it to you. The government gives it to people who break the law and are no where near as deserving
I'm not sure I agree that UBI is the best way to solve this, but we are in agreement about the massive flaw in capitalism. When the richest man extracts the final dollar from his rival, capitalism is over. Money has no meaning because no one has any except for that one guy. That's an impossible extreme, but it demonstrates the fundamental flaw that without money circulating, there is no economy.
Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy. It gives them some ability to participate beyond the simple need for shelter and sustenance. Anyone with no discretionary income has no role other than demand for basic necessities (that's not intended as an insult, that's the reality of a wealth-based society)
That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.
Anyway yours was a good comment I thought I'd piggyback into. There are flaws with UBI, but unfettered capitalism is unsustainable and it certainly one way to address the issue.
I wasn't saying it was the best way, just a way. I'm not sure if it is the best. But the most simple way to make sure everyone's basic needs are met is to give everyone their basic needs and then figure out who has enough to give to others.
The flaw with capitalism is that someone of no "value" gets no value
If a company can lay off one worker and become more efficient, that is great in capitalism. Just the one worker gets screwed.
If that worker was say a robot where you could sit it on the shelf and not worry about it, then that's fine. But that worker is a human with needs and capitalism doesn't help that person because they have no "value".
The idea that we have to manufacture jobs for these people to "earn" money to live is another solution.
It can stimulate the economy, it's not a guarantee.
Always enjoyed this story:
Two economists are walking in a forest
The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."
"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP of the forest by $200!"
You touched on one reason it wouldn't be guaranteed.
Giving loans to people would be better than UBI. UBI should be viewed as a loan and not free money. If you were ever able to pay it back, you should.
Another problem with capitalism is that a potential worker has no time to hold out for better options. You're 18 and poor, you have to accept the first job offered as fast as possible or you won't have shelter or food.
Giving these people a loan or UBI means they can get by until they find something that benefits them. If they want to tell the fast food place "I'll do it for $15 and not $12 an hour" it's possible
It's crazy that the difference between $12 and $15 is 25%. A 25% raise is a large one.
I appreciated reading your comment!
Would this communism have money? If so, what’s the purpose of the money?
If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market and it’s not communism. If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying.
If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.
Barter and trade will always be part of humanity unless we somehow manage post-scarcity. Money is so far the best way we've found to manage and track the value of things for that system.
No, it's just a market, and even then that's not a guarantee at all. It could be that people just trade money for valuables amongst themselves, or other systems I'm too stupid to conceive of
Yes, it is? Its only not buying if you don't trade money for it, ie the government sending it to everyone for free
Good thing that's not anyone's suggestion
My stance on this is that if a machine can do the work of a hundred men, then ninety-nine men should be able to retire early with pay. Anything else is theft.
So, yes, I support UBI, and no, I don't think it would break capitalism. It's the same amount of money being put into circulation, just for less work.
I think, this was what future was imagined at the beginning of the previous century. It definitely is what I would rather like to see instead of what we got, where automation is not for easing the work, but for removing the people.
In my mind, a UBI would replace a lot of welfare and retirement programs and would absorb much of their budget. What would we need the whole food stamps system for if we guarantee everyone an income? What would we need social security for if you have your Universal Basic Income?
Since it's universal, we can do away with all those systems we have to make sure you "deserve" it. We can eliminate entire data centers, close entire offices. Those people (mostly office worker accountant types) can go work in some other part of the government like school systems, the FDA, the FAA, something that actually helps make society go. That should free up some budget.
Do an actual goddamn audit of the Pentagon, if we find some bullshit pet projects we don't actually need costing taxpayers billions of dollars we bust a general down to recruit and find or invent a way for him to die for his country.
Capitalism may not be able to survive alongside a UBI but I think a largely free market economy can. I'll always have my housing and food needs bet but I'd like to have an Xbox so I'll go get a job to get money to pay for one.
Agreed! I feel like public discourse often forgets these efficiencies when talking about UBI. Include social security and education financial assistance and the numbers really add up.
The COVID-era stimulus checks and PPP "loans" proved its possible to provide a package this large, would just need to offset the spending with increased taxes on the wealthy to make it sustainable long term.
Oh no, I can already hear the whining about "but (insert type of person the speaker doesn't like) don't deserrrrve an income!" If we can outvote the bootstrappers and rugged individualists, we can see this thing happen.
No, I don't support UBI, but I support UBS - Universal basic services. Food, housing, water, education, etc should be free at a basic level. Basic level for housing for example will be 'Housing First' concept in Finland.
I'd be in favor of both. Universal services and some income.
A little bit of basic income would allow some flexibility just in case there's something that UBS doesn't cover on an individual level.
UBI that's big enough to cover housing, food, clothing, education, etc would almost certainly get abused and exploited in every way possible to not be used on housing, food, clothing, and education...
Those basic services all have a cost associated with them... that's why people support UBI to cover those basic services...
Why are you under the impression that UBS will not pay for those services?
The US Post service is the biggest UBS that most Americans pay with taxes. Those who can't afford or can't make money to pay taxes or otherwise still benefit from it as "free"
You seem to think it doesn't exist or will not work. Yet it does. Libraries exist, public transportation exists. People needs can be met.
When I say it should be free, it means that there is no cost to be paid by individual
I agree, and I think the best service we have but is being overshadowed by Amazon is the US Post service. It really needs a push to modernize.
I also think instead of UBI, anything that is a basic need will be taxed based on a progressive schedule instead of a flat percentage. That way if they try to make it more expensive then it will be taxed too much to be viable. We need to combat this inflation and make it so that a lower priced item is more profitable!
Trying to distort the market so that lower priced items are more profitable is quite challenging to do without unintended consequences. A progressive consumption tax would definitely be a worthy experiment
Only concept/idea that offers this benefit rn is just having a healthy competitive market that sees companies not form into a monolopy or structured in a way that allows for each one to set prices to higher amounts because everyone else is doing it. looking at how Intel is struggling rn to stay relevant and they are entering the GPU market with some very competitive mid range options that outperform Nvidia and AMD on common consumer tasks, while still offering their own blend of AI cores for new tasks that we will likely start having in the coming future. All this and Intel is offering these mid-range cards at 60% of the cost to the closest competition. While I enjoy seeing this, I am annoyed this is the only way we can see prices lower. We really need to come together as a community and push prices to more reasonable levels.
Inflation is insane right now and it is mainly what is annoying me the most about people thinking UBI would even help prevent it from being irrelevant once companies realize they can just charge more for the same identical/marginally improved product. I see the floor for prices steadily increase and UBI will just cause it to rise up to the point that the UBI benefit is worthless as the purchasing power is decreased to the point of a single dollar being worth less than what a penny used to be.
UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.
The only counter to this argument I've seen play out in real time (at least to the best of my knowledge, it could be propaganda) is the fact that when the government offered tax credits for EVs, Ford raised the prices of their EVs to essentially absorb the tax credit and profit off of what was supposed to benefit the people making the switch.
I'll see if I can find the article I'm remembering.
Here is one link from the daily wire
Here is another from tech times
I think that's a difference between subsidizing specific things vs subsidizing all the things.
So you're saying just by sheer volume they would be less likely to do it?
Not so much volume, but just the different options available. Example, if food is subsidized, then food vendors can increase prices to soak up the excess. But if people just get money, and food vendors try to soak it up, people can spend their money on building a greenhouse and growing their own vegetables. If every industry tries to raise prices, at some point it becomes worthwhile for people to do things themselves, then trade with each other, undercutting the larger industries. Basically, the libertarians' wet dream could actually happen with UBI.
my country has started a program a few years ago that gives a lot of money to couples that produce children, primarily to be able to afford buying a house. it has contributed to many problems, from convenience marriage, to parents literally not caring for their children, but maybe the worst of all is that it has raised property prices by the exact amount of aid received for producing 2-3 children.
Thank you for this argument. I had found that mentally I was getting trapped in this line of thinking about UBI.
My way around in my mental way if thinking it was Universal Basic Medicine, Universal Basic Food, Universal Basic Housing, and so on. That way, if some jackass landlord decided to raise rent too high, you're not homeless. Also, in my ideal world, the health insurance industry should be "taken out".
As long as UBI covers basic living expenses, then yes I would support it. Capitalism, as it exists in the west, is not sustainable and if it continues as is, there is probably going to be massive employment issues within a generation as common working people without specialized degrees and can't afford to get them will be unemployable due to automation, AI and robots completing most common labor jobs cheaper and more efficiently.
I know the pushback against UBI is that if you take away the need for people to work to live, most people won't work... and honestly I'm okay with that. I doubt there would a be serious decline in people seeking work because if you can still earn extra income for luxuries and nicer things over what UBI would cover... why wouldn't you? And those who are content to sit at home or not work, is fine by me. Because I've worked with a lot of people over the years who only have a job because someone told them they needed a job. They were miserable fucking people to be around and we were more productive the days they called in sick or skipped. Some people should be paid to stay the fuck at home, and society would be a better place for it.
Iirc the places that tested ubi found that people kept working for the exact reason you said. I forget if more people got jobs or not.
I read about a pilot program in Canada back in the '70s or '80s that found that fewer people on UBI had jobs, but those people who left the workforce were overwhelmingly new mothers and older teens who were still in school.
This needs repeating - so here I am repeating it. I've worked with those same people, hell I've been that person when I was working the only job I could find, absolutely didn't want to be there, but needed the money so couldn't afford to be taking the time to find where I did want to be.
Sure, eliminate billionaires to pay for it
This is completely unrealistic.
A UBI of just $10,000 a year, and only to all working age Americans, would still cost several trillion dollars, every year.
Even if you could wave a magic wand and convert the combined net worth of all of the US's billionaires to cash 1:1, that cash wouldn't fund even that meager amount of UBI for more than a couple of years.
Sorry we don't allow simple math in lemmy.
I am on principle because what the fuck is the point of all this industrialisation and technology development if we aren't trying to break out of the cycle of scarcity?
As for how it can be properly funded: fuck knows.
At first, maybe. But that's the neat thing about capitalism and the free market: the first to lower their prices again has a huge advantage. There's always an incentive to operate at minimal profit.
Why wouldn't UBI and capitalism be able to coexist? It makes MORE capitalism possible, as it were, expanding its principles of supply and demand to fields such as employment. Right now, people need a job, any job, and if there's no job that fulfills your needs, tough - you take the shitty one and you'll like it. With a UBI, you could shop around for the perfect job, choosing the best offer, or not "buy" at all right now because the market doesn't offer what you want and it's not like you're going to starve without a job. Employers would be forced to make YOU an offer that YOU can accept and if they can't operate under these circumstance, tough. Capitalism in a nutshell, really.
A better way to word this is that it makes the labour market free and fair. conditioning healthcare and starvation on employment is oppressive.
True, I just wanted to phrase it in the terms of capitalism.
You explain this as if you’re not just describing basic UBI lol
I don't follow?
not a 100% ubi fan, BUT, the times, they are a changing - and I firmly believe every robot deployed should have to offset ubi. every AI cycle should drive ubi funding.
Trained on the involuntary corpus of millions if not billions of people, it must benefit society overall otherwise we're going to destroy everything.
UBI doesn't mean everybody has more money. It comes from somewhere.
The poor will have more, the rich will have less, the middle will have about the same.
One of those three does not want UBI to be a thing, and they're trying to convince the other two.
As someone planning on starting a B2B company, I don't see a problem with that. If companies make a ton of money, tax companies more and redistribute again. The curve can be made to fit.
But there's a bigger reason for doing UBI: It's cheaper and more effective than existing welfare. And more people will like it.
Companies will raise their prices (to "what the market can bear"), but they will never be able to raise prices enough to offset the positive effects of UBI. It's not like your internet bill is going to go up by $2000/month if they suddenly know you're getting $2000/month in UBI. Your typical person makes purchases from dozens of different companies. An increase of "what the market can bear" won't be all that much.
And afterward, the effective purchasing power of the vast majority of people will have increased - most noticeably for those who currently have nothing / very little. Least noticeably for those who are reasonably well off already. And for those who are currently doing extremely well off, their purchasing power will end up dropping.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about and I made all numbers in this message up.
I support UBI.
But then we should also change the way job contracts work. Because currently, "work" is mostly considered to be some 40 hour stressful thing.
Yes... BUT I'd actually encourage people to consider an even better alternative, which is Universal Basic Services.
As you point out, giving people money is no guarantee that their spending power will be enough to cover their needs. I've heard it said that any UBI which is sufficient is unaffordable, and any that is affordable is insufficient. I think it's still a policy we should experiment with, and I think even a small UBI could elevate poverty. But a more effective alternative is to try and provide essentials directly, free of cost.
What this looks like is publicly owned housing; a robust, fully-funded public education system that includes pre-K and higher ed; universal healthcare; and free food. Some of these -- like housing and food -- sound shocking and difficult, but to an earlier generation, so would the others. And we already have some of these programs for the very poor. The key to executing them is to bypass markets. Markets will always raise the cost of essentials because the demand is unlimited. Instead of paying private landlords for housing, the state or non-profit entities need to own the homes. There will still be costs associated with maintenance, but there need be no dividends or investor profits. Same with food. We might not be able to make everything in a grocery store free. But if you have well-run local gardens, they'll actually produce a substantial amount of food that you can just put in baskets by the entrance and let people take from.
Unlike UBIs, which are inherently inflationary, UBS programs are deflationary. By offering free goods they create competition against market prices and make the stuff people still pay for (with a UBI) cheaper.
If you'd like to see how all of this works, go check out the tabletop RPG my friends developed at c/fullyautomatedrpg, or the world guide for the setting at https://fullyautomatedrpg.com/resources.
Absolutely 100% worse. It creates an empire bureaucracy to distribute the subpar services under the same scarcity as subsidized housing today. 10 year+ wait in Toronto and other major cities, btw.
Cash means you can choose affordable housing that meets your needs, while balancing budget for food or other interests. Government cheese may not be as necessary to you compared to milk and eggs, or "better cheese". Housing is especially corrupt and inadequate to subsidized distribution. You need to add income/asset conditionality on who can qualify even if almost everyone would like to get the discount. Its a great recipe to create ghetto neighbourhoods that a politician may wish to make worse in order to oppress the ghetto harder. You can't escape the ghetto because you've got a cheap housing option. It makes other housing more expensive because "good neighbourhoods" have a premium when there are bad neighbourhoods.
UBS is everything that is wrong with our society, one step forward.
While universal healthcare is a proven cost saver, the other's don't need to be centralized/governmentalized. While the government/private sector can both build "soviet" style affordable housing, they can do so in a market system that provides affordable housing, while still providing a reasonable private profit margin, or government break even.
Education costs can be market based, when you give each family a stipend they can use for education. Only desperation would force you to send your child to a coal mine instead of school, but parents could choose to adequately feed their children and spend less on home school, with computers and online learning, then force a child that doesn't want to be in school into a public institution. Baltimore/DC school districts spend $30k per pupil, largely to make a school to prison pipeline with excessive security needed to control kids who don't want to be there.
UBI instead of UBS also means hope for young students who will be able to afford university if they are qualified, or otherwise afford surviving outside of a criminal gang support structure.
The issues that you're pointing out are reasonable concerns, but I think you're falling into a common mental pitfall that assumes that the implimentation must resemble the most similar past approach, while also decrying the irrationality of using those unsuccessful methods.
It doesn't need to look like government cheese. It doesn't need to look like "the projects". All of those programs had systemic flaws that were specific, observable bad public policies.
Universal housing can look like the government acquiring existing apartments from disinterested landlords that are out of compliance and then granting them on a $1 lease in perpetuity to local neighborhood coops so long as they maintain it well. Universal food can look like mandates for grocery stores to provide non-profit collectives unfettered access to discarded items that are still perfectly edible instead of locking up dumpsters full of food that can feed people.
You can have a UBI too. I'm not shitting on the idea. But as you already pointed out, single payer healthcare is a great demonstration most people don't even argue with. Implement a UBI, but where options exist for direct services, provide them and you won't need nearly as large a UBI, and you can cut out tons of waste.
Free public transit is another great example. Do you want to have to include bus fare in the UBI? Or would it just make sense to make the buses and trains fare-free.
The university & school examples seem silly. Why give people a voucher instead of just reimbursing all accredited schools directly and let folks enroll anywhere without having to manage a budget? Just make them tuition free. Otherwise, you have to make a UBI large enough to pay all the administrators that exist just to process payments, and manage the size of vouchers.... The UBI would go so much further if folks didn't have to pay for things that don't need market guidance at all. So many unnecessary middle-men.
UBIs make sense when you want to benefit from market guidance. They're great for that, but for lots of things everyone uses or where consumer selection mechanics break down, there are tons of ways to make them free at the point of use. Is management and corruption a potential problem? Yes... regardless of which system you implement. So you might as well use the best tool for the given need and learn to do it well.
Not a complete fan, except that fines so large as the remedy is confiscation can be appropriate. No need to give away the confiscated property, though UBI would allow for tenant managed coops offering a fair bid. I'd rather see soviet style housing meant to provide a return for the builder, but affordable. UBI means there are no projects with "exclusive access" being for the troubled.
UBI is better. Nothing stopping grocery stores from taking advantage of non-profit collectives, compared to usual for profit alternatives. It's in their interest to provide food quality/value.
Free public transit offers denser transit schedules, traffic reduction, better value for work and "touristy" outings. UBI solving homelessness helps avoid turning a "cheap shelter" into a "free shelter" for "undesirables" that may make transit uncomfortable to others.
Why give people a voucher instead of just reimbursing all accredited schools directly and let folks enroll anywhere without having to manage a budget?
Before university grades, you don't need accredited schools as much as accredited testing. Internet/multimedia (30 years old revolution) has expanded education alternatives. Cash instead of vouchers. Spend as much as you want on education.
http://www.naturalfinance.net/2015/05/slashing-public-education-can-provide.html
For University grades, it is rationed, and there is a minimum aptitude level required to gain from the experience. Would Harvard be allowed to exist alongside a public tuition free abundant system? I support subsidizing post secondary education similar to Canada (maybe outdated) where a summer job could pay for tuition and books. UBI, though, is plenty to afford university dorm + tuition lifestyle, but perhaps, if you can get into Harvard, you might prefer additional student loans if you consider the education worth the tuition price. The magic of UBI, is that you get to consider the overall value of education instead of "student program" scams on the young and foolish.
To avoid an endless debate, I propose we agree that UBI is a good thing that we should test in more circumstances, and programs to provide more things free of cost (which do allow UBIs to achieve more spending power per dollar) are worth testing.
If such programs perform poorly in a trial, then it's good that we tested them. And if some perform better than you expect, it's also good that we tested them.
We need to test UBI the same way we need to test the abolition of slavery. It's a delay to implementation, and some people wouldn't like it.
I was talking about trials of universal services.
I gotta tell you: if you want to be the spokesperson for a movement, you need to learn how to build goodwill. You're coming off as combative and needlessly hostile when I'm trying to find common ground.
Yes.
The whole competition for who has more money because that means they are more successful and thus far be superior over others is... Stupid
UBI is the only solution to our corrupt politics. It disempowers the state and empowers individuals. You can stop relying on promises from fake heroes to help the poor, and completely eliminate poverty and crime.
AI and robotics is often cited as a catalyst for UBI. But it is deeply connected to political corruption. Our asshats will tell you that tech oligarchy deserves all our money, and nationalism means our weapons, oil oligarchs need to be given the rest of our money, and what little US manufacturing there is, needs to be protected so that you pay through the nose for stuff. All of this is BS. Let robotics/AI/China deliver us cheap stuff, and UBI afford not only to buy the cheap stuff, but let us have our time freed up in order to design/sell even more productively made stuff/tech that can improve the lives of those who will pay us for it.
UBI does not stop the rich from getting richer. It grows economy significantly, and all money trickles up to the rich. UBI does disempower the rich from stealing your money, through war and war posturing. AI, without UBI, needs to be weaponized as national security that includes the same media disinformation on your tolerance for warmongering empire that makes you/us poorer.
Every disgusting demonic evil inflicted on Americans by politicians is entirely the result of oppression and fearmongering to support unethical evil out of fear of homelessness, and healthcare access. You cannot support a sustainable world if society is on the verge of collapse and there is some war you idiotically are made to tolerate. Misery gives you no time to cure your stupidity. UBI frees us all into doing something useful instead desperately clinging to a job that does not produce anything worthwhile or competitive. 5 recruiter calls per day offering you a better job cures your stupidity.
Yes.
Yes I’m in favor of UBI.
I think capitalism would survive just fine with UBI.
I don’t think prices would automatically cancel out the money, because prices are still subject to competition.
As for whether people would still work after their basic needs are met, obviously. The evidence is people who are beyond subsistence and still seeking more money.
Yes, with the caveat that it will need to be coupled with a massive pendulum swing in favor of workers rights.
In all honesty it could help loosen regulations on workers rights. Flipping burgers and the boss is on some shady shit trying to schedule you a ton of hours? Fuck it. You can quit and still survive, and possibly thrive.
Not that I'd advocate loosening those regulations. Just that UBI itself could alleviate some current issues.
That is completely automatic. The "right"/survivability to say no is directly empowering to entire labour force.
I assume you don't believe in capitalism then. Because you suggestion is that the companies set the prices rather than the market. Anyway im for it because if done properly to should cover just needs. food and housing essentially. and it should replace all forms of cash assitance. welfare, disability, social security, unemployment. since anyone doing well would pay as much additional tax as they get or more then it just becomes something that helps when you need it. Lose your job and you immediately look for work not muck around with applying for unemployment because its always there. Get injured and you immediately have it. Can't work due to age and its there. work part time and its there to help if you can't handle 40 hours for whatever reason. have a kid, go back to school. Go to college and you have the funds to pay for the dorms and just need to worry about actual tuition.
USA needs universal healthcare first
While I agree, I personally think we should get rid of the existing support like food stamps, unemployment and replace with UBI.
Reasoning being with the current system it's too easy to work and be worse off. Example being if you make $20 over the income bracket you might lose $100 in food stamps. With UBI there's less administrative costs because everyone is eligible, less fraud and most important any effort you make to work will always improve your financial situation.
Never considered this, it sounds quite reasonable to me.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Yes-ish. While there are some good results from small scale tests, I'd argue that the effect it'd have on a macro level isn't fully understood. I'm all for testing it out large scale so we can get some reliable data there as well. And if it turns out that it doesn't result in inflation or corpos eating up the extra, then I'm all for it.
A few days ago, I saw a post about negative income tax which is something that had occurred to me independently. Wasn't surprised to learn that someone with more brains had actually given it some serious thought and that it had an actual name.
That would be the sort of thing I'd be interested in being implemented, so that those who are on little to no income - especially those who can't simply "get a (better) job" for whatever reason - don't fall below the poverty line.
This is not to say that the UK benefits system (where I am) doesn't work at all, but it's often coupled with the expectation of getting the recipient back into work or to getting a better job where you don't need them any more.
It would be nice if that part went away.
I guess that's essentially what UBI is -- benefits, except that they're high enough and you're not forced to seek for a job. The negative income tax could perhaps be constantly adjusted to respond to how many humans were currently needed in the economy; although I suppose that the size of the wages themselves would be enough to achieve this. Also, I think UBI could be paid for by taxing the robots, whenever it could be proved that the robot had the same abilities as an employee. The monthly tax could be the size of the replaced employee's montly salary and it could go directly to the specific person that the robot replaced. Come to think of it, the legal framework could be that only employees are allowed to own robots (and not companies), and the robots would therefore work and earn directly on behalf of that person.
Not necessarily. Companies need to set prices they can compete with. Customers might just go to the competitor otherwise.
This is provided that there is competition. Monopolies can set the prices how they want, because there’s no competition.
Its not like UBI invented competition. The fact that prices are rising for goods while costs to produce said goods is lowering is a symptom of lacking competition and a broken system.
At some points big companies are just going to agree to stop lowering prices. There's a reason insulin is so damn expensive.
100%
This is always the argument; but any UBI bills worth a shit would have already thought of this and include laws on limiting that from happening.
Would also help if we didn't have strong monopolies and cartels. Proper conpetition would prevent this from happening as well.
I don't like the idea of of subsidizing demand, but i'll take anything at this point
I am a moderate supporter of UBI. Strongly support "negative income taxing" which is a bit more techy but essentially your income is topped up if it falls below a certain level as opposed to everyone getting a lump sum each month whether they need it or not.
I think this is a good place to start as the initial recipients are those most in need.
The advantage of a straightforward UBI over NIT is that voters are selfish and stupid. If everyone gets a check, they are far more likely to support maintaining and increasing the benefit. It also removes the stigma that would be present for those receiving NIT payments.
Never considered the "voters are stupid and greedy" angle... but they are so you might be right here.
The main argument against NIT which I'd always heard was that you were losing the savings on administration that UBI has. In theory with UBI you can get rid of all disabilities and public pensions beaurocracy and means-testing since everyone gets the same lump sum.
NIT has some form of means-testing since you need to catalog who earns what to find those in need.
That's the same logic opponents of raising the minimum wage use to justify their position
UBI would have some inflationary effects, but if you stuck it through, it would be less than the UBI payment in the first place.
The problem is getting people to stick to it because unfortunately, for Americans, if you give them $2000 a month in UBI but their purchasing power doesn’t go up by what they perceive as what $2000 is worth; they will punish you in the next election.
I think the expanded child tax credit in 2020 could be a good example to follow for what the roll out of UBI would look like. But we let it expire despite it lifting so many kids out of poverty even if just temporarily and freaked out about inflation so hard that I have my doubts that our American society would ever have the fortitude to be able to implement a permanent UBI
I don't think that it's a terribly interesting question as a yes-or-no question for all UBI policies.
The thing about UBI is that the devil is in the details: UBI covers a broad range of policies. You really need to know the specifics of a proposal to know what it entails; UBI policies may be very different.
For example, there are a number of left-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to redistribute wealth. Normally, they tend to want something like keeping spending policy more-or-less where it is, adding UBI, and increasing taxes on some groups that they'd like to shift wealth from.
There are also a number of small-government right-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to reduce the role of government in setting purchasing decisions. Normally, they tend to want something more like a revenue-neutral form of UBI; there, one does something like cutting spending policy (on various forms of subsidy, say, like for food or housing) by $N and then shifting that $N to UBI so people can choose how to spend it. Here's a right-libertarian take on UBI:
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income
So, okay, both our wealth-redistribution guys on the left and our small-government guys on the right are talking about UBI policies...but they are talking about policies with very different implications due to the specifics of the policy. The left-wing guy probably isn't especially excited about the form of UBI that the right-wing guy wants, and the right-wing guy probably doesn't like the form of UBI that the left-wing guy wants. So I'd really need to know the specifics of a given UBI policy before I could say whether I think it's a good idea; I wouldn't just be across-the-board in favor of or against any UBI implementation, but would need to see a specific UBI proposal and consider it individually.
Musk, of all people, put into vernacular UHI (universal high income), which is similar to Andrew Yang's "freedom dividend" in that the goal is not to provide "basic" just above slavery/desperation survivability, but instead leverage the huge economic growth from automation that can provide a dividend to every citizen, who by equal vote, deserve an equal share in the surplus/output of the country.
The Swiss proposal you quoted does seem like crack, for purposes of appearing like crack and not getting accepted. Freedom dividends can grow to that ammount without it being the initial implementation
The left tends to offer crack. The crack part that the left distorts UBI with is keeping all of the stupidity of current system. 50%-100% clawbacks on low incomes. Keeping existing welfare systems. Some right wing versions, Milton Friedman from Nixon era, also offer 50% clawbacks on low income. The only other right wing version of UBI is a cardboard box housing alternative that replaces all current government conditional aid with cash for all. The Charles Murray proposal is the least stupid of all of the above.
Centrist/true UBI can leverage above the Charles Murray model, higher UBI for slightly higher tax rates, that leave people with better than cardboard housing far better off than without the UBI/tax rates. People who don't like slavery (nominally left voters) could prefer higher taxes and higher UBI than (right wing) people who love slavery, but left and right politicians want misery (maybe one day the miserable will vote left if Israel first rulership is not dominant left objective) in order to appeal to voters, and so tolerating existing politician/electoral power has 0 chance of getting UBI.
The perfect opportunity to go from "barely above slavery" UBI to UHS, is that even more programs can be cut with higher UBI, and economic growth means higher tax surpluses that we can demand as dividends. At your "Swiss proposal" level of UBI, IDGAF about automation taking my job, I will either play videogames or take whatever useful job I get harassed into accepting all the pay for, but it is very easy to get a $12k-$18k UBI level that is paid for by taxes, and leaves 80%-90% of all taxpayers better off.
Yes.
I heard an idea once about making minimum wage 0$ and giving everyone a liveabke UBI. That would mean that nobody is required to participate in the workforce, meaning that employers who can't afford to pay their workers a good wage would be priced out of the market rather than being able to prey upon peoples need for, y'know, money (which can be exchanged for goods and services). A very appealing idea for a 16 year old boy, and the only issue I see with it now is extreme specialisation in the workforce leading to less competition between different workplaces for similar jobs.
Yes
I feel like it's less about whether the process will go up or if capitalism can survive with it. I in feel that it's going to be necessary for humans to function. With population increasing, and jobs actually decreasing from technology for the first time in human history, from businesses automating stuff or self check out counters, we're just not going to have a job for every single person out there.
Kurt Vonnegut had a fun take on this exact scenario in his first book, Player Piano.
Yes, if it is a tax on speculation, investments, and gambling. I can get behind it being a trickle down system that the wealthy can't opt out of.
Here's what I say about UBI. We may not need it today, but we better figure it out because we'll need it someday. As an example, take a look at America in 1800. 95%+ of people worked in agriculture. With tractors, the cotton gin, etc. all those careers will be eliminated. The cotton gin of tomorrow is autonomous vehicles, robots and/or drones. Jobs like delivery driver, cashier, etc are all on borrowed time. If we don't figure out some new economic framework before that time, our society is toast. All the "unskilled" jobs that served as on-ramps to more advanced employment will literally be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Of course, America being America, we'll treat this like climate change. Deny deny deny, even when it starts actively harming you. By the time someone tries to solve it, we'll all be screwed.
Well I’m on Lenny so sure I’ll pick a fight.
No.
Yes
It's an interesting idea but I'd like to see it tried somewhere else on a large scale first.
You could cut down or outright remove various government assistance programs so there would not necessarily be more money for the poor, just not a bureaucracy to figure out if you qualify for this and that assistance.
Yes, it could coexist. Not sure why you'd think it would not. I still want more than a cubicle apartment and cheapest food.
It has been, Google is your friend
So far it's basically always a good idea
Large scale like a whole state? I only see that several states have run pilot programs.
One method of structuring it is that if UBI is $20k/year, then you have $20k/year taken out as taxes as long as you have a job. The income is neutral, so there's no basis for companies to raise prices.
I don't like that plan. Its basically a free $20k for those who don't work while working people get nothing.
You either give everyone 20k or you don't.
I think the only way for UBI effectively to work is if you can fix prices/profits. No more charging $10 for something that's cost .5¢ to make.
Yes, that's the point.
Not really. The point is that everyone has a base income. Why would working take away from the base income? Working should add to it.
That's not a UBI.
Sounds like you might be interested in a negative income tax, though.
Be aware that UBI needs to go in hand with other reforms that can finance it, eliminating things like tax evasion via donations, and certain foundations that exploit those
I'm going to wait and see - there are always unintended consequences and sometime those are bad enough to kill and otherwise good idea. Other times they mean you need to tweak with the simple program to make it work. And as always politicians will have their hand in the whole thing and might completely mess up the implementation until it looks nothing like the name.
I tend to support it because who says no to free money, but I'm not informed enough to form a strong opinion one way or another.
Yes, full support from me. Multiple localized tests of UBI have been shown to drastically improved people's lives. I think there are multiple other measures that would need to be put in place too in order to help minimize corporations just obliterating it's usefulness by raising prices.
I'm not as informed as I'd like to be, but my understanding is that things like VAT taxes can help get around online retailers like Amazon dodging taxes, as well as CEO to base worker pay ratio caps to ensure the people in a company that are actually producing the profits get rewarded for doing so. The CEOs could keep giving themselves raises, but it would come with the requirement of actually giving everyone in the company a raise too, which, quite frankly, is what should happen when your employees do a good enough job to bring in record profits.
My understanding is that Alaska already has something similar in nature to a UBI where every citizen gets a dividend from the state each year based on taxes collected from certain businesses. This is a dim recollection from me and I am probably completely mistating how it works/where the money comes from.
The trajectory we're headed we're going to need it or something like it.
With improvements to AI and physical automation there will be a metric fuckton of people out of employment completely and there are only so many jobs for the rebuttal of "the people will still need to maintain the robots and check the AI"
Unfortunately with our concept of ownership there will be massive resistance to it as "I own the machines that make the products/increase productivity, why should you get anything from my profit?" They're going to have to relearn the lesson Ford learned about "well paid employees are your customers" the hard way.
As it stands, at least in America, "The Century Of The Self" has lead to a complete atomization of society, every business is entirely independent from society, every individual is separate from society, so each individual owner won't see the need for a well paid workforce/population at the owners "expense" actually being beneficial to their own existence. They'll think "someone else" should deal with that issue, or worse "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" :/
The only alternative to UBI, and Trump presidency a big step towards that alternative, is the oligarchy that needs less slaves support genocide and AI/Robotic security for the oligarchy. UBI is similar to that "Ford mythology" of increased sales through population that can afford more cars, and Ford getting plenty rich from more car sales. Still an oligarchy that is hyper focused on slavery instead of that obviousness of making more revenue is not one that reacts to "slavery alternatives" of protecting their existing wealth/power through genocide towards an understanding of a sustainable and prosperous world enriching them too.
I support it. It's an insanely expensive policy though and should be implemented carefully and be based on income. An example would be:
Combined with better tax policies that don't tax poor people. Health, education and other basic services should be almost free while having a strong social housing programme.
This way nobody gets priced out of living and there's still plenty of incentive to get a job while having some funds to invest in hygiene and clothing to land the job.
This amount and threshold should be increased in the future.
I really support UBI since you can better model the demand curve with externalities instead of making things free while having it accessible to poor people. Free school might be too low of a cost when calculating benefits to the individual and society so giving people money to afford a heavily subsidised cost would allow for more accurate economics.
I'm pretty sure people living on $1000 a month would want to work to get extra income in most cases.
You don't have to lower UBI by income. Tax does it for you.
Pulling numbers out my arse, you band your tax until an income of 100k means they pay 12k in tax, essentially reclaiming the 1k/pcm they are paid by ubi. All while insuring they are never worse off than taking no pay rise, as they still have 88k to spend on luxuries.
Numbers subject to bitter argument.
That's true. People shouldn't be discouraged financially from working. I haven't done I proper calculation of all cases of this and the total tax cost but for sure you could use the tax system to get the desired distribution.
Ugh, why give them money and then tax it again? That makes no sense.
We do that on America's Unemployment Income, and it seems ridiculous. Why give it, if you're just taking away some later?
You aren't? The 1kpcm is tax free. It just if you earn more than 10kpcm your tax rate is higher than 1k.
Kinda defeat the purpose, because a UBI is supposed to support a decent, respectable livelihood. So the higher their prices are, the more taxes they'll have to pay, to support a higher UBI. You cant have UBI without capitalism, because capitalism creates the conditions where a UBI is necessary.
and yes, I do. Companies are moving towards full automation, all the more possible with the advent of AI.. and they are doing that explicitly to fire human employees to save costs. There will soon be a time where there wont be enough jobs for people, Which will be a fork in the road of incredible civil unrest, violence, and possible war... or a UBI so people can live with dignity, freed from the labors of capitalism by automation.
"decent, respectable" These are subjective terms. Since UBI is a concept, there is no legal definition I'm aware of, but I imagine there are vast differences in what separate people would envision what a "decent and respectable" life would be provided by UBI.
I still support UBI anyway.
I've soured on it recently, if you gave everyone $1000 a month then your landlord is just going to raise your rent by $1000.
If full socialism is out of the picture, and we could enact something like UBI I think we should expand disability and social security for those who can't work and then do a universal guaranteed jobs program for those who can work because:
It's way more politically viable. It's going to be almost impossible to convince a majority of Americans to "pay people to sit around all day". They'd be way more open to it if they're doing a job.
We could use the labor on fields that the market doesn't value, such as building green infrastructure or social work for low income individuals. This would go along with expanding the definition of a job to any work that is benefiting society. If you're a parent spending all your time caring for a young or disabled child then that's a job and you should get paid for it.
It you increase the wage for these guaranteed jobs that effectively raises the minimum wage since the private employers have to compete with the government. Why work at McDonald's for $10 an hour when the government is paying $15. If you raise UBI that may decrease wages as employers will use it as an excuse to pay less.
Even for people making above minimum wage it gives the worker more bargaining power since your employer loses the threat of throwing you onto the streets. This is also true for UBI but only if it's enough to fully cover a comfortable life which I don't think will happen due to the inflation it may cause.
It increases production which can help to increase supply and cover for the increase in demand giving people that much money will cause so inflation is checked more.
People neeed a job, as in the expanded definition I gave above, it's a big part of how people make meaning in there life. The best case for someone not working would be they just play video games all day, worst case they turn to drug use.
Then I’ll move and his income drops to zero. Market forces don’t disappear just because there’s UBI.
It won't drop to zero since someone else will come in who will give them the extra $1000 because they need a place to live. Market forces don't dissappear with UBI, that's why when aggregate demand goes up and supply stays fixed, such as with housing, prices go up.
Say you pay $1500 for rent and there's another guy who pays $1200 and wants to upgrade to your apt. They get the $1000 UBI and now they have enough to bid up to $2200 for your apt. Now either you pay $2300 or your landlord evicts you to get the higher paying tenant. This percolates up and down the housing ladder from the homeless person who gets $1000 only to see rents increase to $1500 to the millionaire who now has to pay an extra $1000 drop in the bucket for there high-rise in Manhattan.
In capitalism your standard of living is determined by your ability to outbid the person on the rung below you to maintain that lifestyle. If everyone moves up a rung then nothing changes.
Why would supply stay fixed? People can and do build new housing, especially when aggregate demand goes up.
Like I said, market forces don’t go away.
Demand goes up but not production. Adding UBI doesn't increase the amount of wood harvested, or bricks produced or construction workers. In fact some construction workers may quit and go on UBI, lowering the production.
If demand goes up without production increasing, and thus supply, prices go up. This is part of the reason for the latest round of inflation, demand shot up after the pandemic but production was still at pandemic levels and yet to ramp back up.
Production in a lot of other places can ramp up relatively quickly to match demand if the infrastructure is built out already. In housing though production in general is slow and also slow to ramp up. It can take 2-3 years to build a house, and housing production takes years to increase. That's part of the reason housing is still so high right now, housing production plummeted after 2008 and we haven't gotten back to that even though prices and demand has skyrocketed.
All this is to say if UBI goes in it'll take years for the supply to increase, I think they're estimating housing production won't get up to match the current new high prices now until 2030. Meanwhile your landlord is increasing your rent as soon as you renew, and rents don't tend to ever go down after they're set. This is if new housing can be built at all, a lot of places in America are zoned for single family housing and all the land is taken so no new housing can be built, housing production is limited by desirable and developable land and that just doesnt exist in a lot of places.
This is all if you don't increase production, which the government can do, but they don't right now and they definitely won't if UBI comes in and replaces section 8 and all other welfare. If you do a universal jobs program though you can use those people to build affordable and public housing.
UBI empowers tenants and alternate living situations.
Sure people will want nicer places to live, but there's more options than renting with UBI, and other power dynamics that permit tenants to escape due to other options.
I'm sceptical of it. where would all of that money come from? the "data industry", that is all about making the most believable lies and most effective ads? or land value tax that will make sure to outprice you from your own house if rich people flood it, or if improvements happen around the area?
the pension system, while I believe it is needed, I worry it cannot be sustained for too long anymore because currently it relies on infinite growth everywhere: year over year more people needs to work and pay taxes to finance the pension of the elderly.
or did I misunderstand something and this is not a problem?
Pensions have already been overhauled in the UK. Now pensions are essentially a tax efficient way of investing where you also don't get the realised returns until after you retire, so essentially you are paying for your own future.
What is ubi? Univeral bread initiative ?
Universal basic income
I've wondered the same thing. Seems like it would need to be paired with price controls or public control of essentials, but that's sort of a "seize the means of production" conversation that I don't think would be popular unless something like AI genuinely puts enough people out of work.
Maybe depending on the situation, and whether or not we can properly tax those who need to pay for most of it.
If it continues as it is now, with corporate entities and billionaires paying nearly nothing in taxes, I wouldn't support it. It only alienates the upperclass who we want on our side. Millionaires compared to billionaires is a similar scale to min wage workers to millionaires. We need to make it clear we are not after the 1%, but the 0.1%.
In addition to a UBI there needs to be some kind of price control. Otherwise I would fear that it'd simply subsidize corporate price gouging. Rents would immediately shoot up.
Yes I'm 100% for it, And no, companies DGAF where your money comes from as long as you buy stuff. UBI is the only way capitalism can exist at all long-term, because to exist it requires customers. With the continuing drive to eliminate employees, eventually so many people will be unemployed that if nothing happens to supply them with money for shopping, they won't be able to shop. Before we even get to the stage of food riots and massive social unrest, businesses will start feeling the drop in sales and profits. They really have no motivation to oppose UBI - which of course won't stop the more short-sighted ones from opposing UBI, because people often do things that hurt themselves in the long run (see MAGA). But overall UBI is ultimately one way of keeping capitalism afloat as employees become less and less necessary.
only if that income is required for basic necessities and everyone will need in their lives. for a generalization, there are three things I can think of the top of my head that everyone needs. It is to have housing, healthcare, and food. There are many more basic needs people should have fulfilled but I digress.
Currently in many first world and third world countries/classes are reliant on funding to fulfill most if not all basic needs. That is when it should be mandatory for UBI. How is something like that funded? like everything else. we all pay for it. Call it taxes, call it charity, call it whatever you want.
Yet, Why would someone need UBI for basic needs? well mostly because the general public is more divided and distrustful of centralized sources/authorities. Yet the only way UBI would be able to occur is with that kind of system.
So in all I don't think UBI would be supported by me. I like federated services and decentralization. I don't like the current state of all basic needs being behind paywalls. It is disappointing. I don't know what would help us the most, but moving into this direction is just not what I can see would be kind to people who are low on economic scales or helpful for most who are barely scraping by. Even if I live more or less comfortably right now, I see many basic needs in my life that I would still want to improve substantially or become available for me to act on.
companies are gonna company.
and in this country, corporations are people.
capitalism loves to embrace extend extinguish so sure it's temporarily compatible with e v e r y t h i n g
One problem with this question is that UBI can be implemented in different ways and the way that it is implemented is very important.
I think that the way most people think about UBI is that you would get enough money to not have to work. I don't think that this is compatible with capitalism, because the main reason why people work is because they are pressured into it for economic reasons so removing that without providing people with some other reason to work will just cause the economy to collapse.
Even if people work for some other reason than money, you will still have the problem that UBI undermines itself. As less people work for money, the money you get from the UBI program will also mean less. Not only do you need a different way to encourage people to work, but you also need a new way to distribute the products of that work if you want to ensure that everyone has access to basics like food and housing.
For these reasons I don't think that a UBI that offers people the option of not working is compatible with capitalism. Capitalism is the system that we use to distribute work and resources and if we implement UBI we will have to invent new systems to do those things instead.
It is still possible to have a smaller UBI under capitalism if your goal is to for example prevent money from getting to concentrated among the rich and instead stimulate the economy, or something.
I don't think UBI can exist at all. There's way too many problems that aren't even close to being addressed by arguments in favor of it. It doesn't work at all from a financial perspective. There's not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers. There's little evidence that new innovation or invention would happen as there's little benefit for the creator. The only way it works is in a post scarcity society, which isn't even close to existing.
You appear entirely unaware of test programs like Canadian Mincome showing minimal employment drop, with some spinning up businesses by claiming the income against loans. The people who dropped out entirely were nearly all either continuing education or mothers raising kids.
This is replicated in projects like those in Africa.
Basically, the answer to the knee-jerk "wouldn't everyone just stop working?" question is "actually, no."
I definitely wouldn't stop working, but I would have more flexibility to try things like taking a risk on something entrepreneurial or choosing to work in a field that aligns with my values, salary be damned. That cannot be allowed.
Any measure that reduces the leverage employers have over labor will not be simply given to us. People fought and died to get what little control we have, and it's been whittled away for decades.
The test programs can't really show anything definitive though. For a couple important reasons.
Let's see, lemmy, let's see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.
Ah, no, we're an echo chamber. But then what's the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?
"Let's see one upvoted opinion in favour of killing this healthy cat. Echo chamber!"
Let's see, lemmy, let's see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.
Ah, no, we're an echo chamber. But then what's the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?
And they'd be entitled to just that. That's the point: nobody being forced to work just to survive. You don't understand the concept.
What about society exactly do I not understand?
"Universal" means that it's unconditional. As I understand it, by design of the concept, everybody should receive it.
real entitlement is trying to coopt and then redefine the entire meaning of a concept (you)
That's not a very reliable way to determine that. Might as well admit something like "I take the shape of the tea leaves to mean that I am correct."