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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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 hight high taxes for the rich. And workplace democracy. And a massive shift of the economy to the nonprofit sector: if what your company multimillion corporation is providing is a utility, you can't have making a profit be your fiduciary responsibility.
Basically, fuck capitalism, I want socialism.
plus hight taxes for the rich
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?
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
UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism [...] moves it from the rich to the poor.
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.
Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy.
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!"
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.
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.
If so, what’s the purpose of the money?
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.
If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market
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
If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying
Yes, it is? Its only not buying if you don't trade money for it, ie the government sending it to everyone for free
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.
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!
do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?
UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.
Your theory about companies raising prices to offset UBI is actually undercut by historical and present evidence.
There was a time when the United States had welfare. The United States still has food stamps. But nobody is seriously pretending that these things did or do drive up grocery prices.
Similarly, over time various states have raised minimum wage, and if your argument were accurate, then the prices in those states would have immediately risen to match minimum wage, but they didn't.
In other words, you're repeating a conservative talking point that has been repeatedly debunked by reality. I think you could try to improve your argument by arguing that inflation happens across the board, to everything, and therefore it would also happen to UBI. But what we've actually seen is that's not true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It makes MORE capitalism possible, as it were, expanding its principles of supply and demand to fields such as employment.
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?
Yes.
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.
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.
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?
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.
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.
better alternative, which is Universal Basic Services.
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.
What this looks like is publicly owned housing; a robust, fully-funded public education system that includes pre-K and higher ed; universal healthcare
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.
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.
The whole competition for who has more money because that means they are more successful and thus far be superior over others is... Stupid
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.
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.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?
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.
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.
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.
100%
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?
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.
That's the same logic opponents of raising the minimum wage use to justify their position
I don't like the idea of of subsidizing demand, but i'll take anything at this point
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 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.
Are you in support of 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
Of course, as with any policy proposal, the details matter a lot. And the Swiss proposal is problematic in a number of ways. For starters, 2,800 USD a month means that a married couple could get $67,200 per year for doing nothing. And while it’s true that Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of per capita income, that’s still an awful lot of money. Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a 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
left vs right
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, 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.
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.
Well I’m on Lenny so sure I’ll pick a fight.
No.
My autism doesn't know how to vote on your comment.
Yes
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.
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's an interesting idea but I'd like to see it tried somewhere else on a large scale first.
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.
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?
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.
Kinda defeat the purpose, because a UBI is supposed to support a decent, respectable livelihood
"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'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.
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 $10 for something that's cost .5¢ to make.
That's not a UBI.
Sounds like you might be interested in a negative income tax, though.
I support it. It's an insanely expensive policy though and should be implemented carefully and be based on income. An example would be:
Combined with better tax policies that don't tax poor people. Health, education and other basic services should be almost free while having a strong social housing programme.
This way nobody gets priced out of living and there's still plenty of incentive to get a job while having some funds to invest in hygiene and clothing to land the job.
This amount and threshold should be increased in the future.
I really support UBI since you can better model the demand curve with externalities instead of making things free while having it accessible to poor people. Free school might be too low of a cost when calculating benefits to the individual and society so giving people money to afford a heavily subsidised cost would allow for more accurate economics.
That's not UBI, and might incentivise people to not work.
With UBI everyone gets Eg. 1000$ a month, no matter what you earn or have.
(taxes would have to go up to pay for this, which is fine, tax the rich)
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.
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