Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4811 months ago

    I’ve always wanted UBI to be a thing but after a discussion with my brother I’m second guessing it. His argument is that corporations will just increase their prices and not much would change.

    He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE’S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc…

    I know it’s easier said than done but I’m just worried that billionaires will fuck up UBI like they fuck up everything else.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5411 months ago

      He’s assuming infinite elasticity, which isn’t how prices work in real life.

      The typical version of this argument is that the people who are being taxed in the first place are the ones increasing rents. In which case taxes can then be increased until the desired equilibrium is achieved.

      That’s not to say we couldn’t also provide a basic safety net like he describes. But that raises the question of why UBI should stop there. If our economy can generate a surplus, then why shouldn’t all humans sharing their slice of the Earth get it?

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      2411 months ago

      He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE’S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc…

      That is the entire purpose of UBI. Literally.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1611 months ago

        No he’s altering who has the cash.

        In his discussion he means:

        • if the customer is given free cash, corporations might jack up prices to get some of it.

        • if the customer has free healthcare, the corporation doesn’t see any “free cash” they can get some of. Of course they’re aware the customer should be spending less on necessities like healthcare, but they aren’t necessarily bringing home more than they were last month, they’re just retaining more.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1911 months ago

      Yup that’s a common critique of UBI. Landlords will jack up rent and end up hovering a huge amount of the benefits. Your landlord knows you’re all of a sudden making $12k more per year? Welcome to your new $10k rent hike.

      For UBI to function we need basic price controls or necessities provided for before it makes any sense to introduce.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        611 months ago

        We need public housing in the US to be a normal thing that normal people live in, instead of something that’s only built in dangerous crime ridden areas nobody wants to live

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1211 months ago

      As one implementation of that, a UBI can simplify the complexities of the existing safety net systems and smooth the welfare cliff.

      I no longer need to pay for low income housing (I can just get some money and rent something), I’m no longer restricted by what an EBT card can buy (I just get money), I don’t need to qualify for XYZ niche benefit (I just get some money), etc. And that money could more easily be adjusted/reduced as my income grows which smooths the welfare cliff.

      It also frees up a ton of money that was previously used to manage the existing complex systems and allows more efficient spending.

    • citrusface
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1011 months ago

      Corps would just find a way to be the ones to supplies those basic needs. They would still inflate prices and deliver substandard results.

      Capitalism is the problem

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      That’s UBS, Universal Basic Services, one possible alternative to UBI, but more likely, we’ll end up with a bit of both, I think.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      611 months ago

      Prices are not set by how much money you are capable of spending, it’s set by supply and demand. The only time that’s not true is when a company is a monopoly and the good is something you can’t do without. Of course, a huge part of the problem is that we have way too many monopolies so yes, some companies will be able to raise their prices without pressure from competition, but you’d still be better off since not all companies are monopolies.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        The demand will rise though. Suddenly all everyone will have some extra income every month. The price of most modern consumer products is based on what the market will bare not what it costs to produce them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          If you have companies competing with each other they will lower their prices down to what’s needed to sustain itself. Again the problem is that we have too many monopolies in our market which is why so many companies don’t have competition. The root cause for so many reasons why solutions are inefficient is due to monopolization and consolidation of wealth and that needs to be dealt with, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also do other things at the same time even if they aren’t as efficient as they could be.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      311 months ago

      Yeah, if money = power, and everybody gets some from the government, I think that what the UBI is spent on will be controlled. You must spend it on basic needs or your account will be frozen.

      My main worry is that UBI will be a Trojan Horse to control the spending of everyone receiving it, possibly through some central distribution system. That’s how I think the billionaires will fuck it up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      How about using your UBI check on basics instead of rampant consumerism. Also if it gets fucked up we as consumers need to take some fucking responsibility.

      Also people’s jobs are being displaced by technology at a rapid rate and is continuing at a steady pace. Large swathes of the population may simply not have enough money to afford anything because they don’t have jobs. So unless you suggest these people simply die off because we make some people rich?