this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
289 points (97.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27210 readers
1431 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

There's not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers.

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."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

The test programs can't really show anything definitive though. For a couple important reasons.

  1. The program will end and participants know that. Not working for 3-5 years is going to create long term problems after the program ends for participants.
  2. It's a set cost trial, so government doesn't adjust taxes or other social programs.
  3. It's limited scope, so landlords employers, shops, etc can't make any adjustments either as it's an irrelevant amount of their income.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 106 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Got it. I edited for clarity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sure, eliminate billionaires to pay for it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›