this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2023
44 points (97.8% liked)

World News

32353 readers
384 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ram@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Stop doing trials. We've done enough trials and tests and studies to know that UBI works. Just implement it fully. I'm so tired of these half-steps that are poised to look like "progress" when they're already planning on undoing them anyways.

[–] Steve@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Only 30 people, and just 2 years? That's a very limited study. It's something I guess, but it barely scratches the surface.

Aren't there already a number of larger studies in the world? Who wants another small scale study? Do they think the results may be different?

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

UBI won't work as long as the capitalist class is in power.

If the UBI improves the lives of people to the point of them declining to take shit jobs, the capitalists will try to dismantle and/or pervert the policy; they will also try to capture as much of its value as possible by increasing prices. The only level of UBI acceptable to capitalists would be one that keeps working people afraid of losing their jobs.

[–] SemioticStandard@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right. There is exactly zero fucking chance that UBI will ever take off in today’s world, especially in the US, where we can’t even get universal healthcare.

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's some capitalists in favor of UBI, but they usually mean barely above starvation level and also let's get rid of all other social services whatsoever. Fuck the disabled in particular I guess. Buy your own wheelchair we gave you 500 dollars! What do you mean you need 600 dollars just for rent?

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I don't NOT support UBI, but it's not enough.

[–] Tretiak@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

UBI isn't likely going to work out in the long-term.

UBI would 'inflate' the economy, it wouldn't grow it. Growth (i.e. 'productivity') is more stuff being made. There’s no reasonable argument that the physical quantity of goods/services would increase. In every reasonable scenario, UBI gets inflated away through the supply-side of the production curve.

If your landlord knows you’re getting an extra, say, $5,000 per year in UBI, do you really think your rent isn’t going up? Do you really think AT&T isn’t going to increase the cost of your cell phone bill? Do you really think food is going to magically stay the same price? Gasoline? Clothes? Restaurant prices? And you can continue all the way down the line.

UBI is essentially a transfer mechanism from [insert how it’s funded] to the sector of the economy that produces goods and services to lower income people. In the case of UBI being funded through a VAT, it’s just a closed loop. The people that 'don't' benefit are the lower income people. If you remember Yang's Presidential bid, even he couldn’t address this. When he was asked directly about it, he just handwaved it away, despite the fact that was a glaring hole in the dead center of his keystone policy piece.

Remember your supply and demand curves from Econ 101? Giving everyone $1,000 a month increases demand for just about everything, with a weight towards the people who spend most all of that $1,000. Whether or not prices go up is a function of the ability of supply to respond. Imagine a world where there are only 2 items: potato chips and your apartment. There are a 'ton' of varieties of potato chips, and you can always choose to just not buy potato chips. Your apartment on the other hand, is mandatory and you have to incur a significant cost to move (e.g. it costs money to get a truck, plus you will have to move further from work, and you might have to move to a different apartment, you get the gist).

The potato chip company probably can't really raise prices you'll just switch brands costlessly. or you'll just not buy chips. Your apartment on the other hand is different. I'm not saying your landlord would raise your rent $1,000 instantly, that's not how that works. Instead, he'd bleed you out. Your rent would go up $250, which you'd be pissed about but you'd pay because you still have $750 from UBI. Next year it's going up $300, which you'd be pissed about but you'd pay because you still have $400 from UBI and so on until you get pissed enough to actually move. Now you are going to move to a cheaper apartment, but you have to remember that someone else, before UBI started, was paying a lot less than your 'new' rent post UBI. In other words, the landlord's captured it. Notably, this is exactly what we saw with real estate prices as women entered the workforce. It takes about ~10 years or so, but a huge chunk of the extra income went into real estate. Its hard to imagine how UBI would be any different.

[–] Steve@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Rents in many places have gone up massive amounts in the last few years anyway. Sometimes doubling in a single increase. All without a UBI. Rents increases aren't tied to an tenants income like you sugest.

Also, your inflation would only be short term. Long term, after prices spike with sudden increased demand, the high prices will incentivize more supply, bringing prices back down into balance.

And there's nothing to say the UBI needs to be implemented all at once any way. It could start as small as $50/month, then ramp up over the course of a decade or two. That smother transition would allow the markets to adapt without major waves.

There have been wider, longer studies, and what your describing doesn't actually happen.

[–] Tretiak@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There have been wider, longer studies, and what your describing doesn’t never happen.

And I remember people made similar remarks about gentrification. I remain confident that you'll see it with time.

[–] Steve@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Gentrification is extremely local, tied to a specific area. UBI is tied to people. All people. In all locations. No mater where they go. The dynamics are couldn't be more different.

[–] FaceDeer@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Your rent would go up $250, which you’d be pissed about but you’d pay because you still have $750 from UBI.

Or, alternately, you'd look around the rental market to find a unit that hadn't arbitrarily gone up in price.

The scenario you describe only works in a very tightly constrained scenario where supply and demand are highly inelastic. In the real world people build new housing when demand rises, so prices don't spiral ever upward. Most of the places where there's currently a housing crisis hare having that problem because they've made bad zoning decisions due to NIMBYism and other such miscalculations.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I would expect this to happen if you just give everyone UBI with no changes anywhere else, but that wouldn't make any sense. Why do we not consider a setup where we set UBI to X, then reduce everyone's wages by X?

[–] TheBelgian@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

it's not more UBI but the right to have a roof (not a dormitory) and eating when you are hungry (not Soylent shit) and access to healthcare.

1600 UK? is it a joke?

load more comments
view more: next ›