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?
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
Abso-fucking-lutely.
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.
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.
Ita already working like that post pandemic.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That’s the same logic opponents of raising the minimum wage use to justify their position
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.
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.
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.
You explain this as if you’re not just describing basic UBI lol
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
Just make them tuition free.
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.
