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?
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.
I’m a fan of UB I+S. Universal basic income AND universal basic services. Plus
highthigh taxes for the rich. And workplace democracy. And a massive shift of the economy to the nonprofit sector: if what yourcompanymultimillion corporation is providing is a utility, you can’t have making a profit be your fiduciary responsibility.Basically, fuck capitalism, I want socialism.
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?
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.
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 :)
Got it. I edited for clarity.
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.
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.
do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?
UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that’s a difference between subsidizing specific things vs subsidizing all the things.
So you’re saying just by sheer volume they would be less likely to do it?
Not so much volume, but just the different options available. Example, if food is subsidized, then food vendors can increase prices to soak up the excess. But if people just get money, and food vendors try to soak it up, people can spend their money on building a greenhouse and growing their own vegetables. If every industry tries to raise prices, at some point it becomes worthwhile for people to do things themselves, then trade with each other, undercutting the larger industries. Basically, the libertarians’ wet dream could actually happen with UBI.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Ita already working like that post pandemic.
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.
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.
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 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
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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!
Trying to distort the market so that lower priced items are more profitable is quite challenging to do without unintended consequences. A progressive consumption tax would definitely be a worthy experiment
Only concept/idea that offers this benefit rn is just having a healthy competitive market that sees companies not form into a monolopy or structured in a way that allows for each one to set prices to higher amounts because everyone else is doing it. looking at how Intel is struggling rn to stay relevant and they are entering the GPU market with some very competitive mid range options that outperform Nvidia and AMD on common consumer tasks, while still offering their own blend of AI cores for new tasks that we will likely start having in the coming future. All this and Intel is offering these mid-range cards at 60% of the cost to the closest competition. While I enjoy seeing this, I am annoyed this is the only way we can see prices lower. We really need to come together as a community and push prices to more reasonable levels.
Inflation is insane right now and it is mainly what is annoying me the most about people thinking UBI would even help prevent it from being irrelevant once companies realize they can just charge more for the same identical/marginally improved product. I see the floor for prices steadily increase and UBI will just cause it to rise up to the point that the UBI benefit is worthless as the purchasing power is decreased to the point of a single dollar being worth less than what a penny used to be.
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.
