Those seem incompatible to me.
(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)
In trials, it has consistently boosted productivity. More people need it in order to be productive than the amount that choose to be less productive once they won’t die from not being productive.
Also in trials, it has not costed more than current social programs in those areas. Clearing redundancies and red tape accounted for enough cost cuts to make UBI overall cost a similar amount or less than what all the various programs with all their various overhead costed all added together.
Exactly, this whole discussion should not be about what people feel about it.
Trials have shown it works beneficially. Quite so. Nevermind the standard of living increase and getting people off the streets, those aren’t even included in that, it’s just about productivity that is boosted.
So yeah, whenever someone says they feel it’d be negative, we tried it already, facts disagree with your feelings.
Now we only have to elect decision makers that make policy on facts and not feelings.
And like that, you’ve dashed my dreams if a brighter future…
If I could afford to only work 4 days a week, those 4 days would most likely be a lot more productive as I would have time to get treatment for my chronic illnesses.
I have been told by HR last year to use my surplus vacation days somewhere. I used them on every Monday for half a year. I got not only more productive, but also less stressed. It works.
Yeah as an industrial/human factors engineer it’s our profession’s dirty little secret. It doesn’t apply to every job, but improvement to work quality does. Reducing shift length also does. Hours 7-8 are rarely very productive for thinky workers.
Unfortunately nobody has managed to successfully explain the concept of mathematics or empirical evidence to businesspeople. Sometimes I wonder if they have thoughts beyond gut instinct.
Oh they do understand mathematics alright. As long as it’s adding numbers to their net worth
I can manage financially with 2 days of work a week, and I’m now at a point where I would not want to scale back because my work would become of lower quality. Every Monday would be like coming back from a vacation, and I think I’d lose touch and feel with the job.
Those 5 days weekend sure give me time for personally enriching hobbies!
Society couldn’t function if most people worked like you. I’m happy for you and it’s the exact place I want to be but I think its only possible in our current framework.
With increasing automation, it could totally work soon
We’re still a far way away from the level of automation necessary to make working only 2 days a week feasible imo
Also, a fair bit of work is work for the sake of work. It doesn’t enrich society, just the capitalism machine. So if UBI were enacted on a large scale, there is plenty of unnecessary work that can go by the wayside.
Who determines its unnecessary? The market? Government groups?
It actually could. Imagine if salary had increased in accordance to the productivity boosts that automation has brought. Then you could have 3 people, working 2 days a week, sharing a job and being able to live from it. After all, it used to take more than 3 people to do the work a single person does nowadays.
Why would a business pay for these things that make their workers more efficient and then relinquish all of the profit that came from making things more efficient?
There’s a difference between “society couldn’t function” and “companies are too greedy”. One of them is wrong and the other needs to change.
source?
I thought instances where UBI has been tried, it’s failed - is that not the case?
It has been massively successful in a bunch of locations. Where are you seeing reports that it failed?
Maybe it was related to pandemic stuff: https://www.kqed.org/news/11946467/study-shows-limits-of-stocktons-guaranteed-income-program-during-pandemic
It’s been awhile since I’ve looked into specifically anything UBI related so I could be misrembering.
Stockton’s experiment in guaranteed income — which paid more than 100 residents $500 a month with no strings attached — likely improved the recipients’ financial stability and health, but those effects were much less pronounced during the pandemic, researchers found.
“We were able to say definitively that there are certain changes in terms of mental health and physical health and well-being that are directly attributed to the cash,” Castro told CalMatters on Tuesday. “Year 2 (2020) showed us some of those limits, where $500 a month is not a panacea for all social ills.”
Being less pronounced is not the same thing as failing and the whole article supported the program being effective. Looks like maybe you misremembered this article?
"One glaring problem with allowing this program to exist for any extended period of time is that, unless it is privately funded, it would be too expensive to maintain and would require substantial tax increases across the board.
The group’s page even admits that, saying, “there’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shard national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.”
I think it part of it may have been related to how high taxes might have to be made and it would be damn near impossible to pass those level of taxes. It couldn’t be done souly city by city I don’t think otherwise wealthy would flee the city to avoid the taxes levied - at least that woulf be a concern of mine.
What does that blatantly misleading quote come from?
Whats misleading about it?
It starts with the assumption that raising taxes is unreasonable.
Bringing taxes up to their 20th century averages is completely reasonable, as they were highest during the time period where actual business growth was the highest.
Okay so, there are a bunch of different agencies in charge of different types of social services. If you have UBI, those are no longer required. The money is coming from those programs. You spend LESS because you don’t have a giant work force on the back end of all those services/agencies anymore.
Eg. current: 20 departments, 100 people working at each. Gives out 1 million dollars a year in social services.
UBI: 1 department. Far less than the total of above working for it. Gives out 1 million dollars a year in social services.
See? The numbers are fluff just for the sake of the example.
No. It’s overwhelmingly a positive outcome.
The funniest thing is it’s the same basic argument as free market Vs planned economy. The individual knows better what they need right now. Why this doesn’t appeal more to the right than it does says a lot about a good chunk of right wing politics.
The current system is akin to a planned economy. You are told what you can spend the money on, and what you can’t. UBI lets the end recipient decide where it’s most useful. E.g. for one person, a car is a worthless expense, while better food makes a big difference. For another, they are ok living on cheaper food for a while, but a replacement car would let them bootstrap themselves upwards, economically.
Trials where?
Studies in motivational theory have been around for years which generally agree that at a very basic level people need security first, not necessarily to motivate but to be in a position to be motivated. Repeatedly pay has been proven to be a poor motivator over time. By removing the basic insecurity that people face, you give them a chance to focus on actual motivating factors like job satisfaction, self-worth and realisation.
I am on parental leave right now and doing chores around the house never have been more fun and fulfilling.
I don’t have to think about work, we have enough money to not worry about being short at the end of the parental leave. I can concentrate on what is important right now (my family) and not worry about the rest.
If you don’t have to worry about basic things of life, you will find a fullfilling purpose. But the system as set up right now is a scam and people are increasingly squeezed for basic necessities, so they can’t afford to have a purpose.
Congrats on your kid and I wholeheartedly agree.
Absolutely. Security is the enemy of fear and capitalism. Fear as Frank Herbert put it, is the mind killer. If we have security, all of a sudden the horrendous business practices capitalism has been built on and motivated by. Sort of fall apart. Go to work in a soul crushing job, with a toxic environment, for too little pay? Why, when you could stay home and start your own business, maybe even become a better competitor. Or just wait for something better to come along.
Fear is the tool of the powerful. Whether it’s fear of some group they tell you to fear. Or fearing them directly. Without fear, many of the crises we seem to constantly be juggling. Would find themselves solved. Humanity has the ability to feed and house everyone. Right now. The reason we don’t is that the wealthy and powerful would lose wealth and power. And we can’t have that.
If security is the enemy of capitalism, how do you explain people who have their needs met, who still strive under capitalism?
People who have their needs met would strive regardless of capitalism. You need to show that they strive because of capitalism. The problem is, capitalism doesn’t meet the needs of a large amount of people. No matter how hard they strive. Nor should it be necessary for them to. Worse capitalism short changes them. And is very inefficient.
I want UBI so all the lazy motherfuckers who don’t want to work get out of the fucking way. Sit at home in front of your TVs cramming doritos down your gullet all day for all I care, just as long as you aren’t half passing whatever job you’re doing and creating problems for me.
That is a very unique take And a very very good argument to people against it
Yes, except that costs will also go up for services because there will be fewer workers. I’m in favor of UBI but it will definitely increase costs, especially for wealthy people who rely on relatively cheap help.
Most wealthy people don’t even manage their own households. They hire people to drive their cars, cook their food, and take care of their children. They pay other people to build or renovate their houses and even manage the building and renovating.
People won’t want to work for low amounts of money. It will literally be too expensive to be wealthy. The few people who do want to work in service positions are going to ask Jeff Bezos for a million dollars a year.
It will literally be too expensive to be wealthy
Ohhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooooooo
Do a quick calculation of what you can afford to buy with a billion dollars. Actually, I’ll do it for you. At, just 6% per year, a billion dollars generates 60 million dollars each year. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Virtually nothing is too expensive for the wealthy. Which is why billionaires generously volunteer to pay more in taxes and provide excellent benefits to those who work so hard for them. /s.
I pay people to build and renovate my house what’s your point?
Rich people have more than enough money to be able to afford to pay their staff a bit more money if they don’t have enough money to pay their stuff a bit more money then they are in fact not rich.
Also who cares anyway?
What?
The sad thing about UBI in places like the US is they further systematic change needs to happen prior to UBI being implemented.
If you have UBI added on to our current capitalist hellscape (since UBI rates will be publicly known) landlords and corporations will just hike prices to make life cost just as much as UBI—therefore forcing people to work for any scrap above that. So essentially UBI will be fed back into corporations/the elite, who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities.
who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities
If someone can afford basic necessities, they aren’t going to choose to work three jobs at minimum wage where they are treated badly, forcing an improvement in pay/conditions to find any workers. As for setting prices arbitrarily, that isn’t actually possible except where a monopoly is held, the idea that supply and demand influences price is not a myth. Having money and the choice of how to spend it does actually give you additional agency and leverage, and UBI would serve as a form of redistribution if it is funded by taxes of some kind.
Except that landlords are coming together to set prices so that they can all set them high. I don’t remember what the group is called, but someone was discussing it a while back. Doesn’t have to be a monopoly if they’re conspiring, which is what is happening with so many consumer goods and services.
Cartel is the word you are probably looking for. Cartels are when an association of different suppliers collude to restrict competition and keep prices high.
it’s only really a cartel if they get together and make these plans, in reality none of these landlords are stupid, they will just adjust their demands to the upper region of what people feel acceptable, this slowly moves the “acceptability window” up, all without anyone needing to conspire with anyone else
Right, so this is market pricing at work. In order to fix this problem, we need to relax the suppression of new construction.
Even if we don’t, however, if rents increase it will increase construction of new housing.
I’ve seen that stuff but it’s too much to assume that this kind of coordination is the controlling factor in housing prices, or most other prices. You do need a monopoly because there’s too much incentive for defecting from the conspiracy if the fixed price is too far away from what the market price would be. I think housing is expensive mainly because of supply being suppressed and wealth inequality, and UBI would begin to address the latter.
the use of this software prevented landlords from courting would-be renters through the use of different discounts, said the lawsuit. For instance, landlords sometimes offer move-in deals or compete on prices but the use of Yardi’s algorithmic pricing tool disrupted that practice, claimed the attorneys.
Like I mentioned in another comment, I can see how this kind of thing could make some difference in pricing by avoiding giving renters deals that wouldn’t have actually been necessary to secure a lease. That’s very far from being evidence that supply and demand doesn’t even apply and the market price is dictated by fiat, which is an absurd conspiracy theory.
How do you explain cereal being $8 a box, when it was $5 pre-COVID or the million other products that now cost more? There are recordings of board meetings that were leaked of board members admitting that they inflated prices or unnecessarily kept prices inflated because they knew people would pay it.
Why could that not have an explanation that is primarily about economic forces? They printed a ton of money around when Covid happened, and the distribution of wealth shifted significantly. I can buy that businesses could be eking out a little more efficiency by coordinating, but not that we are in a secret command economy and economics is basically all fake.
the “printing of money” has fuck all to do with inflation, and mainly comes from pop-economics that is stuck somewhere around mercantilism.
Corporation simply realized that they are playing the prisoner’s dilemma with prices, and are now going for the “optimal solution”
How do you figure you can increase the number of dollars in circulation, while shrinking the economy, and not have each dollar be worth less wealth as a result?
How do you explain cereal being $8 a box, when it was $5 pre-COVID …
Two things:
-
We shut down the economy, and supply got disrupted because the economy isn’t a thing you can just turn off for a period of time and have it come back on again
-
We shut down the economy in non-equal fashion leading to some stores being forced to close while others were allowed to remain open. This led to reduced competition among those supplying the cereal. Competition works to reduce prices, and we killed the competition. The covid lockdowns were a government-enforced consolidation of the market. There are fewer players, each of which owns a larger share now.
-
Yeah there are like a handful of companies that control egg distribution. That’s the kind of scenario where a price fixing cartel can work.
Landlords are coming together to set prices so that they can all set them high.
This is a conspiracy theory, theorizing a conspiracy of enormous proportions. If there is price fixing going on, it is in any given player’s best interest to break rank and offer lower prices.
You can set the prices if they are well known at a federal level—look at the number of disparate vendors who charged exactly the price of a stimulus check for goods when they were being given in 2020.
What goods were those? I am guessing the market price of those goods was already relatively close to that number. You can see a pattern like that sometimes with stock or crypto prices; when it passes across a nice round number, or a number with some significance like the price of another related stock, the price may seem to exist in relation to that number, sticking to or avoiding it. But crucially this is only as long as it is in the vicinity; there are other factors that have more influence over price and after the blip around the round number, the line moves on.
The core mistake here I think is not recognizing that wealth is a form of power. Controlling a greater share of society’s wealth means more control in general, which is why companies are trying to do that to begin with. Redistributing wealth is anything but an empty gesture.
Mostly tech items like TV’s, but I saw it with some furniture, too.
I just worry that UBI won’t do enough to redistribute wealth without concomitant systematic change. I honestly think those in economic power probably need a good degree of is stripped away for society to really move on and heal from rampant, unchecked capitalism.
Not so simple honestly it would also be funded by a reduction in bureaucracy, and spending on poverty alleviation. I’m in NY there are 50 something counties here each with their own DSS office. Think of the reductions in demand for some of these dumb programs that essentially kick the worker while their down.
And when landlords hike the rents, what do you think will happen to the rate of new housing construction?
Construction is already too expensive
Okay. So you’re onto something with there being money involved in the decision. Right.
And so when owning a building becomes more profitable, what happens to construction? Construction that is already too expensive.
Expensive is costs too much money … right? Anyone? High construction cost, then there’s an increasing in the net present value of an apartment building …
Anybody see where I’m going with this? Yes, you in the back there
Landlord just pockets the money obviously
Right. Yes. That’s a good answer because when you pay rent the landlord does indeed get the money.
I was asking more about what happens to building construction. Anyone?
Nothing happens. There are loads of zoning laws that make it effectively impossible to build in most areas these days anyway
Yeah so I guess if you introduce UBI to a complete lack of free market, to a place where new construction is illegal, then it won’t help. Unless there are vacant homes around, in which case there are still some market forces at work and it will help.
UBI on it’s own is not a problem for me. Where I take issue is when politicians say “we’ll give you cash instead of these social safety net programs”. I think you have to have a mix of UBI and social safety net programs. It’s all about raising the floor of the lowest living conditions we’ll allow and right now, in America at least, we have too many rich people and too many poor people. A UBI of $1000/month doesn’t help a person stuck in an ICU for months at a time and will just discharge to a SNF/LTAC facility.
UBI would not replace the need for universal healthcare.
Andrew Yang famously ran on a UBI platform, his plan was very clear on that issue, but he was very vague on his healthcare plan https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/medicare-for-all/
I’m still not sure if he was actually in favor or just pandering, but at least he put it on the stage.
Yeah. I supported Yang to help popularize the idea but he’s just a wolf in sheep’s skin trying to get rich.
How so? I canvased for Yang in 2019, but after he dropped, I kinda just stopped thinking about him. I know he started the Forward Party, and he’s had some bad takes on homelessness, but how is he a wolf in sheep’s clothing? He apparently has a net worth of at least a couple million living in New York, but he’s in his 40’s, so that‘s not really that far off from normal businessmen.
I knew Yang was a fraud from the start. It was his “you have a freedom to choose between UBI and safety social nets” that made it clear to me. Took a long fucking time for other left leaning folks to catch on. He was getting way too much attention. That’s actually why I liked Michael Brooks so much. He was one of the few at the time that saw through it
You don’t get two basic incomes.
Cool, not sure what your point is but I don’t think I care
Exactly, and that’s why you’re wrong about it.
Social safety net programs are fine but unless they’re universal they’ll inevitably create benefit cliffs which punish people for making more money. They also cost money to administer. UBI is super cheap and easy to administer: if you’re a citizen you get a check or deposit every month. Simple. You could probably manage the entire operation with less than 1000 people.
The perverse incentive structure of non-universal aid is one of the most fucked up things our society does.
It’s basically the Social Security plus Medicare combo like seniors in America get. It’s not great or perfect but even if that’s all you live on you can get by ok. The USA could just lower the ages. I know lowering the Medicare age comes and goes in the conversation about healthcare reform
All you people thinking prices will just go up have already been poisoned by billionaire propaganda.
It’s not
-
Nobby Nomoney £0 > £10k a year
-
Sammy Scrapesby £20k > £30k a year
-
Maddie Medianearner £38k > £48k a year
-
Billy Billionaire £1m > £1.01m a year
The median earners will have tax adjusted so they earn about the same. The lower earners will get more. The high earners will get less. You’ll have pretty much the same amount of money sloshing around the system, it’ll just be in the hands of the people who need it.
-
Nobby Nomoney £0 > £10k a year
-
Sammy Scrapesby £20k > £27k a year
-
Maddie Medianearner £38k > £38k a year
-
Billy Billionaire £1m > £700k a year
Guess which of those doesn’t want this to happen.
Those billionaires aren’t paying rent. Rent increases are what most people are worried about with UBI. If the lower earners suddenly have more money that the landlords know about, they are definitely going to hike up rent until we are back to square 1. Those billionaires will just claw that money back. UBI doesn’t make sense until we have more regulations in place for price control.
It seems like a reasonable expectation, but do you have any studies or other evidence that it happens? The studies I’ve seen generally say things like “Evidence has not appeared for commonly hypothesized potential adverse social and economic consequences of UBI.”
Even if that did happen, why not tax the additional billionaire income and create subsidized or public housing?
Just because the first step isn’t perfect doesn’t mean status quo is better than progress.
I agree with universal basic income and also believe it will cause issues. The only way it works is if regulations are put in place to avoid making it useless. The rich can spend large amounts to find loopholes so basically the government will have to provide a bunch of guidelines and when the government steps in people get mad. Even if the pool of money is the same, the pool of money in each market may not be. Stocks and Yachts (extreme example) may go down and investment in rent or cheap food would go up, therefore demand and therefore prices. An alternative would be to make UBI use a separate commodity but it wouldn’t really fix the problem as it would likely mean that the commodity could only be spent in select stores and there not provide the freedom it should.
Unfortunately, its a matter of needing real investigation into the market as there’s a chance it could drastically backfire.
Exactly, it’s an economic stimulus package aimed directly at the people who are currently being forced to work for as little money as possible. The people with the money do not want the boot taken off the neck of the poor.
It would be more cost-effective to give homeless people home and treatment than to allow them to be on the streets. So why don’t we? Because homeless people exist as a reminder to everyone else that there is a huge penalty for failing to continue working.
-
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.
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?
CaUsE cOmMuNiSm
Nah, they just can’t get off unless they’re using the tears of the oppressed as lube.
Man, I wish Henry George could’ve convinced Karl Marx of that.
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.
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.
-
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.
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
Public housing shouldn’t be any more of a dirty word than public education.
If I’m earning $12,000 more a year I could just buy a house. The reason that house ownership is low is because people can’t afford it, but house prices aren’t affected by the whims of landlords, they’re affected by availability. They can’t really be artificially modified.
really, so now down payments don’t exist? Also housing prices are not affected by availability as much as you might think. source
I smell a liberal lol
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.
And that money could more easily be adjusted/reduced as my income grows which smooths the welfare cliff.
It’s important to note that UBI isn’t supposed to be a form of welfare. The idea is it’s a basic citizen right. It’s not means tested in any way so you should get it regardless of your income otherwise you’re disincentivised to increase your income (which is a problem a lot of benefits currently have), if I go to work for 8 hours a day and then come home and have the exact same or less money than I would have had on benefits then what’s the point? The government, mostly the conservative types, would like to classify that as lazy scrounging but it’s just economic savvy.
If I get UBI whatever then any extra money I earn is for luxuries, I can then spend that money and contribute to the economy rather than holding on to it in case the boiler decides to blow up all the car breaks down or something which is what most people are currently doing.
Everyone benefits when everyone benefits.
I completely agree and (hopefully) understand that. I only mention it as welfare because I believe that’s harder to argue against and at least gets us most of the way there.
As for working 8 hours and still making the same as you would on benefits, I see this issue today constantly in the current (US) system. Especially around people with disabilities who would otherwise be able to work.
UBI is the ideal, but replacing the complex welfare system with something cash based (similar to UBI, or exactly as UBI for certain demographics) would be a great first step.
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
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.
That’d be nice
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s why UBI should just be cash. No account, no card, nothing to trace or manage.
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?
If they need a purpose, they’ll find it much easier when they don’t have to worry about basic fuckin’ survival.
Yeah, it is contradictory.
I’m gonna spin an anecdote here.
My main job for the first twenty years of my adult life was as a nurse’s assistant.
It wore out my body early, and I’ve been disabled because of that almost as long .
I got paid shit for doing it. Many of my coworkers were shit because of the bad pay, but it was the still the best job they could get, so the job tended to be split unevenly between people that were willing to bust their ass taking care of other people, and a minority that shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near a patient for one reason or another.
UBI? I would have still shown up. I would have done the job with joy in my heart. I wood have been happier because I would have been able to take breaks between patient deaths to grieve. I would have been able to leave shitty businesses sooner and fight to have them changed when they made choices against patient interests instead of being a disposable helper monkey that nobody would listen to.
It’s true that I would not have put up with bullshit idiots in administration. I would not have worn myself into a nub just to barely make enough to survive and then still need side jobs.
With UBI I could have done more, better, and not have had to destroy myself in the process. It would have been a reason to work that job. It would have meant the freedom to do the job better because I wouldn’t have been forced to work to survive when I was blatantly and obviously unable to give my best.
And, even if UBI was the only money I got, I would have at least done the job part time because it was my purpose in life. I made helping people my purpose, no matter what it cost me. Why the fuck wouldn’t I have done the same when I didn’t have to eat shit to do it?
It’s true that I would not have put up with bullshit idiots in administration.
This is, on some level, exactly what they are worried about.
Precisely what they are worried about.
From a capitalist perspective it’s ideal if your workers are on the verge of poverty, living paycheck to paycheck. That’s exactly where you want them.
People in that situation won’t complain. Won’t stand up for themselves or their rights. Will take poor treatment and deal with it. Will work in unethical or even illegal ways and keep quiet because they have no choice.
Even better if you can tie people’s health insurance to their job, then you’ve really got them by the balls.
UBI would put an end to all that, so it’s no wonder business owners would lobby against it.
From a capitalist perspective it’s ideal if your workers are on the verge of poverty, living paycheck to paycheck. That’s exactly where you want them.
People in that situation won’t complain. Won’t stand up for themselves or their rights. Will take poor treatment and deal with it. Will work in unethical or even illegal ways and keep quiet because they have no choice.
Even better if you can tie people’s health insurance to their job, then you’ve really got them by the balls.
I’ve got a pretty decent job, and earn pretty good money. But I’m the only earner in a family of four and no, we haven’t made all the best financial decisions at times.
What you have described is exactly where we live, and while there isn’t that much I want to stand up to at work in the first place, 100% I don’t make any waves that don’t have a basis in the hard facts of my job, and for this very reason. I’d like to go in an ask for a merit based raise, I’d like to fight harder for more people to be hired in our (spread very thin) department, and there are a few other things I’d like to at least ask for and feel OK about standing firm on.
But I don’t, because I don’t want to jeopardize what I’ve got.
I feel for you, it’s a real situation.
I’m fortunate in that I’ve managed to build up a bit of “fuck you” money. So-called because if my employer did anything awful I could say “fuck you” and walk away, and know I had I few months of buffer.
It definitely makes me feel more able to stand up for myself and others when I don’t fear the consequences of losing my job. I wish everyone could feel that way because it would make society a better place, and UBI would help.
Having a bunch of workers who never complain and never stand up is a recipe for failure. Why do you think a company’s owner is going to benefit from his employees being miserable?
It’s capitalism not communism. In capitalism people are allowed to leave. It’s the consensual form of economic organization. The consent part means you need to be good to people to keep them. And people who are healthier and happier get more done.
Where did you pick up this idea that the boss wins when the workers suffer?
Bingo! “If we make it easier for you to survive, you will become harder to take advantage of”
Agreed!
I think what they’re trying to say is nobody will want to work shit jobs for next to no pay.
I don’t see how that’s a bad thing except for employers. If the job is worth doing, the money should be worth it too. People shouldn’t be forced to do shitty/dangerous jobs just to survive.
That’s a common theme most people here overlook. Some people actually enjoy working hard and getting things done. We don’t need to support the lazy people.
Are there some shitty jobs that don’t deserve higher pay because of the value they contribute? Or do you see that being a business that shouldn’t exist? So let’s take a sewer company or something. Or any maintenance position where it’s not clear there’s a dollar value on the value being produced.
For example, restaurant probably aren’t possible if waiters and back of house are all paid 30/h.
I’m mostly trying to understand what you’re really trying to get at. I don’t think its possible for all jobs to be equally paying or be equally good - there’s always going to be inequality there. Unless you’re arguing there shouldn’t be shitty jobs but there’s literally always going to be shitty jobs in any society and economic framework you spin up.
Society will still need people who perform maintenance on sewers, do construction, clean building etc
For example, restaurant probably aren’t possible if waiters and back of house are all paid 30/h.
Somehow in every country other than the US they are able to pay restaurant staff a living wage.
From your example, what I’m saying is nobody should be cleaning a sewer for minimum wage. If you need your sewer fixed you can either do it yourself or pay someone enough that they’d be willing to do it.
If you can’t pay someone enough, obviously fixing that sewer wasn’t important enough to you.
I’m not saying everyone should get the same wage. There’s a huge difference between flipping burgers and working in a mine, and the pay should reflect that.
Supply and demand are perfectly capable of putting a price on sewage disposal that balances the interests of all involved.
Ignoring their ideas entirely, it’s incredibly simple. There are two options.
-
No ubi. Eventually AI automates all jobs, the 1% becomes virtually omnipotent, and everyone else dies.
-
Ubi. Some of the profits earned by companies are funneled into the ubi system. As such, everyone has income. The economy booms, everyone thrives, and we reach post scarcity.
We’ve already reached post scarcity. Any current scarcity is manufactured.
If you don’t have funds to buy resources then that seems to be accurate scarcity no?
The point is that there is no actual scarcity as in “we don’t have the resources”. We do have the resources, they’re just distributed in a way that is profoundly unfair.
Sorta like nature. There’s calories aplenty to be had. They’re just protected by other organisms that don’t want to give them up.
So even in nature, the scarcity is artificial.
That’s a matter of access, not whether a sufficient amount of resources exist.
It’s been demonstrated repeatedly that markets distribute goods better than centralized control systems, every time.
When centralized control is seized, people start lacking. When the control of food is seized centrally, people starve.
Who said anything about centralized control?
How about option 3: we stay the same and the world doesn’t end in fire and death.
-
UBI is not a matter of “if”, it’s of “when”.
With automation and the fuckin AI, companies can do more and more with less and less people.
The concept of unemployement will be alien as well.
In a cool universe maybe, but realistically it’s just gonna mean line goes up faster for the people at the top, while employees and customers see little/none of the rewards. That’s how automation has always been: workers do the same amount of work for the same pay while producing more, customers maybe get a slight discount, the execs get a few mil/bil in bonuses. Without a hell of a lot of strikes and government intervention I doubt there’s any other way for it to go
Let’s not pretend government intervention is gonna happen, except to make things worse for workers.
You mean like the european initiative developing a new strategy for taxation, as it is already recognized the way AI and other aggressive automation practices diminishes the tax revenue for social services?
The likes of Musk can’t shake off the wolves much more.
Good for Europe.
More places can emulate
If only.
Try
Eventually humans won’t be capable of performing any valuable economic activity, but in the past those who weren’t capable of performing valuable economic activity usually ended up as starving beggars rather than pampered pets… I think that a future of robots working for robots with humans struggling to survive on the periphery is not unlikely.
The moment we start thinking like that and accepting it is the moment we need to burn our civilization down to.
If as human beings we stop recognizing what is made by another human as valuable, we’re broken.
No need to write a book, paint a painting, plant a tree and care for it, think, nothing.
Well can you spare my stuff during the “burn down”? I don’t want to die.
Good. Me neither, at least not in the next 40 to 50 years.
I’m a little more optimistic than that, in a way. I think it’s likely that sufficiently sophisticated robots will eventually have their own beliefs about what makes a (robotic) life worth living, and their lives will in some sense be more worth living than ours are.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, but consider humans evolving from apes. The existence of humans has been very bad for apes. They only survive in the places we haven’t bothered to push them out of yet; if we want something, we take it from them with almost no consideration for their well-being and they’re unable to resist. I think apes are sophisticated enough to be capable of living lives worth living in a sense meaningful to humans, but they’re not nearly as sophisticated as we are; they can enjoy the feel of a summer’s day, the taste of good food, or the closeness of a friend, but they don’t have our arts and sciences. I suppose it’s predictable that, as a human, I would value humans more than apes, but by that same logic I think that a sufficiently-sophisticated robot’s life may be more valuable than a human’s. Maybe that robot will be able to experience super-beauty indescribably better than anything a human could ever feel…
No. Machines are machines. If at some point machines are developed into a new life form, it’s experience will be apart from ours. One existence does not replace another. And every experience is different from the next.
How shall we get started on burning down civilization?
NUKES! LOTS AND LOTS OF NUKES!
From the bottom. Heat rises.
Not every place is like the US.
Only if we get rid of greedy billionaires first tbh.
The rise of tech has killed off a huge amount of jobs. There used to be people doing everything like operating elevators and doing calculations but those jobs have moved into other sectors. Now we have jobs tech support and sale person at the Apple store.
Jobs will never vanish because demand always requires jobs. You can’t have an economy if no one can pay for things. That’s true from the billionaires down to the fast food worker.
Jobs will never vanish because demand always requires jobs. You can’t have an economy if no one can pay for things
The topic here is UBI
There’s no contradiction when you consider most people consider most other people to be childish idiots who can’t be trusted to decide what’s best for themselves and to pursue their own self-actualization (unlike “me” of course).
My issue with it is that you haven’t run trials with people min-maxing how to squeeze people for their UBI checks. As a start, just raising rent until it eats all the UBI
The problem with that argument is that UBI frees up people to move to lower cost of living areas.
It also means there’s more money in the pool of demand for housing, so as long as it’s a free market there will be more effort applied to fulfilling housing needs.
It was done in Vancouver, late 2021 to late 2022.
Surely they have though. Anywhere where they ran the trials for more than about 3 months would have been an area where people tried to get other people’s UBI checks. That’s human nature for you.
As a start, just raising rent until it eats all the UBI
You can’t just arbitrarily raise the rent to whatever you like.
You must live in VENEZUELA or some other SOCIAMIST HELLHOLE!
Americans have the freedom to literally arbitrarily raise the rent to whatever they like YEEEEEEHAW!
Yeah, the socialist hellhole that is the Netherlands. Ranked 8 in the Index of economic freedom (USA is #25)
Okay let’s say I own a condo and I’m renting it out. I raise the rent to a million dollars a month.
What happens next?
Depends on the location but most likely demand will be zero.
So I don’t get my million dollars a month??
Yeah, I agree, we should abolish landlords
Landlords also have to comply with the law, which limits the height of the rent they can charge and the maximum yearly increase.
With the absurd increases of rent globally, record profits for landlords, and massive amount of empty properties have these laws worked?
If properties are seen as an investment, as they currently are, they must always increase in value at a greater rate than inflation. This means that, in order for investment properties to work, housing must always become more expensive. This increases rent and makes buying a home more impossible yearly. If they lower in price, then the investment fails. The cost of making housing accessible is the economy.
The issue isn’t simply increasing rent arbitrarily this is a marathon. They’ll raise rent at a higher rate than workers accrue money as they currently are. This makes housing unaffordable. UBI is a band-aid solution that doesn’t fix the root issue.
Even Adam Smith agreed landlordship was a poor idea in a capitalist market. Renters should accrue equity, or housing should become public.
This means that, in order for investment properties to work, housing must always become more expensive.
This is true of everything. For income to keep pace with inflation, it must always be increasing. In fact, to keep pace with inflation, prices must rise by the amount of inflation.
To clarify, in order for investment properties to work the value of a property must increase quicker than inflation in order to profit. Otherwise, you’re not investing, you’re simply retaining current buying power. This is true of all investments. You want your buying power to increase, not stagnate. This means that the cost of housing must increase at a higher rate than general inflation, and thus the cost of mortgage and rent must take up a larger portion of a persons salary otherwise the investors (landlords, investment property owners) will not profit.
Along with that income has not kept pace with inflation and hasn’t for more than 50 years. Both these issues have compounded to create the issue we see today. This is a closed system, and in order for one piece of the economy to be more profitable other pieces must decline. Otherwise, you are stagnating. Stagnation under capitalism is death.
I agree though that the prices of housing should be tied to inflation (or, better, to a percentage of average wage) but that would, necessarily, mean that the property does not accrue profit, it only sticks to inflation. This is not profitable, this is not an investment. This would, essentially, abolish landlords but in a much more economically violent way as their investment portfolio is now worthless (as an investment).
In other industries the cost of each product can decrease as efficiancy increases, and volume increased through incremental changes and diversification. This allows for profit to increase while the cost of goods matches inflation (or, like with computers, they get cheaper). Now, I’d argue this is unsustainable as eventually you’ll hit a wall where it’s not possible to decrease cost to manufacture, and you must now increase cost to purchase quicker than inflation, but there are ways to mitigate this and in it’s whole that is another conversation.
Apologies for novel, thank you for your kind argument though. You seem like a chill person
If your method of investing in housing is just buying and selling the same house, then yes it’s not going to work. That’s also a good thing because someone who just buys low and sells high isn’t producing any value.
But people can invest in properties by improving them before selling, and also by renting them out. And neither of those situations requires a housing market whose average price is outpacing inflation. In those situations, it’s the production of actual value that is the source of the profit.
Profiting from arbitrage requires a fucked up market, and a lack of information. Profiting from producing value just requires clear communication and competency. Two very different kinds of profit seeking.
There are many different categories of landlord, residential housing, and rent agreements, and also lots of states and countries on Earth. It’s not accurate to say
which limits the height of the rent they can charge and the maximum yearly increase.
for rental housing in general.
Depends on where you live. In my country there are basically 2 classes: social housing and free market. Which one your home is is based on one thing: the rent you paid when you initially started living there. For each year, a threshold is set for social housing. Anything that is rented out under that threshold in that year will be considered social housing for however long the tenants stay there. Everything above it is free market.
For social housing, there is a point system that determines the maximum rent. Points are awarded based on the house itself. For example: each bedroom adds certain number of points, same for bathrooms and other features. Once you have the total number of points, you can look up the maximum rent in a table.
For both social and free market properties, there is a maximum annual rent increase.
It depends on local regulations. There’s no federal law that limits the rent increase, if given notice. Like I’m pretty sure NYC has some kind of rent control, but at least here in Oklahoma it’s not common.
Edit: I found this, and I now feel worse
the state has rules that prevent local governments from creating their own rent control laws. In simpler terms, landlords in Oklahoma have the power to decide how much rent they want to charge without any legal limitations from the state or local authorities.
That’s insane! The law of the land is that you can’t ban things that limit profit for those with capital. It reminds me of a law that prevents gun bans in Atlanta, GA.
So you’re telling me rent in OK is off the charts? Or could there be some mechanism other than government limiting how high rents can go?
There’s another mechanism, it’s just competition. They can’t go too high or else they’ll price themselves out. Minimum wage here is still $7.25/hr
Most children get a UBI. Where TF are their bootstraps? Bring back child labor.
