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?
USA needs universal healthcare first
While I agree, I personally think we should get rid of the existing support like food stamps, unemployment and replace with UBI.
Reasoning being with the current system it’s too easy to work and be worse off. Example being if you make $20 over the income bracket you might lose $100 in food stamps. With UBI there’s less administrative costs because everyone is eligible, less fraud and most important any effort you make to work will always improve your financial situation.
Never considered this, it sounds quite reasonable to me.
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
That’s the same logic opponents of raising the minimum wage use to justify their position
Abso-fucking-lutely.
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.
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?
All B has to do is not raise their prices as much as A.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, with the caveat that it will need to be coupled with a massive pendulum swing in favor of workers rights.
That is completely automatic. The “right”/survivability to say no is directly empowering to entire labour force.
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.
I feel like it’s less about whether the process will go up or if capitalism can survive with it. I in feel that it’s going to be necessary for humans to function. With population increasing, and jobs actually decreasing from technology for the first time in human history, from businesses automating stuff or self check out counters, we’re just not going to have a job for every single person out there.
Yes.
The whole competition for who has more money because that means they are more successful and thus far be superior over others is… Stupid
I am a moderate supporter of UBI. Strongly support “negative income taxing” which is a bit more techy but essentially your income is topped up if it falls below a certain level as opposed to everyone getting a lump sum each month whether they need it or not.
I think this is a good place to start as the initial recipients are those most in need.
The advantage of a straightforward UBI over NIT is that voters are selfish and stupid. If everyone gets a check, they are far more likely to support maintaining and increasing the benefit. It also removes the stigma that would be present for those receiving NIT payments.
Never considered the “voters are stupid and greedy” angle… but they are so you might be right here.
The main argument against NIT which I’d always heard was that you were losing the savings on administration that UBI has. In theory with UBI you can get rid of all disabilities and public pensions beaurocracy and means-testing since everyone gets the same lump sum.
NIT has some form of means-testing since you need to catalog who earns what to find those in need.
One method of structuring it is that if UBI is $20k/year, then you have $20k/year taken out as taxes as long as you have a job. The income is neutral, so there’s no basis for companies to raise prices.
I don’t like that plan. Its basically a free $20k for those who don’t work while working people get nothing.
You either give everyone 20k or you don’t.
I think the only way for UBI effectively to work is if you can fix prices/profits. No more charging $10 for something that’s cost .5¢ to make.
Its basically a free $20k for those who don’t work while working people get nothing.
Yes, that’s the point.
Not really. The point is that everyone has a base income. Why would working take away from the base income? Working should add to it.
That’s not a UBI.
Sounds like you might be interested in a negative income tax, though.
Yes I’m in favor of UBI.
I think capitalism would survive just fine with UBI.
I don’t think prices would automatically cancel out the money, because prices are still subject to competition.
As for whether people would still work after their basic needs are met, obviously. The evidence is people who are beyond subsistence and still seeking more money.
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.
Yes
