Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Atin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

        • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          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!

          • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

              • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

              • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                We’re still a far way away from the level of automation necessary to make working only 2 days a week feasible imo

            • moriquende@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                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?

                • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It has been massively successful in a bunch of locations. Where are you seeing reports that it failed?

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              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?

          • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            "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.

                • snooggums@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  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.

            • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • PostProcess@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If security is the enemy of capitalism, how do you explain people who have their needs met, who still strive under capitalism?

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Professorozone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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?

  • Sekrayray@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Sekrayray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Sekrayray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

      • buzz86us@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                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”

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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?

            • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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 …

              Overall, the rate of rent growth has fallen back toward historical norms after nearly two years of historically high growth.

              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 that doesn’t follow at all from any of the articles being linked.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      And when landlords hike the rents, what do you think will happen to the rate of new housing construction?

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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?

              • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Nothing happens. There are loads of zoning laws that make it effectively impossible to build in most areas these days anyway

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

  • Kalkaline @leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m still not sure if he was actually in favor or just pandering, but at least he put it on the stage.

        • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah. I supported Yang to help popularize the idea but he’s just a wolf in sheep’s skin trying to get rich.

          • flames5123@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

        • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

    • ashok36@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The perverse incentive structure of non-universal aid is one of the most fucked up things our society does.

    • ansiz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

  • PM_ME_YOUR_ZOD_RUNES@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • klaus_the_fish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

    • citrusface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • HeavyRaptor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

    • Sineljora@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s why UBI should just be cash. No account, no card, nothing to trace or manage.

    • africanprince99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • shasta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Jojo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.”

      • scemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Ilflish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

    • Landmammals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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?

      • tiramichu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • tiramichu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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?

      • VubDapple@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Bingo! “If we make it easier for you to survive, you will become harder to take advantage of”

  • Jay@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.