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?
Let’s see, lemmy, let’s see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.
Ah, no, we’re an echo chamber. But then what’s the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?
I don’t think UBI can exist at all. There’s way too many problems that aren’t even close to being addressed by arguments in favor of it. It doesn’t work at all from a financial perspective. There’s not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers. There’s little evidence that new innovation or invention would happen as there’s little benefit for the creator. The only way it works is in a post scarcity society, which isn’t even close to existing.
There’s not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers.
You appear entirely unaware of test programs like Canadian Mincome showing minimal employment drop, with some spinning up businesses by claiming the income against loans. The people who dropped out entirely were nearly all either continuing education or mothers raising kids.
This is replicated in projects like those in Africa.
Basically, the answer to the knee-jerk “wouldn’t everyone just stop working?” question is “actually, no.”
The test programs can’t really show anything definitive though. For a couple important reasons.
- The program will end and participants know that. Not working for 3-5 years is going to create long term problems after the program ends for participants.
- It’s a set cost trial, so government doesn’t adjust taxes or other social programs.
- It’s limited scope, so landlords employers, shops, etc can’t make any adjustments either as it’s an irrelevant amount of their income.
I definitely wouldn’t stop working, but I would have more flexibility to try things like taking a risk on something entrepreneurial or choosing to work in a field that aligns with my values, salary be damned. That cannot be allowed.
Any measure that reduces the leverage employers have over labor will not be simply given to us. People fought and died to get what little control we have, and it’s been whittled away for decades.
do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?
UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.
Let’s say 50k is average income
Basic income is 10k
The average person would get 10k in UBI but pay 10k more in taxes
They will have 50k dollars
Someone that makes 100k would get the 10k in UBI but would have to pay 20k more in taxes.
They will have 90k dollars
Someone making 15k (federal min wage) would get 10k in UBI and pay nothing in taxes
They will have 25k dollars
This is simplified, but the idea is that all three people still made 165k combined. Just the person at the bottom got some help.
UBI does not increase the total amount of money in the economy. Just moves it from the rich to the poor.
The average person is still going to have the same spending power
UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism. Other systems could have a UI like communism. But it’s the flaws of capitalism that needs it to correct itself.
Social programs exist in capitalism and have existed for years. They are just a complex way of solving a basic problem. “How do we get poor people money?”
Personally, I’d be for UBMI (Universal Bare Minimum Income). Everyone should be provided bare minimum from the society. Food, water, shelter, etc. If you can afford to pay it back, great, if you can’t, that’s fine too. But when people talk about UBI it’s always “how much??”. And it should be the bare minimum to survive and not be forced to run the capitalism rat race. If you’re content to sit in a small shelter and eat 3 meals a day, the government should give it to you. The government gives it to people who break the law and are no where near as deserving
Would this communism have money? If so, what’s the purpose of the money?
If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market and it’s not communism. If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying.
If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.
If so, what’s the purpose of the money?
Barter and trade will always be part of humanity unless we somehow manage post-scarcity. Money is so far the best way we’ve found to manage and track the value of things for that system.
If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market
No, it’s just a market, and even then that’s not a guarantee at all. It could be that people just trade money for valuables amongst themselves, or other systems I’m too stupid to conceive of
If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying
Yes, it is? Its only not buying if you don’t trade money for it, ie the government sending it to everyone for free
If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.
Good thing that’s not anyone’s suggestion
UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism […] moves it from the rich to the poor.
I’m not sure I agree that UBI is the best way to solve this, but we are in agreement about the massive flaw in capitalism. When the richest man extracts the final dollar from his rival, capitalism is over. Money has no meaning because no one has any except for that one guy. That’s an impossible extreme, but it demonstrates the fundamental flaw that without money circulating, there is no economy.
Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy. It gives them some ability to participate beyond the simple need for shelter and sustenance. Anyone with no discretionary income has no role other than demand for basic necessities (that’s not intended as an insult, that’s the reality of a wealth-based society)
That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.
Anyway yours was a good comment I thought I’d piggyback into. There are flaws with UBI, but unfettered capitalism is unsustainable and it certainly one way to address the issue.
I wasn’t saying it was the best way, just a way. I’m not sure if it is the best. But the most simple way to make sure everyone’s basic needs are met is to give everyone their basic needs and then figure out who has enough to give to others.
The flaw with capitalism is that someone of no “value” gets no value
If a company can lay off one worker and become more efficient, that is great in capitalism. Just the one worker gets screwed.
If that worker was say a robot where you could sit it on the shelf and not worry about it, then that’s fine. But that worker is a human with needs and capitalism doesn’t help that person because they have no “value”.
The idea that we have to manufacture jobs for these people to “earn” money to live is another solution.
Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy.
It can stimulate the economy, it’s not a guarantee.
Always enjoyed this story:
Two economists are walking in a forest
The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, “You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can’t help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing.”
“That’s not true”, responded the second economist. “We increased the GDP of the forest by $200!”
That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.
You touched on one reason it wouldn’t be guaranteed.
Giving loans to people would be better than UBI. UBI should be viewed as a loan and not free money. If you were ever able to pay it back, you should.
Another problem with capitalism is that a potential worker has no time to hold out for better options. You’re 18 and poor, you have to accept the first job offered as fast as possible or you won’t have shelter or food.
Giving these people a loan or UBI means they can get by until they find something that benefits them. If they want to tell the fast food place “I’ll do it for $15 and not $12 an hour” it’s possible
It’s crazy that the difference between $12 and $15 is 25%. A 25% raise is a large one.
I appreciated reading your comment!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I heard an idea once about making minimum wage 0$ and giving everyone a liveabke UBI. That would mean that nobody is required to participate in the workforce, meaning that employers who can’t afford to pay their workers a good wage would be priced out of the market rather than being able to prey upon peoples need for, y’know, money (which can be exchanged for goods and services). A very appealing idea for a 16 year old boy, and the only issue I see with it now is extreme specialisation in the workforce leading to less competition between different workplaces for similar jobs.
One problem with this question is that UBI can be implemented in different ways and the way that it is implemented is very important.
I think that the way most people think about UBI is that you would get enough money to not have to work. I don’t think that this is compatible with capitalism, because the main reason why people work is because they are pressured into it for economic reasons so removing that without providing people with some other reason to work will just cause the economy to collapse.
Even if people work for some other reason than money, you will still have the problem that UBI undermines itself. As less people work for money, the money you get from the UBI program will also mean less. Not only do you need a different way to encourage people to work, but you also need a new way to distribute the products of that work if you want to ensure that everyone has access to basics like food and housing.
For these reasons I don’t think that a UBI that offers people the option of not working is compatible with capitalism. Capitalism is the system that we use to distribute work and resources and if we implement UBI we will have to invent new systems to do those things instead.
It is still possible to have a smaller UBI under capitalism if your goal is to for example prevent money from getting to concentrated among the rich and instead stimulate the economy, or something.
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn’t companies just subside the income by raising their prices?
As someone planning on starting a B2B company, I don’t see a problem with that. If companies make a ton of money, tax companies more and redistribute again. The curve can be made to fit.
But there’s a bigger reason for doing UBI: It’s cheaper and more effective than existing welfare. And more people will like it.
Yes
Your theory about companies raising prices to offset UBI is actually undercut by historical and present evidence.
There was a time when the United States had welfare. The United States still has food stamps. But nobody is seriously pretending that these things did or do drive up grocery prices.
Similarly, over time various states have raised minimum wage, and if your argument were accurate, then the prices in those states would have immediately risen to match minimum wage, but they didn’t.
In other words, you’re repeating a conservative talking point that has been repeatedly debunked by reality. I think you could try to improve your argument by arguing that inflation happens across the board, to everything, and therefore it would also happen to UBI. But what we’ve actually seen is that’s not true.
my country has started a program a few years ago that gives a lot of money to couples that produce children, primarily to be able to afford buying a house. it has contributed to many problems, from convenience marriage, to parents literally not caring for their children, but maybe the worst of all is that it has raised property prices by the exact amount of aid received for producing 2-3 children.
The only counter to this argument I’ve seen play out in real time (at least to the best of my knowledge, it could be propaganda) is the fact that when the government offered tax credits for EVs, Ford raised the prices of their EVs to essentially absorb the tax credit and profit off of what was supposed to benefit the people making the switch.
I’ll see if I can find the article I’m remembering.
I think that’s a difference between subsidizing specific things vs subsidizing all the things.
So you’re saying just by sheer volume they would be less likely to do it?
Not so much volume, but just the different options available. Example, if food is subsidized, then food vendors can increase prices to soak up the excess. But if people just get money, and food vendors try to soak it up, people can spend their money on building a greenhouse and growing their own vegetables. If every industry tries to raise prices, at some point it becomes worthwhile for people to do things themselves, then trade with each other, undercutting the larger industries. Basically, the libertarians’ wet dream could actually happen with UBI.
Thank you for this argument. I had found that mentally I was getting trapped in this line of thinking about UBI.
My way around in my mental way if thinking it was Universal Basic Medicine, Universal Basic Food, Universal Basic Housing, and so on. That way, if some jackass landlord decided to raise rent too high, you’re not homeless. Also, in my ideal world, the health insurance industry should be “taken out”.
Yes
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.
