Ask Lemmy

UBI would have some inflationary effects, but if you stuck it through, it would be less than the UBI payment in the first place.

The problem is getting people to stick to it because unfortunately, for Americans, if you give them $2000 a month in UBI but their purchasing power doesn’t go up by what they perceive as what $2000 is worth; they will punish you in the next election.

I think the expanded child tax credit in 2020 could be a good example to follow for what the roll out of UBI would look like. But we let it expire despite it lifting so many kids out of poverty even if just temporarily and freaked out about inflation so hard that I have my doubts that our American society would ever have the fortitude to be able to implement a permanent UBI

Are you in support of UBI?

I don't think that it's a terribly interesting question as a yes-or-no question for all UBI policies.

The thing about UBI is that the devil is in the details: UBI covers a broad range of policies. You really need to know the specifics of a proposal to know what it entails; UBI policies may be very different.

For example, there are a number of left-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to redistribute wealth. Normally, they tend to want something like keeping spending policy more-or-less where it is, adding UBI, and increasing taxes on some groups that they'd like to shift wealth from.

There are also a number of small-government right-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to reduce the role of government in setting purchasing decisions. Normally, they tend to want something more like a revenue-neutral form of UBI; there, one does something like cutting spending policy (on various forms of subsidy, say, like for food or housing) by $N and then shifting that $N to UBI so people can choose how to spend it. Here's a right-libertarian take on UBI:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

Of course, as with any policy proposal, the details matter a lot. And the Swiss proposal is problematic in a number of ways. For starters, 2,800 USD a month means that a married couple could get $67,200 per year for doing nothing. And while it’s true that Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of per capita income, that’s still an awful lot of money. Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a basic income.

So, okay, both our wealth-redistribution guys on the left and our small-government guys on the right are talking about UBI policies...but they are talking about policies with very different implications due to the specifics of the policy. The left-wing guy probably isn't especially excited about the form of UBI that the right-wing guy wants, and the right-wing guy probably doesn't like the form of UBI that the left-wing guy wants. So I'd really need to know the specifics of a given UBI policy before I could say whether I think it's a good idea; I wouldn't just be across-the-board in favor of or against any UBI implementation, but would need to see a specific UBI proposal and consider it individually.

Companies will raise their prices (to "what the market can bear"), but they will never be able to raise prices enough to offset the positive effects of UBI. It's not like your internet bill is going to go up by $2000/month if they suddenly know you're getting $2000/month in UBI. Your typical person makes purchases from dozens of different companies. An increase of "what the market can bear" won't be all that much.

And afterward, the effective purchasing power of the vast majority of people will have increased - most noticeably for those who currently have nothing / very little. Least noticeably for those who are reasonably well off already. And for those who are currently doing extremely well off, their purchasing power will end up dropping.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about and I made all numbers in this message up.

100%

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?

This is always the argument; but any UBI bills worth a shit would have already thought of this and include laws on limiting that from happening.

I've wondered the same thing. Seems like it would need to be paired with price controls or public control of essentials, but that's sort of a "seize the means of production" conversation that I don't think would be popular unless something like AI genuinely puts enough people out of work.

My pie in the sky hope for UBI is that it would be large enough so that you don't need to work to live, maybe with some frugality.

At that point I'd be fine with scrapping minimum wage altogether. Companies would have to offer a job/salary that attracts people who aren't desperate.

It would be much easier to quit a job. And I think it would broadly increase the value of labor. Automation would increase, but that wouldn't be a problem, because its no longer a problem to be unemployed.

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.

Yes, with the caveat that it will need to be coupled with a massive pendulum swing in favor of workers rights.

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.

At first, maybe. But that's the neat thing about capitalism and the free market: the first to lower their prices again has a huge advantage. There's always an incentive to operate at minimal profit.

Why wouldn't UBI and capitalism be able to coexist? It makes MORE capitalism possible, as it were, expanding its principles of supply and demand to fields such as employment. Right now, people need a job, any job, and if there's no job that fulfills your needs, tough - you take the shitty one and you'll like it. With a UBI, you could shop around for the perfect job, choosing the best offer, or not "buy" at all right now because the market doesn't offer what you want and it's not like you're going to starve without a job. Employers would be forced to make YOU an offer that YOU can accept and if they can't operate under these circumstance, tough. Capitalism in a nutshell, really.

That's the same logic opponents of raising the minimum wage use to justify their position

companies are gonna company.

and in this country, corporations are people.

capitalism loves to embrace extend extinguish so sure it's temporarily compatible with e v e r y t h i n g

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.

Sure, eliminate billionaires to pay for it

Abso-fucking-lutely.