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?

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I’m a fan of UB I+S. Universal basic income AND universal basic services. Plus hight high taxes for the rich. And workplace democracy. And a massive shift of the economy to the nonprofit sector: if what your company multimillion corporation is providing is a utility, you can’t have making a profit be your fiduciary responsibility.

    Basically, fuck capitalism, I want socialism.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Though i dont disagree in theory, beware of the utility part you mentioned. A plumber is providing a service and im not sure why he shouldnt make a small profit on top of his ubi in that world of yours. Can you elaborate?

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        I’m thinking more of the “commanding heights of the economy”, rather than small time professionals. So, I’m talking Amazon, Google, Walmart, that stuff.

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          I know what you meant, and i dont disagree with the core of it really. Just really think about your wording, as it hits more people than youd think :)

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Exactly this. Beware of the Silicon Valley tech bros selling their version of UBI. It’s a Trojan horse they want to use to cut all social services.

  • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

    UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    UBI doesn’t mean everybody has more money. It comes from somewhere.

    The poor will have more, the rich will have less, the middle will have about the same.

    One of those three does not want UBI to be a thing, and they’re trying to convince the other two.

  • MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 days ago

    I am on principle because what the fuck is the point of all this industrialisation and technology development if we aren’t trying to break out of the cycle of scarcity?

    As for how it can be properly funded: fuck knows.

  • Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • tmyakal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

    • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      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.

      Here is one link from the daily wire

      Here is another from tech times

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I think that’s a difference between subsidizing specific things vs subsidizing all the things.

          • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            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.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

    • Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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”.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    not a 100% ubi fan, BUT, the times, they are a changing - and I firmly believe every robot deployed should have to offset ubi. every AI cycle should drive ubi funding.

    Trained on the involuntary corpus of millions if not billions of people, it must benefit society overall otherwise we’re going to destroy everything.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    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.

  • kinther@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Yes, if it is a tax on speculation, investments, and gambling. I can get behind it being a trickle down system that the wealthy can’t opt out of.

  • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • tmyakal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Kurt Vonnegut had a fun take on this exact scenario in his first book, Player Piano.

  • jagungal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    Here’s what I say about UBI. We may not need it today, but we better figure it out because we’ll need it someday. As an example, take a look at America in 1800. 95%+ of people worked in agriculture. With tractors, the cotton gin, etc. all those careers will be eliminated. The cotton gin of tomorrow is autonomous vehicles, robots and/or drones. Jobs like delivery driver, cashier, etc are all on borrowed time. If we don’t figure out some new economic framework before that time, our society is toast. All the “unskilled” jobs that served as on-ramps to more advanced employment will literally be wiped off the face of the Earth.

    Of course, America being America, we’ll treat this like climate change. Deny deny deny, even when it starts actively harming you. By the time someone tries to solve it, we’ll all be screwed.

  • TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Be aware that UBI needs to go in hand with other reforms that can finance it, eliminating things like tax evasion via donations, and certain foundations that exploit those

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Its basically a free $20k for those who don’t work while working people get nothing.

        Yes, that’s the point.