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 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.
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!
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
