this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
1244 points (93.2% liked)
Leftism
2106 readers
120 users here now
Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!
Rules:
- Absolutely no fascism, right wing extremism, genocide denial, etc.
- Unconditional support of authoritarians will not be tolerated
- Good faith discussion about ideologies is encouraged, but no sectarianism
- No brocialism/sexism
- No ableism
- No TERFs/ anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric
- No racism
- No trolling
- No insults, dunking, or personal attacks
- No posting of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news
- Mods have final say
Posting Expectations:
- Comics/memes/shitposts/propaganda are only allowed on weekends
- Try to avoid liberalism unless discussing electoral politics. Even then, try to focus on tactical agreement towards leftist goals
- Only one meta post seeking consensus per person per day
- Posts about a particular ideology are ok, but remember the rules above
- Remember that there is no “right way” to implement leftist theory. This rule does not prevent academic criticism.
- Try to avoid extremely sensitive topics unless approaching them with appropriate care for intersectionality. Use your best judgement, and be prepared to provide respectable sources when having these discussions. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source in these cases.
- Post titles must be meaningful and relevant, except on weekends
Sister Communities:
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solarpunk memes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I read a study arguing that each time someone utters the letters U, B, and I, currency devalues itself by one thousand fold, chunks of the sky rain down on metropolitan centers, and everyone instantly becomes fat, lazy, and uninterested in any activities except playing video games.
Yup I died because you said it, so thanks for that.
If not myself, then someone else. Blame the system, not the individual.
If it had to he anyone, im glad it was you!
Without capitalism, we don't really need UBI because we can just go more socialist.
You don't need "more money" if society guarantees your quality of life with no strings attached.
You still need a system of currency as individuals should be allowed to use their skills to barter.
I never said you didn't. Money is a great way to barter labor for luxury when you exist in a system where you can never starve. Nobody is saying the government should cover Wagyu beef for every meal, or free yachts for people.
Agreed! This thread is specifically following that "cash in hand" is not what guarantees people quality of life - housing and food are. If someone has all a reasonable quality of life provided for free, "extra cash" is less urgent.
I mentioned elsewhere that I think a government run supermarket would do a lot of good for grocery pricing. My thought was that we'd all get EBT (no means-testing) and the government could save money by running its own supermarket, while simultaneously forcing down the prices of private supermarkets. That is a good compromise that lets us keep a cash basis for food stamps (like everyone seems to prefer over vouchers) while still preventing any concerns people have with EBT affecting prices.
I'm fairly confident that corporations would argue that corporations are people, and therefore should get their allotment of UBI at a rate of one full income per stock share, and they'd probably win that argument too, considering the state of our legislature. Then they would argue that actual people getting their share of UBI is harming corporate profits and get UBI cancelled for everyone except the largest corporations. We still have land reaping subsidies not to grow crops from the New Deal, and all that land has made its way into the hands of the wealthy.
There are real risks of a badly-designed UBI, and it unfortunately locks us more into capitalism instead of less, but innovators giving up on innovation is not one of them.
A badly designed instance belonging to any class may be bad, regardless of the class.
I advocate for UBI, and also, I advocate for UBI that is not badly designed.
Whether the working class seeks to leverage its advantages to depose capital depends on the will and resolve of workers as a class, but in the meantime, advocating against saving, improving, and empowering workers is some combination of apologia and accelerationism.
Not many "designated entities" cost more than quarter of a nation's GDP, nearly the entire current tax burden of that nation and wouldn't meet most people's economic burden. The problem with a UBI is how much of a systematic overhaul it really is. The cost to simply feed, clothe, and house all Americans is an order of magnitude cheaper than a modest UBI. About the only win UBI might have is by "tricking" the Right into supporting it when they'd go nuclear against something reasonable... But the loss UBI might have is by "tricking" the Left to support it when it secretly reads like a Right Wing fantasy. Pro-capitalism, excuse to remove or hobble other protections. And "personal responsibility" BS when an addict uses the UBI check to buy alcohol or fentanyl instead of food.
Got an example? I used to be a HUGE fan of UBIs, but every time I read one, I struggled with these massive gaps. The three biggest issues I see with UBIs are:
You overplay here. I actually agree that the one unquestionable benefit of a UBI is worker leverage. But I think questioning a MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR plan that might do nothing but create worker leverage among one class of workers is extremely reasonable, far from apologia. And on the contrary, I think a UBI plan could itself be accelerationism.
And I say "one class of workers" because I mean it. The farther someone gets from their State's minimum wage, the less leverage a UBI would provide. I'm not talking people making $1M/yr, but people making $45,760 (the US Median Wage). Someone making that much money doesn't get much (any?) labor benefit from a UBI, but they are likely to be contributing to it in their taxes. See my problem?
EDIT: I'd like to re-summarize. For the cost of every UBI I've seen, we could afford to provide food, clothing, homes, and healthcare to every man, woman, and child in the United States, while still having billions or even trillions to spare. A check for $1000/mo, even $2000/mo can't afford all those things.
The cost is the same. Money is the commodity created as the universal exchange. There is no other kind of asset suited for universal distribution that would empower everyone to access the essential commodities distributed through markets.
In fact, framing the issue in terms of cost is misleading. UBI is not the creation of any new resource or asset with intrinsic value. It is simply a political declaration, enforced administratively, that corporations and oligarchs may not hoard to such a degree that others are needlessly deprived.
Before replying to your points, I'd like to clarify that you missed the opportunity to win the discussion with a single answer. I'll offer that again. Show me an actual UBI plan that I would not see as broken or secretly a Lib-Right utopia. Yang's isn't it. I'm not against the concept of a UBI. I'm against every version I've ever seen, and YES the price of every version of it.
That's simply untrue. Medicare is proof of that (approximately 143% higher per capita cost for equivalent benefits). Social Infrastructure that does not seek profit will consistently beat infrastructure that does by a large margin. Every day of the week. No need for marketing costs, for wholesale costs, etc. No need for stock prices or a happy board. Hell, I just have to compare the price of my wife's garden-to-table tomato sauce vs the price of buying a jar. $5 in tomato seeds and 5hrs total of her time makes us about 100 jars of sauce. Even including the price of the jar and transport, there is a gap between material+labor cost and retail cost larger than the cost itself. UBI continues to feed that gap, but socializing can whittle it down. There was once a day that capitalism was about "we can be more efficient at scale, so it's cheaper to buy groceries than make them yourself". B2B still works that way. But consumer purchases do not, and never will again.
We could feed every American a balanced diet for approximately $25B/yr with socialized groceries. We can house every American for approximately $100B/yr (extrapolated cost to end homelessness by the homelessness rate) by making government housing something "not just for the poor". Universal healthcare is conservatively estimated to cost about $1T/yr in the net (progressive estimates argue it'll overall be a net societal gain within a year or two due to how much money the government has to subsidize various parts of the healthcare industry anyway)
Combined with incidentals, that's less than $1.5T. Where a $1k/mo UBI would cost $4T and nobody honestly estimates it will solve the above problems.
With all due respect, I don't know what you're trying to argue now. Of course UBI is not the creation of a new resource or asset. It's just a plan that taxes America to redistribute wealth blindly. And the fact that Jeff Bezos will probably get a larger check from UBI than he is taxed is on nobody's radar.
I've yet to see a UBI that would cost oligarchs even a penny, and nowhere in the UBI philosophy would it hit corporations at all. And it's not "simply" anything. The "simply" political declaration against oligarchs is a strong millionaire tax. The whole goal of UBI is to fund people, so I find it interesting that you just described it in terms that didn't even mention that.
You are framing discussion around an appeal to purity and an argument from ignorance.
Your tactics are not supportive of productive discussion.
You also have attempted to negate conceptual relations that are essentially beyond controversy through statistics and Gish gallops.
Why are you going this direction? Can we please keep to good-faith?
My complaint is that UBIs don't work, and my citation are UBIs that are genuinely terrible. I keep offering you the opportunity to show one that isn't terrible so I can effectively steelman UBI instead of strawmanning it. If there were a good UBI, I wouldn't resist it.
Not really. Trying something that you can't quality for 10X the cost of a confirmed solution is absolutely worth resisting. We have a clean, price-tagged way to solve all but 1 of the problems that UBIs actually try to solve. How exactly does it "not support a productive discussion" for me to invoke that fact? Are you looking for a "yes man"?
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've been fairly consistent, but for the sake of dismissing your accusations of gishgallop, let me summarize my points.
Those are my bullet points. Please feel free to show me any point above where I seem to have moved away from that, and I will either concede them or defend why they are relevant. One thing I agree is that neither side should be gish gallopping.
And more importantly, if we're going to toss around accusations. I keep challenging you to define your UBI. And I continue to do so. Are you pushing for a UBI that guts Welfare, that takes that $1.2T welfare pile to help fund? Are you on-board with "pick food stamps OR UBI" strategies? Are you pushing for a specific tax on the rich? What is your reasoning that the distribution would go smoother to put $1000 in a homeless person's pocket than to give them a house and food without being shamed? Does you have any plans/answers for drug addiction?
I have spent a lot of time educating myself about UBI because I care about the redistribution of wealth and the QoL of all Americans, and also because I CARED about UBI. I'm genuinely open-minded that I could go back to supporting UBI, but I need more than accusations that I'm gishgallopping by someone who isn't actually engaging at all.
So please, give me the benefit of good-faith like I'm giving you. Engage me with reasons.
EDIT: And let me ask you another question I should've asked earlier.
Is UBI the goal for you? Sometimes I end up in discussions where end goals differ. Maybe you don't care about the quality of life of the poor nearly as much as the idea of everyone getting that $1000 check. Obviously if "I want UBI" is your end goal, it's going to be hard for us to have a discussion. My goals are quantitative and flexible. If yours are qualitative and inflexible, of course we're not seeing eye to eye.
And that's OK. I have to admit that I would prefer Universal Socialized Healthcare even if it wasn't as efficient as the ACA. To me, the goal is Socialized Healthcare whether or not it's better for individuals. I have few philosophies where the plan is more important than results, but I can respect them.
I cannot change how you decide what is terrible. You hold a belief that UBI is terrible. The belief is yours. As long as you hold it, your challenge to me is meaningless.
I repeat my objection about the appeal to purity and an argument from ignorance.
UBI is simply a regular transfer of money to each household. It works by doing exactly as it does, providing money to households.
What do consider as personally convincing for UBI?
Such is the crux of your participation in the discussion.
For most of the population, the meaningful difference from UBI would be expanded security, against loss of income. Those who are currently in poverty also would benefit more immediately, from additional income.
The amount of food being discarded exceeds the amount needed to resolve insecurity and deprivation.
No other observation is required.
All of your statistics are only sidestepping the obvious observation.
UBI is simply the net transfer of money from those that who have too much food to sell, to those who have too little money to buy food.
Once the disparity is resolved through a more favorable distribution money, which is simply the universal medium for commodity exchange, the commodity market for foods would be used for the hungry to purchase food.
The problem of cost is illusory, because the commodity of food is not genuinely scarce, and money is simply the universal medium for commodity exchange.
The same principle applies to other commodities, such as clothing and housing.
So are you saying your idea of a good UBI is Yang's?
I think we'll agree to disagree, and I confronted this directly. Your reply doesn't seem to respond to that direct confrontation. That's not on me.
A median quality-of-life increase and normalization. No major detrimental effects to lower- or middle-class (and ideally even lower-upper class, but I'll give in on that one). A net gain for the economic outlay that meets or exceeds using the same $4T on social programs (or showing that you could do a worthwhile UBI for less, that in a way you can't do social programs for).
That is, you'd have to show why UBI is "actually better "than social programs. I live in an area where that $1000/mo isn't going to get someone a shitty studio apartment. So what kind of UBI are you pitching that succeeds in any way? Or, as I asked, is UBI your GOAL, and it doesn't matter how good it achieves other goals?
What am I missing then? For all of the population, having guaranteed quality housing, food, and healthcare (and let's throw in mass transit coverage) would have that same effect, with fewer gotchas. Flip-side, nothing will likely be able to stop UBI from being garnishable for debt collection. I won't get into that topic (since you have already accused me of gish-galloping), but you seem to be arguing "UBI vs nothing" and not "UBI vs any other social use of that money".
Except it isn't. That's not a meaningful or accurate definition of UBI. UBI as a concept doesn't even cover where the money comes from (what you claim is "those who have too much food to sell"), nor does it state how that money will be used by recipients. When Jeff Bezos gets that $1000 check, he's not spending it on food and we both know it.
The thing that fits that definition would be a form of universal EBT. I'm 100% for a universal EBT.
Care to prove this? I look at what $1000/mo will buy in my state (since you aren't objecting to that UBI number), and it doesn't cover food and housing.
Sorry, I AM adding a new bullet point here. In my view, every UBI plan I've seen will redistribute wealth from Blue States to Red States... That is not a partisan point; it redistributes wealth from states that net produce and have higher poverty to states that net consume and have lower poverty. In low-cost-of-living states with low poverty, it provides every individual with a Middle Class income. In high-cost-of-living states with high poverty, it inordinately taxes the middle class while not providing enough money for the poor.
SO my problem with UBI is that the homeless people near me stay homeless, where alternative solutions would give those homeless people homes and food while still giving middle-class QOL to people in the lower-cost-of-living states... and having a significant amount of money floating around to do something else with. (HOPEFULLY no more for the military)
This is interesting. The fact that food isn't scarce is actually a point I use for socialized food, and NOT UBI.
I will simplify as much as possible.
If you are still not understanding, then I doubt further clarity would be possible.
One group in society consolidates immense wealth. It has more money, food, and other assets or resources than are necessary or even useful for its members.
Another group in society holds wealth generally only supporting access to resources personally necessary and useful to its members.
Some within the latter group are so severely deprived that their survival is threatened by inadequate access to money and food.
Even so, the total capacity supports survival of everyone.
UBI is simply a transfer of wealth from those who have hoarded to those who are desperate.
There is no deeper truth or mystery.
From your reply, I think I understand fully and that it is you who are confused.
You're still talking about UBI as if it's a tax on the rich. It's not. You talk about wealth redistribution as if UBI were socialism. It's not.
I've asked you time and time again to tell me what features YOUR vision of UBI has, after listing the iconic features that I hate about UBI. Why haven't you addressed any of the features you want or the features I dread?
I'm going to ask you a hard question. Do you actually know anything about UBI? Or is it a buzz-word for you of the simple vague idea of things being better?
You accused me elsewhere of coming across as nebulous. I'm going to use that same assertion against you. I know what the UBI I've objected to is about, but you haven't addressed my objections as if they aren't relevant to your UBI. But you've also not told me anything more about UBI than "It's a transfer of wealth from those who have hoarded to those who are desperate".
But if I called UBI strict socialism, the seizure of the means of production such that everyone owns everything and private property becomes a fiction, I don't think you'd stand with that (since you're standing against universal EBT over a $1000/mo check). So UBI is not the definition you're trying to use, even to you.
Tax the rich, and distribute cash transfers, to enforce a guaranteed income floor for each adult, and a further amount for each dependent child.
Your characterization is just a straw man, like a car with no wheels, or one you think should fly.
If you remove the features you dread, and include the ones you like, then all will be well.
If your objective is to create an idea you feel convinced will have catastrophic consequences, then you doubtless will succeed, as such a task would be trivial for anyone.
Ok. Is it your opinion that an income floor is more important than a QOL floor? If people are still homeless or starving, and others wealthy, is that acceptable to you so long as there's an income floor?
What's with the aggression? What exactly is a strawman about my characterization?
These are my fears. If you think they're wrong, ADDRESS them by name with reasoning instead of insulting me vaguely.
Those are true concerns. So true that you don't seem to be willing to look them in the eye. You haven't discussed specifics at all. This is the 3rd or 4th reply since I accused you of not actually knowing what UBI even is because you haven't shown any such knowledge.
Absolutely. If the UBI comes in the form of food+clothing, housing, and healthcare instead of cash and doesn't cost the US $4T, then all will be well. But that's not a UBI anymore.
Most of my critiques come from the only UBI plan ever seriously considered for the United States. You're making it look like my concerns are contrived, but they are the only concrete example the world has ever provided. Have you actually read Yang's UBI plan? As asked above, do you even know enough about what a UBI is? I'm willing to concede the possibility that there's a workable UBI that's just alien to those I've seen, but you seem unwilling to show me what. UBI feels like the wrong answer to the problem of poverty, the same way "clean coal" is the wrong answer to the problem of global warming.
In fact, your defenses have been so vague, I could probably put the words "clean coal" wherever you wrote UBI, and the argument would make more sense.
So please, stop treating me like I'm a bad guy, and show me what you see about UBI. Is it ignorance, or do you know something about UBI that I don't? We both clearly want everyone to have access to food and shelter. I'm just convinced that the way you're pitching will starve people. And I have no idea what your problem is with the way I'm pitching.
Advocate for what you want, not just against everything associated with the same label as what you fear.
Also, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I do. EBT, rent-coverage, healthcare for all.
UBI is a fairly concrete concept, cutting a check to every single person or household. While its implementation has some variants (is it a tax refund or a stimulus? Is it means-tested or means-adjusted?) that's the heart of what you need to do to be a UBI. I try to envision the BEST possible, or at least best realistic UBI, and that's what I try to consider. What comes out to me from that are all the concerns I have. Yang's plan isn't trying to kill welfare just for reasons of his capitalist ideology, it's also because he knows his plan is prohibitively expensive. That's what everything boils down to. I used to be all-in with UBI, but I genuinely have never been able to dial in on a possible UBI plan that's any better than the society we have now.
This saying doesn't really apply when so-called Good might be worse than what we have, or harder to implement/maintain than perfect. "Perfect" is downright affordable except for the conservative mindset against "giving people things for free". The best UBI plan I can imagine is less likely to get votes, more expensive, and less effective than just taking means-testing out of welfare. BOTH are impossible in this climate, but why shoot for "Bad" when it's 10 miles off the coast of "Perfect"?
But you say you see something in UBI. I want to see it, too. That's why I'm asking about it.
It is concrete, as I explained, but you were writing mountains of text trying to make it obscure.
Keep fighting for advances, for greater power and deeper unity for the working class.
Emphasize the opportunities for today above the vision for tomorrow or the fears for next year.
Not really.
And not for UBI. I think we're on the same page, then.
Well this discussion was about something that won't happen today or tomorrow, so focusing on today seemed silly.
UBI would represent a great advancement for the working class.
It should be plain.
Also plain is that it will only be achieved through struggle.
Fighting makes a stronger contribution than analyzing details that are currently only hypothetical.
My whole point for the last 20 comments has been specific, detailed reasons why I think it's not an advancement for the working class. Is there any reason you won't address them? If it were plain, there should be answers to my criticisms.
So how often do you fight for things you think are harmful? Why should the Left be flocking to a plan like UBI, one that is often seen as a "centrist compromise" between welfare and laissez faire capitalism? In the US at least, we're already further to the Left than UBI in many ways, and the working class have better than UBI (even if there's miles to go to proper socialized welfare).
Your objections were against details that are narrow, undetermined, or hypothetical.
I declined to address your objections on their merits, because I find in them no merit.
The solution to a car not having any wheels is applying wheels, not lamenting that all cars are dysfunctional because none may ever have wheels.
The constructive response to any problem is addressing it at the time it occurs, not obsessing over it while also refusing to begin any action.
Workers who have little income gaining more income, or workers who have precarious income gaining secure income, is obviously not harmful, yet you seem determined to fixate on some particular scenario that makes you feel threatened.
Workers need income to survive. UBI helps ensure security for everyone.
So the majority are too stupid and unworthy to get explanations, and evidence/studies don't matter? I mean, these are not contrived or uneducated objections.
A car with only 1 wheel isn't going anywhere, and there's no UBI out there offering to give even 2 wheels. But I specifically named plans that come "all-4-wheels-included' and your response was to insult me as "narrow, undetermined, or hypothetical" with "no merit".
So you're saying we need to run blindly to the Right when the Left already has proven answers? Why? Capitalism is the problem. Cutting everyone a check in capitalism is still capitalism.
So pay them a living wage not to work (no-questions-asked unemployment) and let their stability leverage better wages. That'll actually work and cost less than what you're suggesting.
Your use of "obviously" is bad-faith. My whole argument is that blindly cutting a not-nearly-enough check for everyone is "obviously" quite harmful, just like Bush's tax cuts were.
I don't feel threatened. As upper-middle-class I personally do better under UBI than I would under any full-socialization of resources. I don't care because I have no problem with getting passed over for aid if it's going to those who really need it. I don't want a $1000 "Make Welfare Conservative Again" check.
Or we can just put wheels on that car and ensure that everyone can survive with or without income. Instead of feeding the alt-right machine.
I'd like to reiterate (not that you read my replies) that my whole point is that you're trying to fix a solved problem with an untested capitalist answer that, at best, is 1/2 as good as the solutions we already know will work and for 5x the price.
And it looks like you have no desire to let all of those on the Left who think UBI is the wrong tool know why we should reconsider. That's all I've been trying to do, give you that opportunity.
EDIT: Is there anyone ELSE reading this who would be willing to give a good reason why a SocDem or socialist should support UBI instead of just be confrontational? I used to love the idea of it, but I'm really sold on it being the wrong tool of late, and I have to be honest that Yang was a big part of my reasoning for feeling this way.
For purposes of resolving that UBI helps the working class, your objections are not germane.
Everyone having some income and especially adequate food is better than some having none.
It should be extremely uncomplicated.
I disagree.
That's like saying "everyone having a Ford F150 is better than some having none", but money is just bloody paper. Nobody is eating a dollar bill. So no. Everyone having some income is NOT better than some having no income but everyone having a home, food, and healthcare. It IS an either/or choice according to every serious UBI advocate. SHOW me a plan with a non-trivial UBI that also expands welfare, and then we'll talk.
Then demonstrate it with uncomplicated facts instead of treating my objections as if only a moron would make them. If you treat the Left like morons, you'll never get further than Lemmy comments.
After all this time of you showing non-stop arrogance towards my views, I've continued to treat you with respect and try to coax the actual logical basis of what you're trying to push for. At what point do I just give up and conclude that I was right, that you don't actually know much about UBI at all?
No. Your objection is ridiculous. The comparison is absurd.
You are either deliberately obstructing reason and consensus, or too confused to follow either.
So despite the fact I would love to be convinced that UBI would work, you'd rather just keep insulting me. Have a great day.
In almost 30 comments now, you haven't given ONE GOOD REASON why anyone with a brain should consider UBI. I've begged you for them while you insulted me and my intelligence. I've gone past giving you the benefit of the doubt and simply made myself look the fool giving you chance upon chance.
I guess I'm just "too confused to follow" because being insulted didn't change my mind :-/
The way it "works" is by giving money to those who otherwise would have none or too liitle.
Stop being an obscurant.
They gave you dozens, your capacity for cognizance might not be so derelict if you had adequate education, but you lack that for the same reason you choose to lack an understanding of UBI; you've never been privy to the resources to allow you to dissuade your ignorance, and you've mistakenly assumed your ignorance is as valuable as someone else's knowledge.
Wheels on a car, the economy is fiction, and anyone who hates UBI is against progress. Those reasons? If those are the only reasons for UBI, the Yang centrists really got nothing for us.
You're right. Librul Elite College screwed with my brain. I just can't see "cars need wheels" as a solid argument, and "fuck you" as reasonable counters for my genuine critiques.
So do bloody tell. I've been openly asking people to convince me that UBI is worth considering, and they keep just telling me I'm a fucking moron. It's like walking up to the crazy street preacher and saying "I really do want to learn about your religion" and all they do is spit at you and call you a devil.
College, economics classes, law class (only one of those, admittedly). I read Yang's UBI plan in its entirety, as well as both the pro-arguments and the con-arguments. I was ALL FUCKING IN at first. Then I had a question. And when I asked it, everyone acted like this guy, like I was some stupid moron (and worse to Yang UBI-fans, a Socialist) who was just trying to tank their goal. So what else should I look into? I've spent (feels like wasted at this point) hundreds of hours on UBI. What more do you need before I can kiss your feet?
Is this how you feel about all Leftists, or just the ones who won't throw away socialism for capitalism?
To be clear, I have no issue with most people working while others do not and live off the system. I think most people will still want to do that something.
UBI isn't going to do that.
You can point to a handful of small scale studies that show more money works, and yes, on a small scale that is exactly what you'd expect to happen.
This does not work when everyone has that same income. It's not a matter of 99% of people making smart choices, because I concede that the vast majority of people with sudden access to additional income would spend it wisely.
The issues are twofold.
A) when the people who've made it their career to suck every penny out of every possible person know that there are suddenly more pennies to be had, they're going to raise prices. It's frankly foolish and shortsighted to expect prices to remain the same or only raise a little. This issue is not raised with small scale experiments. So regardless of their obvious success, they're not telling the whole story.
2). UBI does absolutely nothing to address the problems it's actually trying to solve. All it does is print a check every month as a bandaid for some serious problems that will certainly persist. You can't fix housing without building housing. Individual healthcare will still be tied to your job. College education will be prohibitively expensive and require staffing a lifetime of debt, and we'll still throw away an obscene amount of food, and people will still go hungry. The only thing that will probably get better is more children will have a secure diet.
And none of that assumes prices would inflate the way they absolutely will. Because even if UBI happened, the people who want all the money the working class has aren't suddenly going to think it's ok to leave dollars unspoken for.
The cost of college will steadily increase by about the amount kids are expected to have been able to save by the time they get there. Rent prices will go up to accommodate the new found freedom of spending. And that's the stuff you have a choice on. You think Comcast will see people with so many extra dollars a month and think "well our customers don't have another option but we'll let them keep all that money?"
UBI is just a ticket to absolute dependency on a government check for 99% of Americans, and less financial freedom.
Address the actual problems, don't just slap a half baked bandaid on it
The claim of UBI leading to runaway inflation is a myth given by reactionary propaganda.
UBI would represent a major advance for the working class. Advocating against it seems impossible to reconcile with any attitude that is not accelerationist.
Much of your commentary seems to reproduce mythical tropes such as of the "welfare queen".
Seeking meaningful contribution to society is a robust human tendency. Doing so under constant threat from greedy employers is not necessary.
Something is not propaganda because you disagree with it.
I also make it clear in literally my first sentence that people living off the system without working is fine, but that most people probably won't.
I'm not sure you actually read the post you're responding to.
Something is not scientific fact because you declare it to be.
There's scientific facts, economic reality, and then there's the pipe dream that suddenly corporations will be less greedy just "cuz" under UBI.
I have heard many different opinions about UBI.
I have never heard any suggestion that it would make corporations less greedy.
Perhaps your objection is directed at a strawman.
I responded to the text of your comment, and my concern about your opening sentence is not its lacking truth, as much as the litany of untruthful claims you later made in contradiction.
So no, you didn't.
I did. Your comment is littered with mythical tropes. Even the opening is suspect, due to the suggestion of people wanting to "live off the system".
Most want simply that their lives be not dominated by systems that are abstract, absurd, or inhuman.
Even if some cope differently than you, perhaps consider not judging so narrowly.
I would think UBI would be implemented to track inflation. I also assume it would be funded by progressive taxes, not just spinning up the printing presses (which would cause inflation). Effectively, it would be a wealth redistribution program cycling money from corporations and the rich down to the poor.
I really don't trust the government (which is pretty much captured by corporations) to implement it well though. They'd probably give everyone just enough money to barely survive, without health care, in a van down by the river or something.
If you check my post history everywhere, I'm pretty anti-UBI. But the reasons you pitched are both problematic to me.
You "A" point... I don't like capitalism, but when there isn't a monopoly, increased customer-base doesn't have the effect you're thinking without scarcity. More people able to afford more means more businesses can compete for business. The price increases would come from paying for the increased worker leverage, and those wouldn't be drastic.
The opposite effect is true in some sectors. Studies suggest (consistently) that UBI cause so-called "wealth-flight", which reduces the value of housing and reduces the cost of living... But also reduces quality of life by reducing availability of things. The thing is, a little bit of socialism would counteract wealth-flight, as would a situation where the wealth is not in a position to leave freely.
Your "2" point is false. There are a lot of MAJOR cons to UBI, but studies suggest UBI would have a positive effect on housing affordability and worker leverage. Other than healthcare, your concerns don't seem to match the models and the studies. My add-on concern, however, is addiction. Poverty starvation isn't a risk under most UBI plans, but addict starvation still is.
When "what can I afford to pay" is one of the dominant market forces on anything but luxury, capitalism becomes dangerously fragile and businesses know it. They want to maximize profit, but they do so against demand and competition.
Most economists don't think UBI would cause all that much inflation. Increasing a customer-base is not the same as increasing demand. There's no addition of scarcity. Food prices don't go up if we don't run out of food - and we have so much food going to waste that isn't going to happen. Same with housing and rent. The question isn't "how much can the sucker afford to pay me", it's "how much can we get for this?". Affordability is only one factor in that, and generally considered a "problem" to all parties when that factor applies. So long as businesses are not MORE consolidated (see above UBI concerns) prices are still market-driven - driven by competition and acceptability.
It's valid to not LIKE capitalism. I hate it. But we should still understand it before criticizing things.
This is simply not factual. One thing people miss is that college profit margins have been on a slow decline (and in the single-digits since 2016). They're NOT charging more based on how much they think they can sucker out of people. They're charging what they do based on the friction of "making enough money to thrive" and "charging low enough that people are willing to come here". Yes, cost of college might go up slightly, but not in the way you're talking. Again, the issue is that "affordability" is a terrible market force and rarely the one these types of businesses care about.
There is no study or model that says UBI will give us LESS financial freedom. The real argument is that it won't give more financial freedom to most Americans, and the cost is prohibitive for that limited gain.
Short of "no questions asked unemployment benefits for life", there aren't really any solutions to many of the problems on the table. Ultimately, all Americans, all humans, deserve a life of all necessities AND some luxuries.
At this time, nobody is seriousliy trying to solve for luxuries except UBI, and nobody is seriously trying to solve for organic worker-leverage except UBI (unions will never be the full answer).