I don’t know how relevant this is now, but here’s a link to another post where I expressed my thoughts on what kind of pitfalls you might most likely face – https://lemmy.world/post/36867409
By the way, what is this phenomenon on Lemmy? Let’s say people are reluctant to read and comment on old posts published just a couple of days or a week ago, but with new ones, it’s a completely different story. What kind of psychology is this? Or it seemed to me?
I think The Expanse had a decent “UBI” model, Basic
It covers just enough food-like substance with the correct macros for a human, everyone had an apartment and access to the internet and tv channels. I think healthcare was included to a point. That’s it. You could survive on it without much suffering.
If you wanted more, you had to go to school and work.
Broadly speaking, UBI is a good idea for a bad system.
Public housing, public health care, public grocery stores, public transit, and public education are a good idea for a better system.
The government giving you a fixed stipend to play your hand at the free market carries a whole host of secondary challenges, particularly as we enter a 70s-era inflationary spiral. The private sector having an incentive to create tiered levels of service to capture UBI money while delivering the smallest possible economic benefit to the consumer is a huge problem in the existing market.
The fundamental problem with UBI is that landlords will still evict your ass as soon as they find a way to squeeze more rent out of a unit. You have money, but you don’t have any kind of civil right to housing.
As an initial stopgap on the way to a socialist economic model, its got merit. But as a panacea, it - much like minimum wage and child tax credits and other forms of government mandated economic floors - falls depressingly short of the end goal.
I said in a comment “hey why not universal healthcare and also ubi” and this nutcase yelled at me for over a week about it. I wasn’t going to bother with defending the idea since I was just asking “why not” and they were calling me lazy, entitled, and stupid.
Well, these are tense times, so people can be extremely aggressive, but if a collapse happens… Oh, people would become barbarians.
Oh, people would become barbarians.
The billionaire class has already hired a barbarian horde of ICE Agents to bang at our gates.
In a serious economic collapse, circa 2008, we’re going to see what happens when those barbarians can’t extract their tribute.
Funny how UBI is typically considered a left-wing policy in the US, yet the only place in the country that actually has a UBI is traditionally considered pretty conservative.
Alaska has a thing called the Alaska Permanent Fund which was funded with an initial investment of oil and mining revenue. It pays out around $100 a month which is not really something to live on but definitely helps for struggling Alaskans.
I think a viable model for UBIs on a national scale would probably involve something similar. Perhaps a one-shot tax on the mega-rich to get the initial funding and then it’s used to run a state-owned investment portfolio which invests in various sectors of the economy and then pays out the profits to the citizens.
Just a little clarification on the Alaspa PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend), it’s not paid monthly, but rather annually, and the amount it pays out changes from year to year depending on oil revenue for that year, which is where the fund comes from in the first place. This year it’s only $1000. For an idea of amounts, in 2020 it was only $992 (Covid just ruined everything everywhere) while in 2022 it was as high as $3,284.
It is still basically UBI though, even if the amount per year isn’t even enough to entirely offset the added expense of living in Alaska.
Organized (left or right) politics don’t support UBI because UBI redistributes power, and a power concentrating answer to any oppression complaint is to switch the balance of supremacism. Neocon/Zionist first rule in USA needs you to be miserable to be distracted from war and Israel budgets by gaslighting. CIA determined rule in other democracies is to make you miserable and destabilized, so that your puppets can give more tribute to US and its corporate champions.
As specific examples, leftist EU parties are still pro Trump/NATO and the collapsing austerity requirements of 5% of GDP for US weapons. In NY State, a DEM governor proposal to offer universal healthcare (same general justification as UBI) was rejected by union leaders because healthcare misery is a union recruiting/power imbalance.
Hate, misery, and crime are features that right wing needs for fascism, but left politicians can do quite well as controlled opposition, and get their share of oligarchy trickle down. Fighting the right on bandaid programs to create a new/bigger hierarchy, rewarding left supporters, is reward for fighting political war on left’s side.
By the way, what is this phenomenon on Lemmy? Let’s say people are reluctant to read and comment on old posts published just a couple of days or a week ago, but with new ones, it’s a completely different story. What kind of psychology is this? Or it seemed to me?
In the default lemmy feed (in browser view at least), posts only show if they’re younger than 3 days (72 hours). So older posts typically get ignored, so nobody wants to comment there because nobody will read these comments anyways.
There are some legit criticisms from the left on UBI, it’s myopic focus on consumption, the possibility of it being eaten away due to inflation it causes and becoming a gift to landlords etc. I don’t think “the government will use it to control us” is a good one as that can be said about any social service the government provides. Should we not have universal Healthcare because if a fascist takes over he can kick you off the roles and you’ll die from a preventable disease?
Filling everyone’s basic needs will be a vast social undertaking that will require a lot of organization, just because someone might take over that organization and wield it for power doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it, it just means we have to keep careful watch over it when we do.
I think it’s still worth implementing UBI, most of the fears are something that can be tackled independently.
For instance, the why not have the government buy up most of the private apartments and turn them into public housing? Or at the least set rate increase limits on rent.
I don’t believe most things would face much noticeable inflation if a UBI were to be implemented, aside from luxury/high quality goods. A little inflation is baked into our economy anyway, as a little inflation is a good thing to prevent deflation.
I agree with you, people fear mongering about UBI being used to control people, when bosses could do that currently with a paycheck. UBI usually means no strings attached, although I’m sure there could be other incentive programs out there on top of UBI to reward people.
If we really want UBI to be less likely to be taken over by bad actors, I feel it makes sense to have each state implementing their own UBI programs. It would be great if this was a federal program that helped everyone, but even getting it passed federally is looking like an uphill climb. It makes way more sense to pass UBI in progressive states, and try to sell purple and red states on the idea as well.
I mean, Alaska has a Basic Income at the least, so in theory we already see one state mildly seeing the benefit of a Universal Basic Income.
I don’t think “the government will use it to control us” is a good one as that can be said about any social service the government provides.
It’s backwards, as the method of social control by the state is national security. And we’ve never seen so-called libertarian conservatives flinch at inflating the size of the Pentagon or the FBI or ICE.
The real “danger” of Social Security / Medicare / HUD is that a state official might provide a benefit that endears the public to an institution of the state at the expense of the free market. In effect, the “control” is the result of popular support for a program. And the “victims” are people who want the program expanded.
I’m pretty loud about most of those criticisms from the left and I still think it would be better than this.
the possibility of it being eaten away due to inflation it causes
This is a right wing argument against UBI. If you receive 5 recruiter calls per day begging to take an employer’s money, wages will go up, and demand will go up, forcing supply/competition to catch up to take/trickle back all of people’s money back to corporatist ownership. UBI is not wealth redistribution, it is you getting more stuff while still having an end of month balance of $0.
becoming a gift to landlords
More of a left argument. But individual empowerment means freedom from structural policies that drive rent extortion. UBI means you can share rent with certainty that they can pay rent. Landlord risk against tenants not paying going down, means less risk to renting basements and attics. You have the power to pay for moving expenses to escape asshole landlord policies, or structurally oppressive cities, without needing a job in new location first. UBI means you can afford home ownership and become a landlord yourself.
A leftist brainworm is that “classes of people are assholes” and can only be eaten as a solution. The truth is corrupt market power imbalances create resentment of the powerful. UBI allows for natural “perfect competition” (all the suppliers make a fair ROI for voluntarily participating) markets, which housing is one. I said this was a left criticism, but it’s also a right criticism against inflation.
“the government will use it to control us”
It’s an absurd criticism, because UBI is freedom from government discretion. Although its the right that threatens to take away healthcare from classes of people (trans), SS is not up for discussion as “for republicans only”. Medicaid is a “lower race” program that is attacked while Medicare is a “Republican constituency”. UBI is power redistribution that doesn’t give rise to the “American History X” accusations of “programs tilted just for the subhumans” divisiveness. We all get the same deserved dividend respresenting our equal ownership share of the country, and its tax revenue.
Filling everyone’s basic needs will be a vast social undertaking that will require a lot of organization, just because someone might take over that organization and wield it for power doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it
The UBI distribution organization is the IRS. Trump’s IRS crony takeover is just about preventing audits for those who bribe him to ignore their tax fraud. It won’t be used to change your/general people’s refund formula.
forcing supply/competition to catch up
How though? There’s no mechanism in UBI to increase production to match the increased demand. If anything its could decrease production / supply as less people work and choose to just live off UBI. Increasing the amount of cash in the market doesn’t increase productivity/ supply, otherwise printing money would work. Increasing aggregate demand / money without increasing aggregate supply / productivity just leads to inflation. This is what I mean by its myopic focus on consumption, production also needs to be considered. Everyone wants to focus on the “to each according to their needs” part and not the “from each according to their ability”
Yeah certain industries can scale up relatively cheaply to match this increased demand but things like housing which have a limited supply that expands relatively slowly will just see price increases. You said this could cause increased competition for landlords but it will also cause increased competition for housing.
If there are 4 houses and 5 households and before UBI 4 households made enough to afford $1,000 in rent and they got the 4 houses, after UBI of $1,000 the landlord can use the threat of renting to the homeless person to raise the rent until that homeless person is priced out again. If you increase the amount of money people have without increasing supply then the people will use that money to bid up prices until you’re back to the old distribution of resources.
The alternative to UBI that the left has been pushing forever, especially the African American left, has been a universal jobs guarantee. Anyone can go into a government office and they’ll give you a job with decent pay. Since you’re putting people to work you can actually increase productivity and supply to match the new demand. You still get all the guarantees of income and the benefits that entails of getting out of bad situations but you also are able to pressure employers for better labor standards. If the government is offering a living wage for 3 days a week then other employers will have to match that. It’s also more politically viable, trying to convince middle America that “free money” is a good thing will be a lot harder then convincing them that a jobs guarantee is good.
A wise answer… But times are tense now, and who knows what surprises await us next. By the way, I recommend looking into what a CBDC is, in my opinion, they will also try to introduce this after digital IDs…
I’m not sure what your meme is saying. Is the implication that if there is UBI, then nobody will work anymore? I might be misunderstanding
Well, unfortunately, I couldn’t find a better picture.
So, just a heads up, that comment was an invitation to clarify what specifically you are trying to say with your meme.
people see newer posts in their feeds so they get more attention. Has nothing to do with reluctance
I don’t comment on old posts to avoid necroin’ xD Old habit from forums and such.
I always hate when I’m reading an old thread, someone comments with a great point, and then someone else starts an argument about necroing.
Gonna be honest, not like I understand it really. I mean, it may be bothersome to get pinged on something you commented 3 days earlier - people move on from such things quite quickly…but I believe it’s just internet culture rn. Like memes getting old quickly etc.
Yes, I asked a stupid question.
UBI is a bad idea because it reinforces and relies on the capitalist idea of money. We should make basic resources themselves free, like a supermarket you can walk into and take stuff without paying, rather than giving people points to buy stuff that costs points.
Fundamentally money is a way of allocating limited resources. As long as there remains greed and limited resources, there need to be such limits. All anti-capitalist campaigners seem to rightly agree that human greed is a constant factor, so it would be crazy to forget it here.
If you give out money the people who own stuff (rich people) will just increase prices and take all that money.
Yes, but the free money that is given out is typically obtained by taking it from the people who own stuff.
That would be great but it’s usually not the case (look at COVID, the banking crisis in 2008 etc). The money is not coming from the rich.
So, why don’t they do just increase all the prices now?
Because people can’t afford it?
If you print £100 and give it to every person, then yes. But if you tax every person with progressive taxation so that the poor pay little or no tax, and then give everyone £100 using the proceeds, no, because you are changing the distribution of resource-allocation-units between the people who had the most and the least of them previously.
Even in the former example the inflation hits the billionaire harder than the worker. For example if we all got a trillion dollars it wouldn’t really matter that Elon has a trillion and a half. Scale that same principle down and UBI is good for the workers.
The “price increases” side of inflation harms the people that hold money.
Billionaires do hold more than poor people, but they still mostly don’t hold any. It’s normally the high-middle class and the poorest fraction of the rich that are hit the most here. You need proper taxation to reach the billionaires.
I agree with you, but also I’m not gonna say no if they did implement UBI. Anarchist mutual aid is better than money, but UBI is better than nothing
Anarchist mutual aid is better than money, but UBI is better than nothing
UBI empowers mutual aid. There’s no basic needs mutual aid required. The most important mutual aid is the ability to contribute work/time and money in exchange for share of future profits. UBI empowers you to contribute your time to something you believe will make you prosperous/happy, without the concern for eating in the next weeks.
Anarchist
anarchism only works with the right kind of people, i’d say. which not everyone is.
Everything only works with the right kind of people. No system is perfect and will always have people who disagree and work to destabilize it and change it. Like America isnt falling to fascism for no reason. So we should at least work towards as free and kind of a world that we can
If we accept that the act of living is inherently a destructive action by our consumption of natural resources.
Then design production chains that try to meet local demand while transparently measuring and minimising actual loss.
We can open stores like this who in an early stage are for select groups like elderly and disabled. The total loss is just a reference number similar to national debt.
Using digital communications polling to measure actual demand to project production needs becomes simplified because potential clients don’t have to choose how to spend a limited currency.
As those production chains and new standards for how to measure loss expand so can we expand clients to include the people who work in such industries and eventually everyone.
Crucial is we don’t need an overnight revolution. This system can get its roots By co existing within current capitalism with the calculated loss simply measured as a financial debt.
The biggest hurdle is legalizing an industry that basically gets a blank free debt card that can be spend on input resources, while making sure they maintain transparent calculations and dedication to minimize planetary loss.
Well, I’m wondering what kind of chaos will start, because these fascists don’t plan on stopping. They want to create cyberpunk and dystopia at any cost, even by stealing taxpayers’ money and more.
This cannot work in the real world unfortunately. there will always exist greedy self-centered people (coincidentally also the type striving most successfully towards position of power), they will not abide by rules of courtesy that this requires.
We shame them. Greedy people should feel panic at the thought of someone noticing their greediness
Granted that would take a couple generations to instill, but it would help if we started with food
Free food, take as much as you want, but it’s all unprocessed. Lots of stuff would last a while, but greedy people would just make a ton of work for themselves
We produce so much this is an actual option
It’s not like a situation where one greedy person is dropped in the middle of a society of altruists, and the whole thing goes belly up. It is possible to educate a society on what greed looks like, what its effects are, and how to deal with people who try to become utility monsters.
