deleted by creator
UBI won’t work as long as the capitalist class is in power.
If the UBI improves the lives of people to the point of them declining to take shit jobs, the capitalists will try to dismantle and/or pervert the policy; they will also try to capture as much of its value as possible by increasing prices. The only level of UBI acceptable to capitalists would be one that keeps working people afraid of losing their jobs.
Right. There is exactly zero fucking chance that UBI will ever take off in today’s world, especially in the US, where we can’t even get universal healthcare.
There’s some capitalists in favor of UBI, but they usually mean barely above starvation level and also let’s get rid of all other social services whatsoever. Fuck the disabled in particular I guess. Buy your own wheelchair we gave you 500 dollars! What do you mean you need 600 dollars just for rent?
Yeah, I don’t NOT support UBI, but it’s not enough.
Only 30 people, and just 2 years? That’s a very limited study. It’s something I guess, but it barely scratches the surface.
Aren’t there already a number of larger studies in the world? Who wants another small scale study? Do they think the results may be different?
Removed by mod
Rents in many places have gone up massive amounts in the last few years anyway. Sometimes doubling in a single increase. All without a UBI. Rents increases aren’t tied to an tenants income like you sugest.
Also, your inflation would only be short term. Long term, after prices spike with sudden increased demand, the high prices will incentivize more supply, bringing prices back down into balance.
And there’s nothing to say the UBI needs to be implemented all at once any way. It could start as small as $50/month, then ramp up over the course of a decade or two. That smother transition would allow the markets to adapt without major waves.
There have been wider, longer studies, and what your describing doesn’t actually happen.
Removed by mod
Gentrification is extremely local, tied to a specific area. UBI is tied to people. All people. In all locations. No mater where they go. The dynamics are couldn’t be more different.
Would it be all people in all locations or just people in (parts of) the global north? If the global south is included or excluded, how would UBI impact the current unequal transfer of value from the global south to the north? Can the north afford UBI without super-exploiting the south same will a UBI in the south undermine that super-exploitation?
In other words: will the north allow the south to implement any kind of UBI, given the terms and framework of IMF/WTO/World Bank?
The crux of these questions is: what affect will UBI have on global inequality?
Edit: I don’t expect answers to these questions. It would take a book to answer each one. It’s just something to think about.
Gary Stevenson (of Garys Economics on YouTube) argues that exactly this happend with the Covid money. With watching if you haven’t seen him already.
He suggests the solution to the problem caused by Covid money is a wealth/asset tax. He’s persuasive. My main critique, which leads to a question I have for you, is that it would take quite a shift in public consciousness to get support for that tax: would an asset/wealth tax ‘fix’ the problems that you identify re: e.g. landlords?
Another suggestion (I didn’t hear this from Stevenson but it’s not my idea and I can’t remember the book) is a UBI ‘credit card’ that allows a maximum savings amount. This is to encourage spending and prevent accumulation. After that, the money disappears. I can’t recall if the amount that can be saved is the same throughout each month. It’s government backed, so it’s ‘money’ but it can’t be hoarded in the same way as ‘money’ money. The idea would be to prevent the picture that you paint. Have you heard of this? Any thoughts?
Removed by mod
I would expect this to happen if you just give everyone UBI with no changes anywhere else, but that wouldn’t make any sense. Why do we not consider a setup where we set UBI to X, then reduce everyone’s wages by X?
Would reducing wages by X be as effective as reducing ‘passive’ income from assets (by a proportion of X) or by imposing a wealth cap?
Your rent would go up $250, which you’d be pissed about but you’d pay because you still have $750 from UBI.
Or, alternately, you’d look around the rental market to find a unit that hadn’t arbitrarily gone up in price.
The scenario you describe only works in a very tightly constrained scenario where supply and demand are highly inelastic. In the real world people build new housing when demand rises, so prices don’t spiral ever upward. Most of the places where there’s currently a housing crisis hare having that problem because they’ve made bad zoning decisions due to NIMBYism and other such miscalculations.
deleted by creator
