• abraxas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is actually the opposite of what studies seem to be suggestion.

    The fear is, instead, that it will reduce values, especially housing, and that businesses and wealthier individuals would move away. Admittedly, if it’s truly universal, then there would be nowhere for them to move. But the real, often-forgotten underlying gain is that it would create some leverage for employees seeking jobs and raises.

    Of course, an “unemployed-only” income would create more employee leverage, possibly matching or exceeding the leverage provided by unions because the employee could afford to strike indefinitely.

    • Cookiesandcreamclouds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Reduce values”

      Which are a fictional thing we invented. How awful, a more equal society where people cannot as easily be superior! Do people really fear such a thing?

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m really not sure what you think you’re getting out of this reply. Or hell, what you’re even trying to say. But here’s my college try at replying anyway.

        Before I get to line-items, I’d like to reiterate that you’re arguing for “pay everyone money” in response to “pay people who aren’t working a living wage” and acting like giving money to the rich makes a more equal society than that. If I had $50k/yr guaranteed any day I wanted if I quit, I’d have a whole lot more leverage to get another $1000/mo from my employer AND be treated well.

        How awful, a more equal society where people cannot as easily be superior!

        That would be socialism, not a UBI. The economic concerns about UBI are that it will weaken the average quality of life and that every implementation ever pitched has a fatal flaw. Yang’s, for example, would hurt the poor and middle class while not actually redistributing any wealth from the rich. Models also suggest they will be job-killers, and not in the obvious way of giving people leverage.

        Do people really fear such a thing?

        Yeah, they’re so afraid of socialism they try to create capitalist equivalents like UBI

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yang’s issue is he flipped the tax funded UBI and deficit funded UBI’s growth numbers. There is almost no growth from UBI unless it is money falling from the sky.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yang’s issue is that he wanted to fund UBI by using it to eradicate welfare. And there were a dozen very solid problems with that he was unwilling or unable to meaningfully address. Some of the families who would need his UBI the most are the same families who would have to opt out because their welfare is valued at more than it.

            I used to be all-in for UBI in general, but over the years (thanks in part, but not entirely, to Yang) I walked off that ledge. The government should be guaranteeing housing/food/healthcare the same way they guarantee education. What they should not be doing is cutting a check and shoving fingers in their ears in the welfare equivalent of Privatized Social Security.

            What people don’t want to accept is that under UBI, there will still be comparable homelessness to what we see now because a leading (perhaps the #1) cause of homelessness is addiction. The government subsidizing rental and home payments without means-testing would allow even addicts to have a place to sleep at night. Even they deserve that. And yes, there’s inflation “risks” with incentivizing housing or food, but it’s no more or less than with UBI or with just the FCC approving another big merger.

            • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Im the sameI was all in until I did the deeper dive into the literature. Now I see it as realistic as jetpacks.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I think it’s realistic. I just think it’s not the right solution.

                UBI is a massive undertaking, but so is Social Security, Universal Healthcare, or a modern military. The GDP is $23.3T, but the current tax income is only 12-15% of that (approx $4.1T). Yang’s UBI would cost a whopping $4T, but here’s the missing link. As much as we whine like little bitches about taxes in the US, we are quite literally middle of the pack for taxes as a percent of GDP. UBI is realistic, but it would require a full overhaul of our economy.

                I just don’t think a full overhaul of our economy is worth the benefit of UBI. $25B could end hunger in the US, and $700B would socialize food entirely at no cost to individuals. Somewhere in the middle, we’d probably get 90% of the benefits of socializing food with a lot less costs. Housing is the same situation (ironically, the estimated cost to end homelessness is also about $25B, though I don’t know what “subsidized housing for all” would look like). We could do both AND have some money to incentivize being unemployed to counteract job leverage (the one big win in UBI imo) all together in $1T or less, a much less disruptive overhaul for more return.

                And we could throw in universal healthcare for good measure. Yeah, there’s a tax cost, but studies show it pays for itself in individual savings and economic growth