3 ms·

Which is a good point. Ultimately all costs get passed on to the consumer -- so where does it end?

by empressplay 11y ago

panic 11y ago
As costs go up, consumers buy less. There's a certain price which maximizes profit: that's where it ends.
- empressplay 11y ago
  Exactly. I have 5 apples. There are 5 people willing to pay at least $2 for them, so I sell them for $2. That's basic economics. With a basic income, now most of these people have more money. So I can charge $3 per apple, and even if I only sell 4 of them I still make $2 more than I made before. I eat the last apple myself, and the person who only has the basic income doesn't get an apple at all. I think universal welfare makes more sense.
  - panic 11y ago
    If you have a monopoly on the only five apples in the world, why were you charging only $2 in the first place? In a competitive economy, somebody else will be happy to sell an apple to the last person.
    - empressplay 11y ago
      In practice that's not true and I suggest you research the amount of fruit that's left to rot in fields because companies decide it's not worth selling it.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    However, the $12 you got in case B is not worth as much in the market as the $10 you go in case A, since the economy appears to have suffered 50% inflation in the meantime. Your $12 in case B has a purchasing power equivalent to $8 in case A.
sergiosgc 11y ago
It ends when the cost is so high that automation becomes cost-effective. Basic Income, as much as minimum wage, is a collective push towards skilled labor, away from menial tasks. In general terms, UBI seems sane. I see two implementation problems. First, worldwide society competition: Can my society support UBI and compete with China? Second, automatic system balancing. What is the correct UBI level? Can we leave it out to be hashed by politicians?

3 ms·

Which is a good point. Ultimately all costs get passed on to the consumer -- so where does it end?

by empressplay 11y ago

Which is a good point. Ultimately all costs get passed on to the consumer -- so where does it end?

panic 11y ago
As costs go up, consumers buy less. There's a certain price which maximizes profit: that's where it ends.
- empressplay 11y ago
  Exactly. I have 5 apples. There are 5 people willing to pay at least $2 for them, so I sell them for $2. That's basic economics. With a basic income, now most of these people have more money. So I can charge $3 per apple, and even if I only sell 4 of them I still make $2 more than I made before. I eat the last apple myself, and the person who only has the basic income doesn't get an apple at all. I think universal welfare makes more sense.
  - panic 11y ago
    If you have a monopoly on the only five apples in the world, why were you charging only $2 in the first place? In a competitive economy, somebody else will be happy to sell an apple to the last person.
    - empressplay 11y ago
      In practice that's not true and I suggest you research the amount of fruit that's left to rot in fields because companies decide it's not worth selling it.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    However, the $12 you got in case B is not worth as much in the market as the $10 you go in case A, since the economy appears to have suffered 50% inflation in the meantime. Your $12 in case B has a purchasing power equivalent to $8 in case A.
sergiosgc 11y ago
It ends when the cost is so high that automation becomes cost-effective. Basic Income, as much as minimum wage, is a collective push towards skilled labor, away from menial tasks. In general terms, UBI seems sane. I see two implementation problems. First, worldwide society competition: Can my society support UBI and compete with China? Second, automatic system balancing. What is the correct UBI level? Can we leave it out to be hashed by politicians?