5 ms·

But who does pick the lettuce? What does that do to the price of lettuce? If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food pri

by DougN7 11y ago

But who does pick the lettuce? What does that do to the price of lettuce? If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? I think you've hit on the problem -- UBI is not anything more than wage inflation, which will force people to work again to keep up with the spiraling prices.

WalterSear 11y ago
I don't think that the only thing keeping civilization together is the fact that a certain population is impelled to work by starvation. If the prices of things are being kept artificially low, due to the duress of the employees producing it, then the market will fix the problem. We might see a short term rise in certain commodities. But, unfettered, this just induces more efficiencies, such as automation, into the system. Efficiencies produced by upper middle class engineers, who would now, thanks to UBI, have the same earning power as their upper middle class parents did. UBI isn't wage inflation for many reasons, such as the actual value of money isn't equal to people with different incomes. It isn't going to become more expensive to live, because people don't go out and buy twice as many groceries when the have twice as much money - the money is used for different priorities.
- DougN7 11y ago
  > the money is used for different priorities More money chasing the same goods increases prices. Imagine each family has $15K more than they do now. Some would upgrade their living conditions, causing more competition in the strata they are moving up to, which would increase prices. Some would buy cars they couldn't previously, causing more demand for cars, and increasing prices. Some would go for luxuries they couldn't previously, causing more demand. There is no way around supply and demand. The only way prices don't increase is if demand doesn't increase. If some people create more demand, others have to have less demand.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> But who does pick the lettuce? Realistically, in the short-run, basically the same people doing it now: even a "just out of poverty level" UBI isn't yet sustainable with the current level of productivity and automation. So, the people that can't get a better job than lettuce picking will still need to work, and will still be picking lettuce. They'll have slightly higher total income. (From the UBI itself; whether their wages will change and in which direction is less clear.) > What does that do to the price of lettuce? Not a lot in the short run, though maybe small increases. > If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? Likewise. A "mature" UBI that would be at a level that would substantially change this would also require levels of productivity and automation where you probably wouldn't have people picking lettuce (though you'd have a few maintaining the lettuce-picking bots) in the first place.
- DougN7 11y ago
  So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work. I don't think a lot of socialists see that -- they seem to argue (like in the original article) that we should be able to move that way now. Fundamentally, 'value' (goods, services) is produced by someone and consumed by another. We all trade our efforts. UBI is trying to enable consuming without producing at some level. But it only works if someone (or something - robots) are producing without consuming. Right now the working poor are filling the role of producing more than they can consume, which is not right. But someone/thing has to do the producing, and more cannot be consumed than is produced.
  - WalterSear 11y ago
    >So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work. No, that's you just making assumptions. It's not one thing or another.
    - DougN7 11y ago
      OK, then who gets to receive less value for their efforts so that others can receive more? That's what it boils down to. Goods and services are finite, and at the level of a society/world/country are being consumed at the level they are produced (notice we don't have warehouses continually filling decade after decade of anything). UBI means everyone would be able consume more than they are now -- it doesn't matter what they consume, but it would be more. And it might allow some that are producing to produce less (work less). That imbalance can't exist for very long at all until prices rise to get back to equilibrium. There's no way around it.
      - WalterSear 11y ago
        >OK, then who gets to receive less value for their efforts so that others can receive more? That's what it boils down to. The administrators of the current welfare system, that currently costs us more that UBI would.

by DougN7 11y ago

WalterSear 11y ago

I don't think that the only thing keeping civilization together is the fact that a certain population is impelled to work by starvation. If the prices of things are being kept artificially low, due to the duress of the employees producing it, then the market will fix the problem. We might see a short term rise in certain commodities. But, unfettered, this just induces more efficiencies, such as automation, into the system. Efficiencies produced by upper middle class engineers, who would now, thanks to UBI, have the same earning power as their upper middle class parents did. UBI isn't wage inflation for many reasons, such as the actual value of money isn't equal to people with different incomes. It isn't going to become more expensive to live, because people don't go out and buy twice as many groceries when the have twice as much money - the money is used for different priorities.

DougN7 11y ago
> the money is used for different priorities More money chasing the same goods increases prices. Imagine each family has $15K more than they do now. Some would upgrade their living conditions, causing more competition in the strata they are moving up to, which would increase prices. Some would buy cars they couldn't previously, causing more demand for cars, and increasing prices. Some would go for luxuries they couldn't previously, causing more demand. There is no way around supply and demand. The only way prices don't increase is if demand doesn't increase. If some people create more demand, others have to have less demand.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> But who does pick the lettuce? Realistically, in the short-run, basically the same people doing it now: even a "just out of poverty level" UBI isn't yet sustainable with the current level of productivity and automation. So, the people that can't get a better job than lettuce picking will still need to work, and will still be picking lettuce. They'll have slightly higher total income. (From the UBI itself; whether their wages will change and in which direction is less clear.) > What does that do to the price of lettuce? Not a lot in the short run, though maybe small increases. > If we apply that same thinking to every other food item, what does it do to food prices? Likewise. A "mature" UBI that would be at a level that would substantially change this would also require levels of productivity and automation where you probably wouldn't have people picking lettuce (though you'd have a few maintaining the lettuce-picking bots) in the first place.

DougN7 11y ago
So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work. I don't think a lot of socialists see that -- they seem to argue (like in the original article) that we should be able to move that way now. Fundamentally, 'value' (goods, services) is produced by someone and consumed by another. We all trade our efforts. UBI is trying to enable consuming without producing at some level. But it only works if someone (or something - robots) are producing without consuming. Right now the working poor are filling the role of producing more than they can consume, which is not right. But someone/thing has to do the producing, and more cannot be consumed than is produced.
- WalterSear 11y ago
  >So UBI only makes sense where robots are doing all the work. No, that's you just making assumptions. It's not one thing or another.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    OK, then who gets to receive less value for their efforts so that others can receive more? That's what it boils down to. Goods and services are finite, and at the level of a society/world/country are being consumed at the level they are produced (notice we don't have warehouses continually filling decade after decade of anything). UBI means everyone would be able consume more than they are now -- it doesn't matter what they consume, but it would be more. And it might allow some that are producing to produce less (work less). That imbalance can't exist for very long at all until prices rise to get back to equilibrium. There's no way around it.
    - WalterSear 11y ago
      >OK, then who gets to receive less value for their efforts so that others can receive more? That's what it boils down to. The administrators of the current welfare system, that currently costs us more that UBI would.