8 ms·

Claims are misleading, wrong, and unsupported. > Demand for goods increases. Citation needed. Demand for some goods will possibly decrease: like payday loans

Claims are misleading, wrong, and unsupported. > Demand for goods increases. Citation needed. Demand for some goods will possibly decrease: like payday loans or bankruptcy law. Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, private jets. But even the demand for Big Macs probably won't change all that much. Apply the same exercise to a bunch of other sundry cases: buying a house, life-saving medication, buying a smartphone. You will quickly realize that you cannot categorically state that "demand for goods increases". And more precisely, it is almost impossible to demonstrate that demand will increase the same amount for all kinds of goods. You really need to investigate how much demand will increase for each particular kind of good. > Supply diminishes. Citation needed. One thing for which supply will likely diminish: consumer debt assets. Since presumably the introduction of basic income will lead to a decrease in consumer debt. But "goods" in general? What basis do you have for saying this? > Nobody will do the crap jobs without higher pay, raising the price of everything. Citation needed. Business owners are very interested in replacing crap jobs with automation. Also, in general, the crappiest jobs today are done by illegal immigrants, who presumably wouldn't be receiving basic income in the future.

DougN7 10y ago
More people buying stuff increases demand - econ 101. If more people aren't buying stuff, why bother giving them the money? Of course prices will rise. The only way this isn't equivalent to the government printing money is the money comes out some rich people/company's savings accounts where it wasn't being spent anyway.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  We are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else they get too expensive. And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.
  - srssays 10y ago
    Everybody understands that UBI is a solution to meeting "basic" needs, the contentious part is the "universal". I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.
    - jganetsk 10y ago
      What is the difference between money "you don't need" and money you do need? If, instead of receiving basic income, you received a pay raise, is that money you do or don't need? Money "you don't need" is an economic absurdity. The only people who double their cheese consumption are people who really like cheese. And if basic income helps you and others truly express their passion for cheese, more power to you. Poor people will eat something else.
      - Qantourisc 10y ago
        Simply put: I _want_ a new car but I _need_ to eat.
        jganetsk 10y ago
        What's the difference, from an economic standpoint? The original poster is saying that some people want cheese and other people need cheese, therefore the people who need cheese will not get what they don't need? There's something absurd in this argument. No one's going to double their cheese consumption, just because they got money "they don't need", and no one is going to starve because the price of cheese went up. But also, whatever problem we think we are debating here, it exists with or without basic income.
        jbmorgado 10y ago
        To clarify my point (although from what you wrote I think you got it right): The argument that "basic needs" prices will rise (which was what my OP gave) because of UBI must be false, since being "basic needs", they already must be provided to anyone anyway. In any case, even if a big part of the population didn't had access to "basic needs" the argument would be that: "we can't allow them to have those basic needs or else their price will increase to the rest of us". Than that, is morally wrong. I hope now it is totally clear what I meant above.
- jganetsk 10y ago
  It seems like you read neither my post nor the article itself. The article was proposing redistribution of income, so it's definitely NOT equivalent to the government printing money. And in my post, I listed several cases of stuff people will buy less of and other stuff people will not buy more of in a basic income society.
  - tomp 10y ago
    I'm not sure if you're purposefully ignoring the main issues with UBI, but in case you're not: the most important stuff (things like food, rent, clothing, energy, medicine, basic services) will have more demand (from all the people who can't afford these right now), and less supply (because a lot of these are done with low-paid labour - definitely clothing, food and basic services, along with things like garbage collection and construction). This will completely change how the society works.
    - boomboomsubban 10y ago
      So if the supply of low paid labor drops, and the demand rises, the value of low paid labor increases. The reason those jobs have been filled with low paid labor is the workers had no other choice. In this situation they'd end up well rewarded for their work, and those workers with more spending power has traditionally been great for the economy. Lot's of things have completely changed how society works, why shouldn't society change?
    - lotharbot 10y ago
      > "people who can't afford these right now" ... but are still getting those things through means-tested programs, for the most part. The UBI doesn't mean more people get fed; it means fewer strings attached to where they choose to live and what food they choose to eat and whether they can get a side job to supplement (google "welfare cliff".)
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Supply for food would increase. Because resources are being taken away from rich people and given to poor people. Less Yachts, more food factories. Increased demand CAUSES increased supply.
- eviltandem 10y ago
  Sure - if you assume these goods have a fixed quantity. For example, I'm willing to bet McDonald's is capable of making many, many, many more big macs than they currently do. They've simply pegged their supply chain to the amount of demand they currently see while minimizing costs and trying to optimize profit. Almost all industries get significant savings the larger they scale. There's very real reason to think many industries would get cheaper if they were suddenly trying to produce a multiple of the same product.
sokoloff 10y ago
> Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, private jets. Are you sure about that? Who will be bearing the tax burden to pay for UBI? Are not those the people who are currently buying yachts and private jets? Business jet usage may decline as well as a substantial part of that usage is to generate income and growth for their businesses. With higher taxes, there is less incentive to risk money to grow your business further, putting negative pressure on business aviation.
- jganetsk 10y ago
  It is unlikely that the kind of income tax increase suggested in the article will have a material impact on the extremely wealthy. But that's beside the point. I was trying to answer the claim that "demand for goods will only go up" with examples of goods where demand stays the same or goes down. So whether demand for luxury goods stays the same or goes down, you are only reinforcing my point.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Ug, you don't get it. The resources that are being spent on luxury goods will be converted to resources spent on food. That's called economics 101. Supply and demand. If you take money away from rich people, they will have less money to spend on rich people things, and the world will produce less of those things.

DougN7 10y ago

More people buying stuff increases demand - econ 101. If more people aren't buying stuff, why bother giving them the money? Of course prices will rise. The only way this isn't equivalent to the government printing money is the money comes out some rich people/company's savings accounts where it wasn't being spent anyway.

jbmorgado 10y ago
We are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else they get too expensive. And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.
- srssays 10y ago
  Everybody understands that UBI is a solution to meeting "basic" needs, the contentious part is the "universal". I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.
  - jganetsk 10y ago
    What is the difference between money "you don't need" and money you do need? If, instead of receiving basic income, you received a pay raise, is that money you do or don't need? Money "you don't need" is an economic absurdity. The only people who double their cheese consumption are people who really like cheese. And if basic income helps you and others truly express their passion for cheese, more power to you. Poor people will eat something else.
    - Qantourisc 10y ago
      Simply put: I _want_ a new car but I _need_ to eat.
      - jganetsk 10y ago
        What's the difference, from an economic standpoint? The original poster is saying that some people want cheese and other people need cheese, therefore the people who need cheese will not get what they don't need? There's something absurd in this argument. No one's going to double their cheese consumption, just because they got money "they don't need", and no one is going to starve because the price of cheese went up. But also, whatever problem we think we are debating here, it exists with or without basic income.
        jbmorgado 10y ago
        To clarify my point (although from what you wrote I think you got it right): The argument that "basic needs" prices will rise (which was what my OP gave) because of UBI must be false, since being "basic needs", they already must be provided to anyone anyway. In any case, even if a big part of the population didn't had access to "basic needs" the argument would be that: "we can't allow them to have those basic needs or else their price will increase to the rest of us". Than that, is morally wrong. I hope now it is totally clear what I meant above.
jganetsk 10y ago
It seems like you read neither my post nor the article itself. The article was proposing redistribution of income, so it's definitely NOT equivalent to the government printing money. And in my post, I listed several cases of stuff people will buy less of and other stuff people will not buy more of in a basic income society.
- tomp 10y ago
  I'm not sure if you're purposefully ignoring the main issues with UBI, but in case you're not: the most important stuff (things like food, rent, clothing, energy, medicine, basic services) will have more demand (from all the people who can't afford these right now), and less supply (because a lot of these are done with low-paid labour - definitely clothing, food and basic services, along with things like garbage collection and construction). This will completely change how the society works.
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    So if the supply of low paid labor drops, and the demand rises, the value of low paid labor increases. The reason those jobs have been filled with low paid labor is the workers had no other choice. In this situation they'd end up well rewarded for their work, and those workers with more spending power has traditionally been great for the economy. Lot's of things have completely changed how society works, why shouldn't society change?
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    > "people who can't afford these right now" ... but are still getting those things through means-tested programs, for the most part. The UBI doesn't mean more people get fed; it means fewer strings attached to where they choose to live and what food they choose to eat and whether they can get a side job to supplement (google "welfare cliff".)
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Supply for food would increase. Because resources are being taken away from rich people and given to poor people. Less Yachts, more food factories. Increased demand CAUSES increased supply.
eviltandem 10y ago
Sure - if you assume these goods have a fixed quantity. For example, I'm willing to bet McDonald's is capable of making many, many, many more big macs than they currently do. They've simply pegged their supply chain to the amount of demand they currently see while minimizing costs and trying to optimize profit. Almost all industries get significant savings the larger they scale. There's very real reason to think many industries would get cheaper if they were suddenly trying to produce a multiple of the same product.

sokoloff 10y ago

> Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, private jets. Are you sure about that? Who will be bearing the tax burden to pay for UBI? Are not those the people who are currently buying yachts and private jets? Business jet usage may decline as well as a substantial part of that usage is to generate income and growth for their businesses. With higher taxes, there is less incentive to risk money to grow your business further, putting negative pressure on business aviation.

jganetsk 10y ago
It is unlikely that the kind of income tax increase suggested in the article will have a material impact on the extremely wealthy. But that's beside the point. I was trying to answer the claim that "demand for goods will only go up" with examples of goods where demand stays the same or goes down. So whether demand for luxury goods stays the same or goes down, you are only reinforcing my point.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Ug, you don't get it. The resources that are being spent on luxury goods will be converted to resources spent on food. That's called economics 101. Supply and demand. If you take money away from rich people, they will have less money to spend on rich people things, and the world will produce less of those things.