7 ms·

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/service

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.

ctdonath 9y ago
I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased. Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of homes which rather pointedly do not have jobs nearby - you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.
- billmalarky 9y ago
  >you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI. This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the market economy.
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution. Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then. ...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux. There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do, regardless of technological advancement, if only regulations weren't so oppressive.
    - incompatible 9y ago
      Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that, since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        In practice hardly anyone believes people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. If people actually believed that, then no one would purchase goods manufactured in Mexico, China, etc. Instead, it's more accurate to say that people don't want the inconvenience of actually seeing poor people.
        incompatible 9y ago
        Self-interest overrides politics in this case. Forcing employers to pay more is also likely to be preferable to helping the low-paid in a way that involved raising taxes.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Of course, but the overriding self interest here is wanting to not be inconvenienced by seeing the poor, not some altruistic idea that everyone who works a full week deserves a wealthy Western-style "living wage." Just starting with the notion that 70% of the world's population lives on less than $10 per day should shine some serious light on how silly the idea is that there's enough resources and money on the planet for everyone to live a lifestyle commensurate with Western "living wage." There's a lot of talk about the 1% lately... if you're in Australia, or America, etc. you're almost certainly in the global 1%, even if you're relatively "poor."
        incompatible 9y ago
        Shortage of money is never the issue, governments can print as much as they like. Supply of labour obviously isn't an issue either. The question is why this labour can't be used to produce goods and services in the way that Western countries manage to do, and the answers probably relate to education, poor practices in government and society such as corruption, or lack of capital (in the form of buildings, machinery, roads etc.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ctdonath 9y ago

I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased. Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of homes which rather pointedly do not have jobs nearby - you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.

billmalarky 9y ago
>you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI. This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the market economy.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution. Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then. ...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux. There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do, regardless of technological advancement, if only regulations weren't so oppressive.
  - incompatible 9y ago
    Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that, since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      In practice hardly anyone believes people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. If people actually believed that, then no one would purchase goods manufactured in Mexico, China, etc. Instead, it's more accurate to say that people don't want the inconvenience of actually seeing poor people.
      - incompatible 9y ago
        Self-interest overrides politics in this case. Forcing employers to pay more is also likely to be preferable to helping the low-paid in a way that involved raising taxes.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Of course, but the overriding self interest here is wanting to not be inconvenienced by seeing the poor, not some altruistic idea that everyone who works a full week deserves a wealthy Western-style "living wage." Just starting with the notion that 70% of the world's population lives on less than $10 per day should shine some serious light on how silly the idea is that there's enough resources and money on the planet for everyone to live a lifestyle commensurate with Western "living wage." There's a lot of talk about the 1% lately... if you're in Australia, or America, etc. you're almost certainly in the global 1%, even if you're relatively "poor."
        incompatible 9y ago
        Shortage of money is never the issue, governments can print as much as they like. Supply of labour obviously isn't an issue either. The question is why this labour can't be used to produce goods and services in the way that Western countries manage to do, and the answers probably relate to education, poor practices in government and society such as corruption, or lack of capital (in the form of buildings, machinery, roads etc.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]