3 ms·
Sure, but it's a very different baseline when you can afford basic needs instead of being homeless and hungry. The fact that some other people might feel "less
by adambyrtek 7y ago
Sure, but it's a very different baseline when you can afford basic needs instead of being homeless and hungry. The fact that some other people might feel "less rich" as a result shouldn't really be considered an issue.
- peteradio 7y agoI think maybe OPs point is that current prices for basics are based on some sort baseline ability to pay. If you increase that baseline then whats to stop basic prices to rise leaving everyone at that same point or maybe worse since other social services would get turned off?
- Pfhreak 7y agoRent control. Keeping other social programs like food stamps. There are ways to protect these dollars. They might not be popular, but they aren't inconceivable.
- anticensor 7y agoSome of those services would be so abundant that they would be free by nature of economics, not by subsidies. Others might get more expensive.
- adambyrtek 7y agoCompetition is what should keep prices at bay, assuming no significant change in cost of production and market with no monopoly. Actually, more automation should in the long term reduce prices in real terms.
- Kaiyou 7y agoIf everyone gets $2000 per month instead of 0$ per month just for existing, $2000 becomes the new zero. They won't suddenly be able to afford things. Instead, their rent may magically raise by $2000. In the end, scarcity will still exist for lots of things and if you give everyone more money, prices will just adjust. Also, if you are starving or homeless in a first world country the fault lies with you. There's so many social security in place, you just have to make use of it.