6 ms·

Even universal has winners and losers. How do you deal with different cost of livings between Bay Area and Mississippi? If the UBI is not adjusted and covers

Even universal has winners and losers. How do you deal with different cost of livings between Bay Area and Mississippi? If the UBI is not adjusted and covers living expenses in cheap areas but not expensive areas, then people might decide to live cheaply without a job. That risks creating slums. If it's adjusted to locality, then areas will grow and dwindle based on accuracy of those adjustment tables. Which would turn those tables overtly political.

alexbanks 6y ago
I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about UBI. Can you explain how our current society doesn't already have slums? Or how UB would increase them?
chillwaves 6y ago
People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. In fact, many would argue this is a benefit of UBI and will bring much needed economic resources to under populated parts of the country. Not everyone needs to live in the Bay Area. COL adjustment to UBI would be a huge mistake and undermine the entire concept.
- kenhwang 6y ago
  I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap. But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    But if everyone including those in the low COL area was getting UBI then it should equalize no?
    - kenhwang 6y ago
      I believe so, but the economic impact isn't well understood yet. The UBI experiments so far have shown that it does have an inflationary effect (which causes COL to go up), and at the same time, incomes decrease as secondary earners opt for UBI instead of working. People overall are much happier, but their financial situation gets worse.
  - exclusiv 6y ago
    Yes. Colorado hates on Texans for scooping up real estate and driving up prices and taxes. And Texans hate on Californians for scooping up their real estate. You can't have it all. And if you do, it won't last forever. Such is life.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Low COL areas are so widespread in practice that no real inflation would occur, even if all the money was spent there. Urban living is the kind that's scarce and expensive.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. I That's probably NOT what is going to happen if you implement UBI. Rather people complaining UBI is too low for the place they are currently living in. Well known phenomenon.
jbc1 6y ago
If you’re treating people wanting to live cheaply without a job as a negative situation that should be avoided, then I don’t think you’re in a mindset to be evaluating UBI specifics correctly. You should just be wholesale against it. The whole point is to free people from wage slavery. You’re worried that it will work! On an even broader level though, location caused cost of living differences being taken in to account in anything like this seems odd. I read it as the equivalent of “but what about people who want Ferrari’s not Honda’s!?” When it seems like others see it as “what about people who have expensive to treat medical conditions?” COL differences aren’t some arbitrary accident. You’re paying more to live somewhere more desirable.
- malandrew 6y ago
  "wage slavery" is such a disingenuous weasel word term. There's no slavery involved at all. Involvement is purely voluntary and you're free to leave at any time.
  - rapnie 6y ago
    And go to the food banks?
    - malandrew 6y ago
      - to food banks - to another job - to a friend or relative - to somewhere where they can farm or hunt/gather The mere existence of any options they can pursue at any time without permission is testament that it isn't slavery.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    Here we go again. People are not always in a position to leave a job. People are living paycheck to paycheck and not able to get other jobs. You're being disingenuous.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      "Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery Living paycheck-to-paycheck or hand-to-mouth like most humans lived for most of human history does not make one a slave. To state otherwise is to compare mere existence to slavery. Unless someone is an actual slave under bondage or with threat of coercion from another person, they are always in a position to leave a job. Doesn't mean they are free of consequences, like no longer getting money because they are no longer willfully trading their labor for compensation, the same way that someone farming the land will stop reaping the benefits of their labor once they stop engaging in farming behavior or if someone living as a hunter/gatherer will stop collecting sustenance when they stop hunting and gathering. At no point are any of those people slaves because no coercion is involved.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

alexbanks 6y ago

I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about UBI. Can you explain how our current society doesn't already have slums? Or how UB would increase them?

chillwaves 6y ago

People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. In fact, many would argue this is a benefit of UBI and will bring much needed economic resources to under populated parts of the country. Not everyone needs to live in the Bay Area. COL adjustment to UBI would be a huge mistake and undermine the entire concept.

kenhwang 6y ago
I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap. But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  But if everyone including those in the low COL area was getting UBI then it should equalize no?
  - kenhwang 6y ago
    I believe so, but the economic impact isn't well understood yet. The UBI experiments so far have shown that it does have an inflationary effect (which causes COL to go up), and at the same time, incomes decrease as secondary earners opt for UBI instead of working. People overall are much happier, but their financial situation gets worse.
- exclusiv 6y ago
  Yes. Colorado hates on Texans for scooping up real estate and driving up prices and taxes. And Texans hate on Californians for scooping up their real estate. You can't have it all. And if you do, it won't last forever. Such is life.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Low COL areas are so widespread in practice that no real inflation would occur, even if all the money was spent there. Urban living is the kind that's scarce and expensive.
ekianjo 6y ago
> People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. I That's probably NOT what is going to happen if you implement UBI. Rather people complaining UBI is too low for the place they are currently living in. Well known phenomenon.

jbc1 6y ago

If you’re treating people wanting to live cheaply without a job as a negative situation that should be avoided, then I don’t think you’re in a mindset to be evaluating UBI specifics correctly. You should just be wholesale against it. The whole point is to free people from wage slavery. You’re worried that it will work! On an even broader level though, location caused cost of living differences being taken in to account in anything like this seems odd. I read it as the equivalent of “but what about people who want Ferrari’s not Honda’s!?” When it seems like others see it as “what about people who have expensive to treat medical conditions?” COL differences aren’t some arbitrary accident. You’re paying more to live somewhere more desirable.

malandrew 6y ago
"wage slavery" is such a disingenuous weasel word term. There's no slavery involved at all. Involvement is purely voluntary and you're free to leave at any time.
- rapnie 6y ago
  And go to the food banks?
  - malandrew 6y ago
    - to food banks - to another job - to a friend or relative - to somewhere where they can farm or hunt/gather The mere existence of any options they can pursue at any time without permission is testament that it isn't slavery.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Here we go again. People are not always in a position to leave a job. People are living paycheck to paycheck and not able to get other jobs. You're being disingenuous.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    "Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery Living paycheck-to-paycheck or hand-to-mouth like most humans lived for most of human history does not make one a slave. To state otherwise is to compare mere existence to slavery. Unless someone is an actual slave under bondage or with threat of coercion from another person, they are always in a position to leave a job. Doesn't mean they are free of consequences, like no longer getting money because they are no longer willfully trading their labor for compensation, the same way that someone farming the land will stop reaping the benefits of their labor once they stop engaging in farming behavior or if someone living as a hunter/gatherer will stop collecting sustenance when they stop hunting and gathering. At no point are any of those people slaves because no coercion is involved.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]