3 ms·

Employers reducing your pay by X while you receive X from UBI would be the "good outcome" because it means that you don't depend on the employer as much as befo

Employers reducing your pay by X while you receive X from UBI would be the "good outcome" because it means that you don't depend on the employer as much as before. If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000. Services and goods have not decreased in price, and I contend they will increase, resulting in absolutely zero positive affect. So what if you don’t have to depend on that employer for that extra thousand dollars, you’re depending on the government now. Which is better, depending on the government, or the free market Services and goods have not decreased in price, and I contend they will increase, resulting in absolutely zero positive affect. So what if you don’t have to depend on that employer for that extra thousand dollars, you’re depending on the government now. Which is better, depending on the government, or the free market?

tgb 6y ago
I don't understand what your comment is saying, sorry. If total income stays the same, why is the price of the Camry increasing? The point of not depending on the employer is that you can quit a bad job, start a company, etc with much less risk.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  The question you should be asking is this: If total income stays the same, why would the price of the Camry NOT INCREASE? Is there any situation you can think of where there is more cash in the system and the price of goods decreases?
licebmi__at__ 6y ago
>If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000 I often argue that the markets do not optimize for the right outcomes, thus not so great, but even I do not think they are that stupid nor inefficient. If your standard of living has not improved (by your previous argument), why would the markets raise the price for the Toyota Camry? So they get less sales? Why would the workers agree to do the same work for less even if they are gettin extra money? An UBI will definitely shift the markets and maybe not in a good way, but that analysis seems so absurd that I consider even calling it an oversimplification to be too generous.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Because your standard of living doesn't matter. Who would get a UBI? Someone making less than 30k? 50k? If you're already making $80k a year you don't worry about price fluctuations as much. but if you're only making $22k a year, and the government decides you get an extra $600 a year, business will factor that into their pricing models. A Macbook might not go up by $600, but your rent, food, entertainment, gasoline, etc. can and probably will. This is why you can never tell a car dealer how much money you have to spend, because they are going to do everything they can to squeeze every last dime out of you. a UBI makes that WAY easier. Quick credit check, how much do you make, oh only $28k. You must be getting a UBI. Let's make sure we factor that into the price they will pay. The only way a UBI works is everyone agrees not to screw people over, and that has never, ever, happened in the history of mankind. So why will it suddenly work for a UBI?
tomp 6y ago
Your BATNAA of working vs. not working goes from $0 to $1000 for not working, so the employer likely has to pay you more than $1000 (to make your total income above $2000) to motivate you to work. I oppose UBI but your arguments are poor refutation.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  So wait...you're saying I can get money by simply not working?! Amazing! Sign me up. All the while what happens to prices and costs? Do they stagnate just because I'm not working and getting free money? No. They are going to increase and maximize the price curve, which means I'm not getting $1000 to not work, I'm getting $1000 to give to other people to not work and be left with essentially zero. UBI is theoretical and depends a lot on good will and everyone being treated fairly and equal. When has that EVER happened?
  - tomp 6y ago
    I agree which is why I don’t support UBI. But these are better arguments than what was presented in the original comment I was replying to.

tgb 6y ago

I don't understand what your comment is saying, sorry. If total income stays the same, why is the price of the Camry increasing? The point of not depending on the employer is that you can quit a bad job, start a company, etc with much less risk.

Simulacra 6y ago
The question you should be asking is this: If total income stays the same, why would the price of the Camry NOT INCREASE? Is there any situation you can think of where there is more cash in the system and the price of goods decreases?

licebmi__at__ 6y ago

>If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000 I often argue that the markets do not optimize for the right outcomes, thus not so great, but even I do not think they are that stupid nor inefficient. If your standard of living has not improved (by your previous argument), why would the markets raise the price for the Toyota Camry? So they get less sales? Why would the workers agree to do the same work for less even if they are gettin extra money? An UBI will definitely shift the markets and maybe not in a good way, but that analysis seems so absurd that I consider even calling it an oversimplification to be too generous.

Simulacra 6y ago
Because your standard of living doesn't matter. Who would get a UBI? Someone making less than 30k? 50k? If you're already making $80k a year you don't worry about price fluctuations as much. but if you're only making $22k a year, and the government decides you get an extra $600 a year, business will factor that into their pricing models. A Macbook might not go up by $600, but your rent, food, entertainment, gasoline, etc. can and probably will. This is why you can never tell a car dealer how much money you have to spend, because they are going to do everything they can to squeeze every last dime out of you. a UBI makes that WAY easier. Quick credit check, how much do you make, oh only $28k. You must be getting a UBI. Let's make sure we factor that into the price they will pay. The only way a UBI works is everyone agrees not to screw people over, and that has never, ever, happened in the history of mankind. So why will it suddenly work for a UBI?

tomp 6y ago

Your BATNAA of working vs. not working goes from $0 to $1000 for not working, so the employer likely has to pay you more than $1000 (to make your total income above $2000) to motivate you to work. I oppose UBI but your arguments are poor refutation.

Simulacra 6y ago
So wait...you're saying I can get money by simply not working?! Amazing! Sign me up. All the while what happens to prices and costs? Do they stagnate just because I'm not working and getting free money? No. They are going to increase and maximize the price curve, which means I'm not getting $1000 to not work, I'm getting $1000 to give to other people to not work and be left with essentially zero. UBI is theoretical and depends a lot on good will and everyone being treated fairly and equal. When has that EVER happened?
- tomp 6y ago
  I agree which is why I don’t support UBI. But these are better arguments than what was presented in the original comment I was replying to.