3 ms·

UBI is probably not the antidote. UBI would not cover rent in many places and the existence of UBI would likely be yet another bullshit excuse for not addressin

UBI is probably not the antidote. UBI would not cover rent in many places and the existence of UBI would likely be yet another bullshit excuse for not addressing our housing issues. Address basics like our housing issues and universal healthcare and the need for bullshit jobs would go way down.

avereveard 4y ago
Even before going into the details of why ubi would not work, ubi on itself is a very dangerous proposition as it ties the survival of the lower classes to the whims and magnanimity of the ruling class. I think the perception window having shifted so hard that this is now acceptable is extremely dangerous to the survival of democracies, which were supposed to serve people.
- Teever 4y ago
  > it ties the survival of the lower classes to the whims and magnanimity of the ruling class. How exactly is this any different from the current status quo?
- csomar 4y ago
  > very dangerous proposition as it ties the survival of the lower classes to the whims and magnanimity of the ruling class UBI is very dangerous because it removes a basic right (that is not widely enjoyed, even today): The right to work. With UBI, peasants can't reclaim their right to work and trade. Government will yield massive control over its populace and have everyone on leash because UBI is the only revenue one can earn; that or a government job. Of course, every corporation will be nationalized or heavily regulated to come under the control of the state. Small/Medium businesses would have already disappeared by the time.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    In what country is there a true peasantry still? - beyond that quibble, government already wields massive control, professional licensing, zoning, building codes, safety regulations, business licensing - save for a man working as a subsistence farmer, on his own land, this right is already gone and has been for all of my lifetime - and most do not want to deal with the consequences of bringing it back.
Aloha 4y ago
UBI would cover rent for a great many in a vast swath of the country. It's not supposed to replace working, it's supposed to be a transfer from industries that employ no one but generate vast wealth, to people who work in industries where the marginal value created is less than cost of living. It's also designed to be a cushion for the poor, and replace the various administratively expensive great society programs with a single transfer benefit. Progressives hate it, because it doesn't solve all the problems, Conservatives hate it, because it offends their sense of propriety about government oughten do - and "gets in the way" of the labor market.
imtringued 4y ago
That would require abandoning the idea that land owners have special rights over people who don't have land. We used to tie voting rights to land ownership. We will have to abandon a lot more special rights to reach any form of equity.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  I don't believe it would. We've torn down about a million SROs* since WW2 and largely outlawed the creation of new Missing Middle housing. We used to build smaller scale housing in walkable neighborhoods as something of a default. Policy changes and the right financing options could help bring such back. * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

avereveard 4y ago

Even before going into the details of why ubi would not work, ubi on itself is a very dangerous proposition as it ties the survival of the lower classes to the whims and magnanimity of the ruling class. I think the perception window having shifted so hard that this is now acceptable is extremely dangerous to the survival of democracies, which were supposed to serve people.

Teever 4y ago
> it ties the survival of the lower classes to the whims and magnanimity of the ruling class. How exactly is this any different from the current status quo?
csomar 4y ago
> very dangerous proposition as it ties the survival of the lower classes to the whims and magnanimity of the ruling class UBI is very dangerous because it removes a basic right (that is not widely enjoyed, even today): The right to work. With UBI, peasants can't reclaim their right to work and trade. Government will yield massive control over its populace and have everyone on leash because UBI is the only revenue one can earn; that or a government job. Of course, every corporation will be nationalized or heavily regulated to come under the control of the state. Small/Medium businesses would have already disappeared by the time.
- Aloha 4y ago
  In what country is there a true peasantry still? - beyond that quibble, government already wields massive control, professional licensing, zoning, building codes, safety regulations, business licensing - save for a man working as a subsistence farmer, on his own land, this right is already gone and has been for all of my lifetime - and most do not want to deal with the consequences of bringing it back.

Aloha 4y ago

UBI would cover rent for a great many in a vast swath of the country. It's not supposed to replace working, it's supposed to be a transfer from industries that employ no one but generate vast wealth, to people who work in industries where the marginal value created is less than cost of living. It's also designed to be a cushion for the poor, and replace the various administratively expensive great society programs with a single transfer benefit. Progressives hate it, because it doesn't solve all the problems, Conservatives hate it, because it offends their sense of propriety about government oughten do - and "gets in the way" of the labor market.

imtringued 4y ago

That would require abandoning the idea that land owners have special rights over people who don't have land. We used to tie voting rights to land ownership. We will have to abandon a lot more special rights to reach any form of equity.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
I don't believe it would. We've torn down about a million SROs* since WW2 and largely outlawed the creation of new Missing Middle housing. We used to build smaller scale housing in walkable neighborhoods as something of a default. Policy changes and the right financing options could help bring such back. * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy