3 ms·

But how does it reduce inequality ? Isn't it just money and nothing else is solved ? Why wasnt the recipient rich in the first place ? Aren't there factors in h

by xwolfi 4y ago

But how does it reduce inequality ? Isn't it just money and nothing else is solved ? Why wasnt the recipient rich in the first place ? Aren't there factors in his initial state that 500$ a month won't fix and we risk having him mis-spend it just like he mispent everything else he earned up to now, ending in a state where everything is 500$ more expensive and he's still poor and others are still rich, shifted by 500$ ? You're a union representing factory workers, wont it be tempting to demand a 500$ raise for everyone ? And then all prices of the output of the factory would be shifted up in price to compensate ? If we look at what the american experiment did with their 1000$ cheque signed by Trump, didnt it do exactly that ? Isnt it true that the value of 500$ today depends on how hard it is to get in the first place, and if it's much easier, it becomes much less valuable ?

quxbar 4y ago
Guaranteed income is a form of stability, which changes the outlook of recipients far more radically than a one-time transfer. People are more likely to make plans that increase their productivity in the future, such as fixing vehicles, going back to school, or leaving under-employed situations. The price fixing you describe already happens as much as possible, that's what drives inflation. UBI lets people walk away from bad jobs and re-distributes agency so that nobody is trapped.
everfree 4y ago
> Aren't there factors in his initial state that 500$ a month won't fix On average, no. Most poor people are poor because their income is low, not because they are spendthrifts. > You're a union representing factory workers, wont it be tempting to demand a 500$ raise for everyone ? And then all prices of the output of the factory would be shifted up in price to compensate ? In a competitive industry typically the result is that the company posts lower profits for its shareholders, not that the widgets increase in price. > If we look at what the american experiment did with their 1000$ cheque signed by Trump, didnt it do exactly that ? Exactly what? Cause the average family to be $1000 poorer, putting them at break-even in the long run? That's not really true. > Isnt it true that the value of 500$ today depends on how hard it is to get in the first place, and if it's much easier, it becomes much less valuable ? Yes, the problem is that the money is too easy for the wealthy to get. I won't tell you exactly how often I receive $500 dividends in my brokerage account, but every time without fail I still think to myself "wow, free $500, I can't believe I received that by doing absolutely no work."

by xwolfi 4y ago

quxbar 4y ago

Guaranteed income is a form of stability, which changes the outlook of recipients far more radically than a one-time transfer. People are more likely to make plans that increase their productivity in the future, such as fixing vehicles, going back to school, or leaving under-employed situations. The price fixing you describe already happens as much as possible, that's what drives inflation. UBI lets people walk away from bad jobs and re-distributes agency so that nobody is trapped.

everfree 4y ago

> Aren't there factors in his initial state that 500$ a month won't fix On average, no. Most poor people are poor because their income is low, not because they are spendthrifts. > You're a union representing factory workers, wont it be tempting to demand a 500$ raise for everyone ? And then all prices of the output of the factory would be shifted up in price to compensate ? In a competitive industry typically the result is that the company posts lower profits for its shareholders, not that the widgets increase in price. > If we look at what the american experiment did with their 1000$ cheque signed by Trump, didnt it do exactly that ? Exactly what? Cause the average family to be $1000 poorer, putting them at break-even in the long run? That's not really true. > Isnt it true that the value of 500$ today depends on how hard it is to get in the first place, and if it's much easier, it becomes much less valuable ? Yes, the problem is that the money is too easy for the wealthy to get. I won't tell you exactly how often I receive $500 dividends in my brokerage account, but every time without fail I still think to myself "wow, free $500, I can't believe I received that by doing absolutely no work."