3 ms·

It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. The answer to the inflation problem is to basically ignore it. The result is that poor people have enough to live, and r

It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. The answer to the inflation problem is to basically ignore it. The result is that poor people have enough to live, and rich people have less buying power. That's not a bug: it's the entire point. Wealth concentration is the problem. Here in the US, the wealth owned by half of the population totals up to less than the total wealth of 50 people. Wealth concentration is beyond out of hand. It's destroying every facet of society.

lolinder 3y ago
> It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. I didn't say it was, I meant that too communicate "so this 2020 summary probably isn't missing much". Inflation in the last few years has been far worse for poor people than for the rich. Homes and rent are unaffordable. Groceries are coming in smaller and smaller (and emptier and emptier) packages for the same price. Wages at the lowest levels are stagnant, while CEO salaries continue to go up. Yachts do not inflate beyond the capabilities of the top 50, but inflation has put real pressure on the bottom X% of the population. Do we have reason to believe that UBI-caused inflation will be better targeted at the ultra-rich?
- JieJie 3y ago
  As one of the people impacted by losing the $150 a month extra SNAP (food stamp) money we were getting throughout the pandemic, inflation was barely noticeable while we were getting it. The effects of inflation became most noticeable when the extra $150 a month was ended, because the inflated prices never went down when the inflationary pressure was removed.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    But if the extra $150/mo were never removed and the inflationary pressure never let up, I would expect it to become noticeable eventually, and UBI would exert even more inflationary pressure than pandemic-era stimulus/welfare. When inflation does catch up to the UBI, do you just keep raising the UBI forever and ever? How does that not turn into hyperinflation?
    - JieJie 3y ago
      I'm working on a business degree to try to get back into the economy myself, so when I find out the answer to your questions, I'll let you know. I suspect the answer is very complicated and difficult to implement, but there is sufficient worldwide desire for some outcome that both supports the poor and disabled while not over-encumbering the rest of society in supporting us.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  I would argue that inflation has revealed an already-present problem: many people are expected to live just above the poverty line. When inflation inevitably moves that line, income must move with it proactively. We are watching that fail to happen, which I consider all the more reason to support UBI. Waiting for income to pick up the slack reactively leaves people behind the poverty line, and that's not OK.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I'm not saying we don't have a problem, but nothing you've said reassures me that UBI won't make everything worse. If you keep raising UBI to match inflation (which you'd have to do to fulfill the goal of eliminating poverty), how do you prevent that from turning into hyperinflation, where everyone's assets are completely devalued in a matter of decades? We need to do something to raise the poor into the middle class, but eliminating the middle class altogether in the process is neither politically viable nor (for me, subjectively) desirable.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      > how do you prevent that from turning into hyperinflation, where everyone's assets are completely devalued in a matter of decades? You are welcome to provide an answer. In the mean time, do we have to stop all progress in fear of that outcome? Just like you said, we need to do something. This is the best something I have heard of. You are welcome to present any potential alternatives. Here's what I envision happening: UBI causes inflation. UBI must increase to accommodate that inflation, because that is its original intended purpose anyway. If this was the whole story, then it would fail exactly as you predicted. Thankfully, it isn't, because there is one more variable in this equation: property value. When the rate of inflation increases, UBI must increase to accommodate two distinct assets: goods and housing. Goods are already at pretty tight margins, so their cost will stay roughly the same relative to inflation and wages. Housing, on the other hand, is incredibly over-valued. The cost of rent has skyrocketed, with no end in sight. By increasing both UBI and inflation, the relative value of housing should decrease. Cheaper housing means cheaper rent, which means less need to grow UBI. Eventually, this system finds an equilibrium. The problem we are seeing already is that despite ever-accelerating inflation, the rise in property value is also accelerating. This is because the wages of middle-class workers (everyone above the poverty line) has increased fast enough to accommodate it. That sounds like a good thing, until you think about the growing collection of people who are left behind the poverty line. By redistributing the general increase of wages into UBI, middle-class workers would get relatively less income. That means that middle-class workers would not be able to afford the ever-increasing cost of rent. That sounds like a bad thing until you see the solution it provides: the market for ever-increasing rent would evaporate. Property values would finally find a ceiling, and rent would stop consuming such an outsized percentage of general income. If you can find another way to slow the growth of property values, I'm all ears. If not, then let's give UBI a shot.

lolinder 3y ago

> It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. I didn't say it was, I meant that too communicate "so this 2020 summary probably isn't missing much". Inflation in the last few years has been far worse for poor people than for the rich. Homes and rent are unaffordable. Groceries are coming in smaller and smaller (and emptier and emptier) packages for the same price. Wages at the lowest levels are stagnant, while CEO salaries continue to go up. Yachts do not inflate beyond the capabilities of the top 50, but inflation has put real pressure on the bottom X% of the population. Do we have reason to believe that UBI-caused inflation will be better targeted at the ultra-rich?

JieJie 3y ago
As one of the people impacted by losing the $150 a month extra SNAP (food stamp) money we were getting throughout the pandemic, inflation was barely noticeable while we were getting it. The effects of inflation became most noticeable when the extra $150 a month was ended, because the inflated prices never went down when the inflationary pressure was removed.
- lolinder 3y ago
  But if the extra $150/mo were never removed and the inflationary pressure never let up, I would expect it to become noticeable eventually, and UBI would exert even more inflationary pressure than pandemic-era stimulus/welfare. When inflation does catch up to the UBI, do you just keep raising the UBI forever and ever? How does that not turn into hyperinflation?
  - JieJie 3y ago
    I'm working on a business degree to try to get back into the economy myself, so when I find out the answer to your questions, I'll let you know. I suspect the answer is very complicated and difficult to implement, but there is sufficient worldwide desire for some outcome that both supports the poor and disabled while not over-encumbering the rest of society in supporting us.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
I would argue that inflation has revealed an already-present problem: many people are expected to live just above the poverty line. When inflation inevitably moves that line, income must move with it proactively. We are watching that fail to happen, which I consider all the more reason to support UBI. Waiting for income to pick up the slack reactively leaves people behind the poverty line, and that's not OK.
- lolinder 3y ago
  I'm not saying we don't have a problem, but nothing you've said reassures me that UBI won't make everything worse. If you keep raising UBI to match inflation (which you'd have to do to fulfill the goal of eliminating poverty), how do you prevent that from turning into hyperinflation, where everyone's assets are completely devalued in a matter of decades? We need to do something to raise the poor into the middle class, but eliminating the middle class altogether in the process is neither politically viable nor (for me, subjectively) desirable.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    > how do you prevent that from turning into hyperinflation, where everyone's assets are completely devalued in a matter of decades? You are welcome to provide an answer. In the mean time, do we have to stop all progress in fear of that outcome? Just like you said, we need to do something. This is the best something I have heard of. You are welcome to present any potential alternatives. Here's what I envision happening: UBI causes inflation. UBI must increase to accommodate that inflation, because that is its original intended purpose anyway. If this was the whole story, then it would fail exactly as you predicted. Thankfully, it isn't, because there is one more variable in this equation: property value. When the rate of inflation increases, UBI must increase to accommodate two distinct assets: goods and housing. Goods are already at pretty tight margins, so their cost will stay roughly the same relative to inflation and wages. Housing, on the other hand, is incredibly over-valued. The cost of rent has skyrocketed, with no end in sight. By increasing both UBI and inflation, the relative value of housing should decrease. Cheaper housing means cheaper rent, which means less need to grow UBI. Eventually, this system finds an equilibrium. The problem we are seeing already is that despite ever-accelerating inflation, the rise in property value is also accelerating. This is because the wages of middle-class workers (everyone above the poverty line) has increased fast enough to accommodate it. That sounds like a good thing, until you think about the growing collection of people who are left behind the poverty line. By redistributing the general increase of wages into UBI, middle-class workers would get relatively less income. That means that middle-class workers would not be able to afford the ever-increasing cost of rent. That sounds like a bad thing until you see the solution it provides: the market for ever-increasing rent would evaporate. Property values would finally find a ceiling, and rent would stop consuming such an outsized percentage of general income. If you can find another way to slow the growth of property values, I'm all ears. If not, then let's give UBI a shot.