5 ms·

Wouldn't a UBI simply be inflationary? That is, rather than making 0 you make 1500 (say). But since everybody is making 1500, then it would be the same as makin

by sktrdie 12y ago

Wouldn't a UBI simply be inflationary? That is, rather than making 0 you make 1500 (say). But since everybody is making 1500, then it would be the same as making 0 again. So unless we have strict blocks on pricing things, UBI seems nonsensical.

glennsl 12y ago
I've heard this argument several times before, but I've never understood the reasoning behind it. No matter how you look at it, a basic income is redistribution of wealth. If we finance a basic income by just printing money, then yes it would be inflationary, and the value of the basic income, along with the currency as a whole, would depreciate. But it certainly wouldn't be eliminated, and wealth would have been redistributed. Printing money isn't the only way to finance a basic income, however. A much more sane approach is through effectivization, by eliminating bullshit jobs and (most) existing means-tested benefits, as well as increased taxation. There's nothing inflationary about this approach.
zo1 12y ago
At the very least, it skews peoples' motivations for work. I.e. Do nothing and get 1500, or work as a low-wage say woodcutter/garbage man, and get 1600. You're effectively doing a shitty 9-5 job so you can get 100 (or whatever $X) more than the guy next door doing nothing all day. People say that's liberating and "equality" for all, buy I say it's completely the opposite and directly unfair to a lot of people. And now that I re-read your post about it being an inflationary scenario, it makes more sense. All of a sudden, you have a reduction in individuals willing to do hard/hateful labor for a small amount more than basic income. This reduces their supply, and thus the salaries go up. Essentially, it sounds like it would make 1500 the new 0 as you put it. Not sure where to follow that train of thought further, though. Anyone care to continue it from there?
- glennsl 12y ago
  Yes, shitty jobs would actually pay well. That's hardly unfair is it? The labour market would become an actual free market, where prices are properly determined by supply and demand, not by "motivation for work", more aptly known as wage slavery.
- skybrian 12y ago
  There is some reduction in incentive to work, but the idea is that most people will still want more money so they'll keep working. Also you're assuming people have the right incentives today. Is working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet really what you want people to do? This is really about changing the relative negotiating power between employers and employees. Having some fallback income makes it easier to take time off to go to school, start a business, or find a better job. Also it goes right back into the economy as revenue for some business, so it's hard to see how it can be bad for business.
- alexhill 12y ago
  The point of a universal income is that everybody gets it, employed or not. It's not an unemployment benefit. The garbage man brings in 3100.
SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
It doesn't work that way. How could it possibly work that way? That would mean that the first item you buy each pay period would cost $1500 + its old price, and all other items were normally priced. Perhaps prices for all goods would rise, but you're still able to buy things, unlike the "making 0" scenario.

by sktrdie 12y ago

glennsl 12y ago

I've heard this argument several times before, but I've never understood the reasoning behind it. No matter how you look at it, a basic income is redistribution of wealth. If we finance a basic income by just printing money, then yes it would be inflationary, and the value of the basic income, along with the currency as a whole, would depreciate. But it certainly wouldn't be eliminated, and wealth would have been redistributed. Printing money isn't the only way to finance a basic income, however. A much more sane approach is through effectivization, by eliminating bullshit jobs and (most) existing means-tested benefits, as well as increased taxation. There's nothing inflationary about this approach.

zo1 12y ago

At the very least, it skews peoples' motivations for work. I.e. Do nothing and get 1500, or work as a low-wage say woodcutter/garbage man, and get 1600. You're effectively doing a shitty 9-5 job so you can get 100 (or whatever $X) more than the guy next door doing nothing all day. People say that's liberating and "equality" for all, buy I say it's completely the opposite and directly unfair to a lot of people. And now that I re-read your post about it being an inflationary scenario, it makes more sense. All of a sudden, you have a reduction in individuals willing to do hard/hateful labor for a small amount more than basic income. This reduces their supply, and thus the salaries go up. Essentially, it sounds like it would make 1500 the new 0 as you put it. Not sure where to follow that train of thought further, though. Anyone care to continue it from there?

glennsl 12y ago
Yes, shitty jobs would actually pay well. That's hardly unfair is it? The labour market would become an actual free market, where prices are properly determined by supply and demand, not by "motivation for work", more aptly known as wage slavery.
skybrian 12y ago
There is some reduction in incentive to work, but the idea is that most people will still want more money so they'll keep working. Also you're assuming people have the right incentives today. Is working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet really what you want people to do? This is really about changing the relative negotiating power between employers and employees. Having some fallback income makes it easier to take time off to go to school, start a business, or find a better job. Also it goes right back into the economy as revenue for some business, so it's hard to see how it can be bad for business.
alexhill 12y ago
The point of a universal income is that everybody gets it, employed or not. It's not an unemployment benefit. The garbage man brings in 3100.

SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago

It doesn't work that way. How could it possibly work that way? That would mean that the first item you buy each pay period would cost $1500 + its old price, and all other items were normally priced. Perhaps prices for all goods would rise, but you're still able to buy things, unlike the "making 0" scenario.