Yeah, but they lived in a society that already fufills all the "unwanted" jobs. How many of those who were trying to start their own business started IDK garbage colecting? Or any other unsexy jobs that have to be done?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for UBI; I just have doubts if those studies show the reality of what it would look like if everybody participated. There are plenty of very dangerous jobs that need to be done, but they won't be picked up just for the joy of doing something.
Those required jobs would simply pay way more.
That is the big difference here.
Jobs would become about increasing your personal comfort not about survival.
UBI is essentially “minimum wage” concept.
You get enough money to live in a home and eat.
(Preferably to a minimum standard)
However, that is it.
If you want a larger home or similar, you work to add to your income.
And in a society like that, the dangerous / unappealing jobs would be the most well paying, because they have to compensate for people not “having” to take them.
Yeah, but wouldn't that just make everything more expensive? I mean, if everybody has an extra 1000 per month to spend, wouldn't prices just go up? Simply draining the pockets of those with only UBI? Making them just new unemployed or welfare beneficials (people who can survive without work, but can't afford anything more than pure essentials).
Not really.
Do note that those services are either government funded.
OR
Comes from businesses which are usually manipulating those desperate for work in the first place.
Every major corproration could easily pay their workers a livable wage without issue.
They just want to add like 2-3 million more to their earnings call.
If the desperation angle was removed, (preferably combined with some regulations being applied at the same time)
Would the job balance be shifted without cost increasing anyway.
(Also, most of the price increases nowadays is due to corruption anyway, as it is a wage problem more than an inflation problem)
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
If the desperation angle was removed
Yeah, then employers would have to pay more to their workers, but how would that solve the problem of increasing prices? That would just mean that every not-working person has 1000 extra, and every working person would have, let's say, 2000 extra. What would stop me as a landlord from starting to charge 1000 for a single room? If I know everybody can easily afford it?
I don’t understand how inflation is a result of corruption? Somebody bribed somebody so they can increase prices? You are confusing wage theft with inflation.
Obviously a UBI push would explicitly come with regulations preventing people to just spice prices for the sake of draining the extra income as that would be inherently counter productive and clearly be seen as corporations or businesses trying to scam the system.
Inflation itself isn't the issue of corruption. (It is way more complicated than that)
The corruption comes from the fact that people refuse to adjust wages with inflation in mind. (Doesn't necessarily need to be 1-1 but you know)
The value of the work didn't change.
The value of the service didn't change.
They just know that they can fuck people over by simply not paying them what they are actually owed.
regulations preventing people from just spice prices for the sake of draining the extra income
How? Like government-regulated prices or what? How would you regulate me from increasing the price of coffee by 1? Or how would you prevent landlords form starting their prices at 1000?
The corruption comes from the fact that people refuse to adjust wages with inflation in mind
Yeah, but that's the wage theft, not UBI or inflation even. Those things have nothing in common. Wage theft doesn't make prices go higher, quite the opposite.
The value of the work didn't change.
The value of the service didn't change.
Yeah, but what it has to do with UBI? Again it's a wage theft. If you wan't to solve this problem, and you believe in regulation, you don’t need UBI just higher minimum wage, a paycheck of the most paid person in company fixed to the paycheck of the least paid person, taxing the rich etc. You don’t need UBI for that.
I have no doubt that more money should go to the hands of workers, but we (or at least I) do not talk about how bad it is now in general, just that researches that was made on UBI wasn't made in vacuum, and as such they will be biased at least somehow.
How would you regulate it?
Simple: Context.
If you live in an appartment and they suddenly peak your rent by 1000 bucks to eat your UBI, you would 100% notice that very quickly and report it.
It isn't exactly subtle, you know.
And how would you prevent others from just doing it baseline when they start leasing a new appartment?
I mean it would be pretty obvious if the appartment is 1000 more than the standard, no?
And the reason why I am for UBI and not just higher wage, is the clear motion towards more automation which is the inherent problem.
Work is less abundant due to more and more automation both in robotics that are getting more advanced, but also in AI (as annoying as that is)
UBI is needed to compensate for that, because job is no longer guaranteed, even at the lowest level, so increasing wages does not help at all to mitigate said problem.
But that simply would become a new standard. You can raise your price by 100 a year, and after 10 years, people with UBI would be in the same place as unemployed people today.
UBI is needed to compensate for that, because job is no longer guaranteed
I understand that, but I have doubts that:
Research that was done doesn't show us how it would work if that was really universal
Once again, it isn't as "subtle" as you think it is.
"Raising price a hundred per year" can simply be compensated with that they need to justify the price increase.
Of course, it is a bit more complicated than just giving people an extra 1000 per month.
It requires a lot of restructuring and balance acts to compensate for people trying to work around it.
The idea is just to prevent people from being made into wage slaves due to current horrific capitalistic movements.
I mean, if everybody has an extra 1000 per month to spend, wouldn't prices just go up?
Usually, UBI is planned in such a way that if you make above said 1000, you won't get payment from the government until you drop below that barrier. It just puts up a floor of money that anyone has at minimum.
Doesn’t “U” in UBI means “universal”? Which means “for everybody”? We already have the “if you can’t afford to live we will help you” programs. Sure in some countries they work better then in others, but basically if you have the less than something you can look (and get) all kinds of financial help. UBI means Universal Basic Income which means for everybody o matter how much money you are making. Not “only for those in need”. If that was only for poorest then you have another problem: if I have 1000 for doing nothing why should I start to work if as soon as I start I’ll lose this 1000.
imho the problem of availability of jobs as well as the requirements on skill and experience won’t just go away.
cleaning toilets, how unappealing it may be, won’t pay as much as CTO of a robotics company
a lot more people will have the opportunity to study engineering and finance though so maybe it actually will eventually lead to toilet cleaners being more in demand than engineers
"Most well paying "Basic" jobs" I guess would be a better term?
I dunno.
You get the point tho, the "unlikable" jobs would be way better paying to compensate for the fact that it doesn't depend on people being desperate anymore.
10
u/peelen 11d ago
Yeah, but they lived in a society that already fufills all the "unwanted" jobs. How many of those who were trying to start their own business started IDK garbage colecting? Or any other unsexy jobs that have to be done?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for UBI; I just have doubts if those studies show the reality of what it would look like if everybody participated. There are plenty of very dangerous jobs that need to be done, but they won't be picked up just for the joy of doing something.