this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
312 points (91.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

29645 readers
1145 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PostProcess@lemmy.world 76 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Studies in motivational theory have been around for years which generally agree that at a very basic level people need security first, not necessarily to motivate but to be in a position to be motivated. Repeatedly pay has been proven to be a poor motivator over time. By removing the basic insecurity that people face, you give them a chance to focus on actual motivating factors like job satisfaction, self-worth and realisation.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am on parental leave right now and doing chores around the house never have been more fun and fulfilling.

I don't have to think about work, we have enough money to not worry about being short at the end of the parental leave. I can concentrate on what is important right now (my family) and not worry about the rest.

If you don't have to worry about basic things of life, you will find a fullfilling purpose. But the system as set up right now is a scam and people are increasingly squeezed for basic necessities, so they can't afford to have a purpose.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 73 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I want UBI so all the lazy motherfuckers who don't want to work get out of the fucking way. Sit at home in front of your TVs cramming doritos down your gullet all day for all I care, just as long as you aren't half passing whatever job you're doing and creating problems for me.

[–] EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago (5 children)

That is a very unique take And a very very good argument to people against it

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sekrayray@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago (9 children)

The sad thing about UBI in places like the US is they further systematic change needs to happen prior to UBI being implemented.

If you have UBI added on to our current capitalist hellscape (since UBI rates will be publicly known) landlords and corporations will just hike prices to make life cost just as much as UBI—therefore forcing people to work for any scrap above that. So essentially UBI will be fed back into corporations/the elite, who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 10 months ago (18 children)

who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities

If someone can afford basic necessities, they aren't going to choose to work three jobs at minimum wage where they are treated badly, forcing an improvement in pay/conditions to find any workers. As for setting prices arbitrarily, that isn't actually possible except where a monopoly is held, the idea that supply and demand influences price is not a myth. Having money and the choice of how to spend it does actually give you additional agency and leverage, and UBI would serve as a form of redistribution if it is funded by taxes of some kind.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 54 points 10 months ago (4 children)

UBI on it's own is not a problem for me. Where I take issue is when politicians say "we'll give you cash instead of these social safety net programs". I think you have to have a mix of UBI and social safety net programs. It's all about raising the floor of the lowest living conditions we'll allow and right now, in America at least, we have too many rich people and too many poor people. A UBI of $1000/month doesn't help a person stuck in an ICU for months at a time and will just discharge to a SNF/LTAC facility.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago (8 children)

UBI would not replace the need for universal healthcare.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ZOD_RUNES@sh.itjust.works 47 points 10 months ago (13 children)

I've always wanted UBI to be a thing but after a discussion with my brother I'm second guessing it. His argument is that corporations will just increase their prices and not much would change.

He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE'S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc..

I know it's easier said than done but I'm just worried that billionaires will fuck up UBI like they fuck up everything else.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 53 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He's assuming infinite elasticity, which isn't how prices work in real life.

The typical version of this argument is that the people who are being taxed in the first place are the ones increasing rents. In which case taxes can then be increased until the desired equilibrium is achieved.

That's not to say we couldn't also provide a basic safety net like he describes. But that raises the question of why UBI should stop there. If our economy can generate a surplus, then why shouldn't all humans sharing their slice of the Earth get it?

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE’S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc…

That is the entire purpose of UBI. Literally.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

No he's altering who has the cash.

In his discussion he means:

  • if the customer is given free cash, corporations might jack up prices to get some of it.

  • if the customer has free healthcare, the corporation doesn't see any "free cash" they can get some of. Of course they're aware the customer should be spending less on necessities like healthcare, but they aren't necessarily bringing home more than they were last month, they're just retaining more.

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Yup that’s a common critique of UBI. Landlords will jack up rent and end up hovering a huge amount of the benefits. Your landlord knows you’re all of a sudden making $12k more per year? Welcome to your new $10k rent hike.

For UBI to function we need basic price controls or necessities provided for before it makes any sense to introduce.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] klaus_the_fish@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As one implementation of that, a UBI can simplify the complexities of the existing safety net systems and smooth the welfare cliff.

I no longer need to pay for low income housing (I can just get some money and rent something), I'm no longer restricted by what an EBT card can buy (I just get money), I don't need to qualify for XYZ niche benefit (I just get some money), etc. And that money could more easily be adjusted/reduced as my income grows which smooths the welfare cliff.

It also frees up a ton of money that was previously used to manage the existing complex systems and allows more efficient spending.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Corps would just find a way to be the ones to supplies those basic needs. They would still inflate prices and deliver substandard results.

Capitalism is the problem

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 46 points 10 months ago (2 children)

All you people thinking prices will just go up have already been poisoned by billionaire propaganda.

It's not

  • Nobby Nomoney £0 > £10k a year

  • Sammy Scrapesby £20k > £30k a year

  • Maddie Medianearner £38k > £48k a year

  • Billy Billionaire £1m > £1.01m a year

The median earners will have tax adjusted so they earn about the same. The lower earners will get more. The high earners will get less. You'll have pretty much the same amount of money sloshing around the system, it'll just be in the hands of the people who need it.

  • Nobby Nomoney £0 > £10k a year

  • Sammy Scrapesby £20k > £27k a year

  • Maddie Medianearner £38k > £38k a year

  • Billy Billionaire £1m > £700k a year

Guess which of those doesn't want this to happen.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Those billionaires aren't paying rent. Rent increases are what most people are worried about with UBI. If the lower earners suddenly have more money that the landlords know about, they are definitely going to hike up rent until we are back to square 1. Those billionaires will just claw that money back. UBI doesn't make sense until we have more regulations in place for price control.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

It seems like a reasonable expectation, but do you have any studies or other evidence that it happens? The studies I've seen generally say things like "Evidence has not appeared for commonly hypothesized potential adverse social and economic consequences of UBI."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 39 points 10 months ago

If they need a purpose, they'll find it much easier when they don't have to worry about basic fuckin' survival.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it is contradictory.

I'm gonna spin an anecdote here.

My main job for the first twenty years of my adult life was as a nurse's assistant.

It wore out my body early, and I've been disabled because of that almost as long .

I got paid shit for doing it. Many of my coworkers were shit because of the bad pay, but it was the still the best job they could get, so the job tended to be split unevenly between people that were willing to bust their ass taking care of other people, and a minority that shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a patient for one reason or another.

UBI? I would have still shown up. I would have done the job with joy in my heart. I wood have been happier because I would have been able to take breaks between patient deaths to grieve. I would have been able to leave shitty businesses sooner and fight to have them changed when they made choices against patient interests instead of being a disposable helper monkey that nobody would listen to.

It's true that I would not have put up with bullshit idiots in administration. I would not have worn myself into a nub just to barely make enough to survive and then still need side jobs.

With UBI I could have done more, better, and not have had to destroy myself in the process. It would have been a reason to work that job. It would have meant the freedom to do the job better because I wouldn't have been forced to work to survive when I was blatantly and obviously unable to give my best.

And, even if UBI was the only money I got, I would have at least done the job part time because it was my purpose in life. I made helping people my purpose, no matter what it cost me. Why the fuck wouldn't I have done the same when I didn't have to eat shit to do it?

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

It’s true that I would not have put up with bullshit idiots in administration.

This is, on some level, exactly what they are worried about.

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Precisely what they are worried about.

From a capitalist perspective it's ideal if your workers are on the verge of poverty, living paycheck to paycheck. That's exactly where you want them.

People in that situation won't complain. Won't stand up for themselves or their rights. Will take poor treatment and deal with it. Will work in unethical or even illegal ways and keep quiet because they have no choice.

Even better if you can tie people's health insurance to their job, then you've really got them by the balls.

UBI would put an end to all that, so it's no wonder business owners would lobby against it.

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

From a capitalist perspective it’s ideal if your workers are on the verge of poverty, living paycheck to paycheck. That’s exactly where you want them.

People in that situation won’t complain. Won’t stand up for themselves or their rights. Will take poor treatment and deal with it. Will work in unethical or even illegal ways and keep quiet because they have no choice.

Even better if you can tie people’s health insurance to their job, then you’ve really got them by the balls.

I've got a pretty decent job, and earn pretty good money. But I'm the only earner in a family of four and no, we haven't made all the best financial decisions at times.

What you have described is exactly where we live, and while there isn't that much I want to stand up to at work in the first place, 100% I don't make any waves that don't have a basis in the hard facts of my job, and for this very reason. I'd like to go in an ask for a merit based raise, I'd like to fight harder for more people to be hired in our (spread very thin) department, and there are a few other things I'd like to at least ask for and feel OK about standing firm on.

But I don't, because I don't want to jeopardize what I've got.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Bingo! "If we make it easier for you to survive, you will become harder to take advantage of"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 31 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I think what they're trying to say is nobody will want to work shit jobs for next to no pay.

I don't see how that's a bad thing except for employers. If the job is worth doing, the money should be worth it too. People shouldn't be forced to do shitty/dangerous jobs just to survive.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Ignoring their ideas entirely, it's incredibly simple. There are two options.

  1. No ubi. Eventually AI automates all jobs, the 1% becomes virtually omnipotent, and everyone else dies.

  2. Ubi. Some of the profits earned by companies are funneled into the ubi system. As such, everyone has income. The economy booms, everyone thrives, and we reach post scarcity.

[–] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (6 children)

We've already reached post scarcity. Any current scarcity is manufactured.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 18 points 10 months ago (29 children)

My issue with it is that you haven’t run trials with people min-maxing how to squeeze people for their UBI checks. As a start, just raising rent until it eats all the UBI

[–] Landmammals@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The problem with that argument is that UBI frees up people to move to lower cost of living areas.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 17 points 10 months ago

There's no contradiction when you consider most people consider most other people to be childish idiots who can't be trusted to decide what's best for themselves and to pursue their own self-actualization (unlike "me" of course).

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

UBI is not a matter of "if", it's of "when".

With automation and the fuckin AI, companies can do more and more with less and less people.

The concept of unemployement will be alien as well.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

In a cool universe maybe, but realistically it's just gonna mean line goes up faster for the people at the top, while employees and customers see little/none of the rewards. That's how automation has always been: workers do the same amount of work for the same pay while producing more, customers maybe get a slight discount, the execs get a few mil/bil in bonuses. Without a hell of a lot of strikes and government intervention I doubt there's any other way for it to go

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Let's not pretend government intervention is gonna happen, except to make things worse for workers.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

Eventually humans won't be capable of performing any valuable economic activity, but in the past those who weren't capable of performing valuable economic activity usually ended up as starving beggars rather than pampered pets... I think that a future of robots working for robots with humans struggling to survive on the periphery is not unlikely.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Most children get a UBI. Where TF are their bootstraps? Bring back child labor.

load more comments
view more: next ›