randomwordglorious t1_j26uzys wrote on December 30, 2022 at 2:01 AM

UBI doesn't solve the problems created by automation getting rid of jobs. Instead, we should have universally provided basic needs. Government will provide basic housing, clothes, food and healthcare to everyone.

[deleted] t1_j27zw3n wrote on December 30, 2022 at 8:16 AM

[removed]

Ton777 t1_j28vibg wrote on December 30, 2022 at 2:20 PM

Agreed. If the idea of UBI is that everyone can sit on their asses and magically get handed money, what even is money at that point? Money is a communication tool to express value. Value comes from people expending energy and time to solve problems, innovate in ways that other people find useful.

The ways we bring value will change with technology as they always have, but disincentivizing people to innovate, solve problems and bring value to world (ie, work) is a dumb idea imo.

Clean_Livlng t1_j2c6nmg wrote on December 31, 2022 at 4:01 AM

> If the idea of UBI is that everyone can sit on their asses and magically get handed money, what even is money at that point?

At that point money is a limit on consumption, so that everyone gets what their fair share of resources, and nobody takes too much.

Those who work in addition to that will receive more, and have a higher standard of living. But everyone should have enough.

At some point AI/AGI might take over the innovation that humans currently do.

People will always create work for themselves, personal and group projects etc but UBI means people would be free to be part of projects just because they want to be, and not because they need the money. But things still work the same as normal in terms of those who want more than the baseline level of luxury that UBI provides.

PretentiousCellarOar t1_j285n2z wrote on December 30, 2022 at 9:33 AM

Honestly it’s kind of comforting to see this kind of argument these days. Compared to the recent offerings of American politics, I’ll take this kind of conservatism lol. It even has a little Thatcher, no? “Government doesn’t provide anything, people do,” sounds like that old quote regarding society.

Anyhow, I’ve a question for you:

What do you think your competitors will be doing as you double the price of rent? If comparable units in the area maintain the previous price (or even increase it, but less than you did) why would a renter choose yours?

I’ve actually seen this same argument of yours from leftists before on the subject of a UBI. Of course in those corners they just see landlords as leeches who add no value to society and increase the cost of housing. My point being that they argue this point partly because they see landlords as fundamentally greedy and shortsighted.

You’re correct that the price would increase, but not by so much, and not enough to cancel out the additional spending power most people would get from the UBI.

If everyone had the same thought process as you, and prices increased in such drastic proportions everywhere else in the economy, businesses would shortly understand - if they didn’t already - that increased disposable income does not immediately eradicate one’s price sensitivity.

Also, I suspect there might’ve been one or two other things going on in our economy at the time of those stimulus checks.

That’s pretty much it, I think.

I would like to ask one more question, though. What do you mean when you say people “leave the U out” exactly? Did they use the term UBI specifically but wanted it given to only some people? That’s a bit silly of them, if so. One of the supposed benefits of UBI it’s proponents will bring up is that it doesn’t require any means testing, which is a source of inefficiency in government programs.