I think universal basic services would be better because that can’t be gamed by adjusting prices. Things like food, housing, healthcare, and education should be provided unconditionally.
I like universal service too. Is there a good read that discusses how it would work with food and housing? Both sectors are currently very much profit looking, so I’d be curious to learn how they would be transformed.
European social policies from the post wars were very much structured around providing services.
Even the highly conditional basic income that some states provide is abused by large companies to push down wages and not even pay living wages.
So IMHO while there are some good ideas behind UBI, Capitalism will find a way to turn it into the opposite of what the rather naive proponents of it hope… and I find it rather telling that some of the large lobbyists for UBI are well funded capitalists running businesses that would be able to push down wages that way.
Rich guy: we need to give everyone some money to stimulate the economy.
Commies: who’s gonna fund it, you?
Rich guy: 😅
I am in support of it.
It is a noble idea. We need to put more thoughts on it and see if any countries or states are already implementing something similar.
A universal Basic Income would either drive people lazy or way too poor if it is miscalculated.
For example 400 € is more than the guaranteed minimal salary in Morocco, so one can live with it. However, in Europe this would be two to three times less than the guaranteed minimal salary.
drive people lazy
Drive people lazy?? Sorry but I can’t even comprehend that statement beyond what capital needs. Lazy is fucking brilliant for the environment and if you have friends also being ‘lazy’ also good for mental health. Next up children playing - lazy little gits get in the mines
This is not what I meant. Understand lazy as unproductive, not partaking in any constructive activity or just being a burden on society.
Lazy is not in the terms of “who I’ll just take a taxi instead of a 5 min walk”.
For example, people can still be active and good citizens, by participating into charities, teaching, and doing what ever they can to help move forward.
not partaking in any constructive activity or just being a burden on society.
Lazy is not in the terms of “who I’ll just take a taxi instead of a 5
Understood what you meant - charity - yup totally understand you’re a liberal
I think of myself as a freedomist.
It seems to me like a short-sighted way to counter a bit of the visible damage capitalism does. Much like most well-intentioned liberal reform, it starts from the position that capitalism is a fundamental force of the universe that must be worked around rather than one system of many which can be replaced.
That said, I’d be immensely glad to have it. I’m someone who likely will never be able to work in a meaningful capacity, and would benefit from money to not die.
deleted by creator
I support the idea. I think you’ll have some people abusing the system and trying to take advantage but overall, I feel it would be a net good.
As a US citizen though, I feel that single payer healthcare is more important to over all health and well being of society.
The abuse of such systems is usually a rounding error and pretty much irrelevant. In fact trying to prevent abuse often costs more then the abuse itself is costing (for example in public transport the ticket infrastructure costs way more then the losses from people riding for free).
The bigger problem of “universal basic services” is that you end up with a huge bureaucracy deciding for other people what services to provide. This usually results in many needs not catered to and overall sub-standard services due to neglect and perverse incentives on the side of mostly unaccountable bureaucrats.
I support it. Studies have shown it has a positive impact on people.
Universal Basic Worker Control of Industy
It’s a liberal perspective on fixing inequalities.
See, instead of envisioning a system where policies are devised at a societal level in order to tackles our needs, it imagines poorness and inequalities as an issue related to purchasing power.
That thinking might build up perverse effect.
Imagine a scenario :
I’m walking 10km everyday to work in the city, and so does my whole village.
The universal basic income (ubi) allows me to buy and maintain really good running shoes. One neighbor can even afford a bike.
In another configuration the city could have dedicated part of its budget implementing public transportation.
The ubi at its core assume that individuals are the key unit, coupled with the whole neo liberal ideology that the “egoistic action of an individual benefit society at large”. One might sees why this idea is getting traction at the moment. It’s an idea that relies on the belief that the “market” will provides for our need. The ubi subsume political process and action by the market.
I think a UBI can sit in parallel with other initiatives. For instance you can have universal healthcare and education, while still having UBI.
I also think that just because an idea can be perverted, it doesn’t mean that it has to be that way or that there are no positive sides to it.
I’m critical of UBI as a single, silver bullet. However, I do think that there is potential for it to play a role in creating more just societies.
But would we still need ubi if basics social services are provided?
Like if access to housing, food, healthcare, education and culture was secured for all?
Often proponents of UBI say that to finance it one can replace the inefficient provision of other social services, so having both is usually the not argument.
I think what most people fail to understand is that the very basis of our current economic system is to incentivize people to find exploits (see all the talk about “disruptors” and so on). And it is an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the bureaucratic regulators, who to a large extend justify their existence on curbing the worst excesses of these exploits.
I think when people talk about UBI replacing wellfare, they’re mostly talking about things like food stamps and disability pay. Basic infastructure like public transit and basic necessicities like free universal healthcare and education would not be negatively affected.
The UBI is a huge unnecessary expense in developed countries and an impossibility in developing countries. It is a terrible idea, especially if the aim is to have quality public services. In addition, it can discourage active job search and/or the inability to hire someone. On top of that, the market would simply adapt to this measure by raising prices.
To get out of poverty, stop drowning people in taxes, allow a wide contractual freedom and above all, eliminate the privileges of some oligopolies by completely withdrawing patents (like closed source software) and eliminating millionaire subsidies. In this way, the playing field is balanced by introducing more competition and allowing wages to rise where they need to rise.
There is a plethora of jobs that are going disappear in the future. It wont be about salary but what kind of job.
