The downside is less money towards the rich
Comment on German experiment gave people a basic monthly income – the effect on their work ethic was surprising
ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Didn’t Finland also try it, and found the same thing?
I really think UBI has no downsides.
BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 1 month ago
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Still not hearing any downsides
gurnu@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes, they did. Sadly the body that’s studied the effects said the sample size (a couple thousand unemployed people) was too small… Gee, I wonder who would’ve designed the experiment in such way?
rikudou@lemmings.world 1 month ago
It’s money that has no value if it’s truly universal. If it’s not universal, but only a select group gets it, yep pretty much no downsides.
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Saying money is worthless if everyone has it is asinine. Gatekeeping shit is an idiot’s idea of intelligence. The money won’t change spending at the top levels because they already spend that much daily on services alone. But at the lower income brackets it generates lots of purchases on products and goods. It boosts manufacturing which in turns buoys stock market valuation and guarantees value for the investor.
UBI is so good for everyone, even the super rich, that it’s insane not to participate. But without the threat of lifestyle shock, the wealthy don’t have leverage to make exasperated workers try to achieve more for less. It will literally help people with the stress of living paycheck to paycheck.
If it’s universal then it guarantees a minimal capital throughput at each nexus of value and the market. That’s extra income at all levels from spending, taxes, and the buyer’s unspent capital - it’s huge and is a means to jumpstart any economy and keep it running for as long as the UBI flows.
rikudou@lemmings.world 1 month ago
Okay, humour me. Everyone suddenly gets $100 per month. Now, some big grocery chain knows that every single one of those customers has an extra $100. What do you expect to happen? They’ll be like, “cool people will buy more stuff” or they’ll be like “that’s an extra $100 we can extract by making the most common things people buy more expensive,” which do you think is more likely?
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 month ago
If there’s only one grocery store, maybe. But that’s a monopoly, and that’s going to be shit no matter what. Ideally you have multiple grocery stores that compete, and if one raises prices the other will take their customers. (If they all coordinate to raise their prices, that’s a cartel and that’s also bad.)
So you’re not really exposing a problem with UBI, but rather with unregulated capitalism.
YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’ll humor this, even though I’m tired of answering this same question. I’ll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we’ve established the basic concept, let’s break some of it down. If there’s $100 in circulation, it doesn’t matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that’s called a healthy economy. If people buy ‘too much milk and the prices go up’ then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can’t sell it for less, you innovate. If you can’t innovate, or sell for less, then you can’t compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn’t cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn’t realistic anymore, but that’s due to capitalism failing – the underlying principals of the example still hold true.
grue@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Tell me you don’t understand income inequality without telling me you don’t understand income inequality.
rikudou@lemmings.world 1 month ago
Well, definitely more than you understand economy, it seems.
grue@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You’re one of those idiots who thinks UBI would make prices go up to cancel it out, aren’t you? FYI, that’s actually not how it works.
cynar@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Let’s say it’s set at $10k/year. To someone on $20k that’s a 50% boost. To someone on 100k, it’s only 10%. At a million a year it’s down to 1%.
If it’s accompanied by a 20% tax, it would significantly rebalance income inequality, and provide a reliable financial buffer for the poor to negotiate from.
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I believe a province in Canada was also trying it with promising results until a right-wing politician got elected and scrapped the trial program.
deeferg@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yup, Ontario had it for a small community and the people on it were doing great. They’re still just running these programs in other areas to try and find the one with negative results so every country can point to that as their reason to not do it longterm.
That’s why you keep seeing 100 of these “trials”.