Comment on Interesting how artists don't make enough money from their creations, so our solution is to make certain information illegal to share, rather than give them a universal basic income.

• intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Also like, our society already does provide free food and shelter to people. All it asks is some basic niceties like “quiet after 11pm” or “don’t poop in the shower”.

  I know. I’ve been homeless, been very well fed and very well protected from the elements, and well-clothed too, entirely for free.

  People act like our society just lets people drop and that’s not true. We’ve got free resources out the wazoo for people.

  But there are a lot of people for whom availability of resources isn’t the problem.

  This is my way of saying that, even with UBI, there will be homeless people.

  And conservatives will say “we give that guy $1000 a month and he sits there and shoots heroin in the park all day … I’m not giving him any more” and liberals will say “You know $1000 a month isn’t that much money and we should be offering free counseling”.

  Then a decade later there will be that guy who shits on the park bench and rips smelly farts in his counseling sessions and doesn’t do the work.

  As a society we’ve basically solved the problems that can be solved with free food and housing because … well because we have that as a feature of our society already,

  One thing that makes UBI better than what we have now, is the fact it’s not a perverse incentive structure.

  Right now all the free shit we give people is based on them “demonstrating need”. This means if they want to rise out of poverty, they need to go through a weird, unnatural zone on their work-to-benefit curve that’s flat, They do more work, and see no benefit.

  Or if the program is really badly designed, it’s not just level it slopes down. Like you get a $200/mo raise, it puts you over a threshold, and you lose your $500/mo EBT benefits.

  That kind of thing is toxic and evil. That’s like pushing crack on kids. Except instead of little identifiable crystals it’s at least easy to conceptualize saying “no” to, the dopamine-ruining substance is ethereal and takes the form of tables showing income thresholds in little pamphlets in government offices. Instead of a 10-second timeframe where you either hit that pipe or not, the game a person has to play with our welfare system has rounds lasting months at a time. It’s insidious and evil.

  And if you’re in a position to receive this welfare, everyone on your side is encouraging you to take it.

  And UBI doesn’t suffer from that mental-health-destroying, prefrontal-cortex-shrinking pattern. It’s giving with a truly open hand. It’s a ladder that doesn’t extract a price in bone density for each rung you climb.

  source

  • mp3@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    wow, thanks for sharing your insight

    source
• Wogi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Let’s say you’re a scummy piece of shit landlord. It’s a bit redundant I know but just bear with me.

  You’re a scummy piece of shit landlord (SPOSL) and you know for a fact that every single one of your tenants suddenly can afford 2000 extra dollars per month. You’re probably not going to get away with taking all of that, but you’re a SPOSL, you’re definitely going to try to get some.

  You also know that housing is being treated as a commodity so your tenants don’t have anywhere else to go, and that because all landlords are SPOSLs, you know they’ll all be doing the same thing.

  Suddenly rent goes up across the board. They only people safe are the people in fixed rate mortgages.

  But they’re only safe from that one particular kind of price gouging.

  Unless you’re on a very fixed contact, everything you pay monthly for suddenly got more expensive over night. Your Internet will be going up, your phone bill will be going up, maybe not immediately, but when you renew.

  Any common household item built down to a price, basically anything that can shrinkflate, when everyone has more money, will inflate instead. Because they know that consumers have more to spend, and won’t look at the price as closely as they used to.

  Basically everyone, simultaneously, moves up on the doesn’t spendability side. And so prices move to adjust accordingly.

  UBI works in small scale experiments because small scale experiments don’t have this effect. No one knows who’s getting more money and the market can’t adjust. But the market will adjust where it can.

  I know it sounds nice, but it’s not the golden ticket it’s being made out to be.

  Address healthcare, address housing, do it all independently of UBI so that hopefully it never becomes required.

  To be clear I have absolutely no problem with guaranteeing basic needs are met, I think that’s a great idea. UBI does not do that.

  source

  • mp3@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Another issue is that housing is perceived as an investment. There would have to be some policies to be put in place to avoid abuse for sure.

    source

    • Wogi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How about this as an alternative. Housing is guaranteed. Full stop. The only way to really do that is to build an assload government housing, and anyone who wants to live there, can. No questions asked. In fact it’s assumed everyone will want the free apartment. One per family. Might be a lot of excess apartments going unused but I don’t see that as a problem.

      Food, also guaranteed. And not just cheese but meals full of good nutrients. You want it, just show up and collect it. Is it good, no maybe not. But it’s available and no one is going hungry.

      Healthcare, universally covered. No one is going in to debt to get their basic healthcare needs met. Cosmetics aren’t but basic healthcare needs are.

      No need for cash, because it’s all taken care of. It’s not going to be enough for most, no. But it’s not like work won’t still be available to anyone that wants it. Hell, wages probably go up as people who don’t want to work no longer have to.

      source
  • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Everyone doesn’t have more spending power under UBI; some people would be paying more in taxes than they’re getting back from the pool.

    But yeah, if you give everyone in a certain group more money to spend, that’s more demand and hence higher prices assuming fixed supply.

    So really, to avoid that issue with housing, you’d need to reduce friction to increasing supply. Maybe that means letting people build higher density housing without having to wait for the government to re-zone from low to high density. Or removing the minimum size on apartments, whatever.

    Point is your market will adapt to the newly-super-profitable endeavor of landlording, by providing more housing.

    Because as long as there’s any vacant housing, landlords are not free to price fix however they see fit. I mean they could if they were all in cahoots, but they’re not. They’re in competition.

    source