Comment on [deleted]
Windex007@lemmy.world 3 months agoI don’t know how this answers the question, though.
I’m a landlord in city 1, UBI there is 100/mo. I jack my rental prices by 50.
I’m a landlord in city 2, UBI there is 200/mo. I jack my rental prices by 100.
City 1 responds by raising UBI to 200. Landlords follow suit. City 2 to 300. Landlords to 250.
OP is suggesting that capitalist class just says “uwu, for me?~~~ 👉😍👈”, regardless of the amount or location. OP is suggesting that in practice this is just another slice of pie to be extracted by the capital holders.
I don’t have a fucking clue if it’s true, but I don’t think this response addresses the question asked.
explore_broaden@midwest.social 3 months ago
That would be a state of rampant inflation, so the fed would hike interest rates to slow it down.
That would discourage people from spending money (harder to borrow and the interest encourages people to leave their money in savings), which decreases demand and thus prices (loosely speaking).
Windex007@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The most pronounced spending effect that results from hiked interest is on housing. It would drive home ownership even farther out of reach for people who already can’t afford it. Further entrenching the divide between those who own property and those who do not. Further empowering landlords.
I think trying to implement UBI is hard, not because it’s an intrinsically difficult concept, but because what nobody wants to admit is without new legal levers, it will eventually devolve into what pretty much every social net turns into: a subsidy for the rich capitalist class.
Most people who recieve social assistance work, and work AT LEAST full time. Every dollar of social assistance is unpaid fair wages from their employers.
I’m not against UBI AT ALL, but exploitive labour practices and a failure to enforce antitrust laws are why there is even a problem at all.