There was an interesting study posted (I believe here) on how a flat 10% re-distribution (10% taxed from everyone, then redistributed evenly across everyone, aka basic income), created a more stable "society" in simulation. It did this by helping support a larger "middle class". Does anyone know the link/can point me to the study? Google is failing me at the moment...
When people have the economic security from a UBI not to have to worry about job security, they can more easily take a stand against bosses/landlords through collective organising efforts. Basically, the UBI can act as a strike fund, giving workers/tenants/etc. more power in the class struggle.
We would first need to correct the monopolistic behaviors by corporations which is currently being encouraged by the US government. Then UBI would work.
OR
We could do a daily proportional wealth redistribution (i.e. UBI based on a percentage of total wealth, including assets, rather than a static number - and we could do this at a daily cadence). This system would hurt corporations which have goods of lower price elasticity of demand, but at least it would be good for individuals.
OR
We could have it as state run/sponsored, i.e. the government runs farms and sells food, or companies run food production and sales, but the government pays for it. This has quality concerns, especially when it comes to regional distribution. But hopefully, like the US schooling system, maybe a combination of both government run, and government sponsored (i.e. charter school), and privately run (i.e. for the ultra wealthy), would create a healthy enough environment. Ideally, since this doesn't depend on the quality of local teachers (i.e. food doesn't care if it is getting re-allocated to rural Arkansas), it would work out better than the US schooling system. Note: This doesn't work as well for housing.
Since big city landlords are no longer in an exclusive position to sell the ability to make a living, I would expect rents to crater as people can move without so much concern for commutable jobs.
I don’t know about you but myself and the people I know love the city cuz of convenience, social reasons, and jobs.
Even today I could spend 3x less on rent if I moved and endured a 30min commute. I don’t. Having a job is not the primary priority for why I’m paying high rent.
"Why do you need a raise? You get $xxx in minimum salary."
Salaries (except maybe minimum wage) are set by demand and supply. UBI will do nothing to demand, will do nothing to supply of high skilled jobs and may actually reduce supply for low paying jobs by providing an alternative that isn't starving.
:) where is the competition in SF to stop landlords from ever increasing rents?
Thought experiment: If we redistributed all the liquid capital that currently exists, one year later the people who own infrastructure will end up the 1% again.
You can see this through some basic economics. People have more money, they are willing to spend more money. Meanwhile, supply remains constant. What happens? Prices go up.
Everyone has to eat, everyone has to buy medicine, everyone needs to sleep, everyone needs the internet. Everyone “needs” to gamble. The people who own that infrastructure would be the richest again.
With UBI everyone will have more money but overall production would drop which is the only meaningful way to improve peoples lives. So people would be worse off because prices would adjust to the decreased supply and the increased demand of goods and services.
I think there's a few things you're missing. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, but I think that with UBI in place, I'd be willing to let go of minimum wage. Of forcing companies with enough full time employees to provide benefit X. Of laws forcing employees to join a union. Etc.
Also, worker productivity is through the roof. Perhaps we can talk about giving back some of those production gains, if it funds things we like.
If by production you mean GDP, it's not as simple as that. Increasing production is not the only meaningful way to improve peoples lives.
GDP is a very rough indicator for a society's standard of living and well being. GDP is really bad at measuring things like health, household productivity, technology changes, education, leisure, environment, etc - all which may not show up in GDP.
