• hamster@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If people aren’t forced to work to live then how can I get cheap labor for my shitty business that my dad gave me?

    • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      If people have UBI, you can get away with paying less though. That’s how walmart does it; just encourage your workers to get welfare so they stay alive enough to work more

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that’s honestly my proposal for it. Basically, create something like UBI (my preference is NIT) that ensures everyone is over the poverty level, eliminate minimum wage, and have benefits phase out for some reasonable definition of “living wage” (say, 2x the poverty level, maybe 3x).

        Working would never make you worse off, and people wouldn’t feel obligated to take crappy jobs if the pay isn’t there.

        We could also eliminate many other forms of welfare at the same time and just increase benefits accordingly.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only benefits that I think would have to stay, are those with “unlimited” downside, like healthcare.

          UBI can potentially replace specific benefits for housing or general living expenses, but it can’t really replace healthcare.

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed, I certainly wouldn’t touch Medicare or Medicaid. I’d also probably leave unemployment insurance as is, and this would kick in afterward.

            But I think it could replace Social Security, food assistance, housing assistance, etc. And I think we could fund it by lifting the income cap on Social Security, but I’d need to run the numbers to be sure.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d say some disability benefits as well. Simply getting by can be more expensive when you can’t do basic tasks yourself, even if you have the best universal health care possible.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which we all know would happen IMMEDIATELY in lockstep with any widespread rollout of UBI, and any complaint would be met with half the country screeching “FREE MARKET REEEEEE”

          • Brawndo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.

            UBI can be an effective way to fight poverty, and would be an even more effective way to combat poverty if we implemented a Negative Income tax whereby all welfare programs are rolled into the funding.

            • darq@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.

              Only if you assume that private landlords are the only way to supply housing.

              There is no reason to assume that.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest revolution in history and led to an almost entirely equitable distribution of land ownership

              • Brawndo@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                And how did that work out for the estimated 15-55 million people that died of starvation as a result of the “equitable distribution of land ownership”?

                Source

                  • esbeto@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What a childish response. So the famine didn’t occur because it’s documented on Wikipedia?

                    The reasons for the famine are well understood and documented. I don’t think defending Mao is the way to go in regards to our modern housing crisis.

                    The housing market issue is also well understood and documented. We know companies and investors have been buying more and more houses, driving up prices. We know wages have not kept pace with rising housing costs. We know the gap between rich and poor has been widening year after year. Why the fuck are we derailing the conversation?