this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
7 points (88.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35801 readers
2375 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

UBI is implemented tomorrow. Every citizen gets $1000 per month.

Landlord now knows you have an extra $1000 that you never had before. Why wouldn't the landlord raise prices?

Now you have an extra $1000 a month and instead of eating rice and beans for a few meals you go out to a restaurant. The restaurant owners know everyone is eating out more so why not raise prices and maximize shareholder profit as always. The restaurant/corporation is on TV saying, "well, demand increased and it is a simple Economic principle that prices had to increase. There's nothing we can do about it".

Your state/country has toll roads. The state needs money for its deficit. UBI is implemented and the state/country sees it as the perfect time to incrementally raise toll prices.

Next thing you know UBI is effectively gone because everything costs more and billionaires keep hitting higher and higher all time net worth records.

(page 2) 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ninpnin@sopuli.xyz 0 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Landlords only have control over you, because you have to find a place where there are good income sources. If you have an UBI, you have a lot less pressure to move to a city with high-paying jobs.

All of a sudden, you have a bunch of new options. You can move to a rural town. You can move to places with lower average incomes. Hell, you can just buy a lot of land in the middle of nowhere and build a house.

With consumer goods, it's a bit different, because their prices are less about artificial scarcity and more about production costs. However, as noted in some of the other comments, if you just don't print money but finance it with taxes, it won't be that much of an issue.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Some_Dumb_Goat@pawb.social 0 points 8 months ago (5 children)

With what leverage? If you have no-strings-attached income, you are not facing destitution at the loss of your job, and it becomes a lot less risky to walk away from a job and move somewhere else. If all the landlords in one area do that, employers in that area will probably have to pay more.

But imo, some type ubi system should be paid for with a vat tax that just pulls it's income directly out of economic activity, which would make it harder to avoid paying for. The result would be higher prices anyway which would probably offset the income, but new situation would be that workers have a lot more leverage in their employment and living situation.

My other hot take is that with a ubi, minimum wage should be abolished. Basically, with ubi the need for it would be lessened and more people might be willing to work jobs that they might not have been able to live off of without a ubi. But again, these are basically my hot takes

[–] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Game theory, it's in the interest of every landlord if prices go up a little, so the overwhelming majority will raise rent.

Fact is only so much stuff is made and only so much space exists and only so many people exist to make and build etc. Money is just an abstraction for allocating those resources. Broadly speaking the market would adjust and everything would remain the same for 95% of people. The HOPE of UBI advocates is that, after adjustments to prices, the UBI would have an impact on that last 5%.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Until one landlord defects to improve their occupancy rate.

Game theory

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When the first COVID stimulus check came in, Walmart sold tvs for, after tax, the exact amount the check was worth.

Bottom line is you'd have to freeze price increases, or reduce them somehow. It's a mess of a problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I mean... kinda?

I think you're putting too much evil intent behind the motivations though. Supply and demand isn't some made up excuse. If the prices were to stay the same and everyone had more money, then there would be shortages. It's not as if a factory can instantly increase production and the supply chain can instantly get the products on the shelves over night. There are real world factors involved in increasing production.

So what happens is prices increase for many products and this results in inflation. Nobody wants inflation, not even the wealthy. So the central bank will want to tamp down that inflation and the lever they use for that is increasing interest rates. So you wanted to put that UBI towards a mortgage or a car payment? Well a lot of it will be going towards the increased interest on the money you're borrowing.

And the thing about inflation is that it doesn't really get reversed. So the inflation from the initial shock to the economy would take a bite out of UBI (and also the income besides UBI). Your employer may be less likely to give you a raise to offset that inflation because you have UBI. and the fix for the inflation will mean paying more interest on a mortgage.

So yeah, UBI wouldn't gain people much. It's mostly just a poison pill promoted to kids by wealthy people like Andrew Yang so you don't push for an increase in minimum wage. An increase in minimum wage would be a direct transfer of wealth from businesses to employees. They don't want this so they promote UBI which isn't actually feasible to distract from minimum wage increases (which almost everyone supports) and make taxing the wealthy less likely (which is also supported by most, but not when it's to pay for UBI).

[–] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's why you add caps to rent and interest as well, so that that basic income legitimately does go into people's pockets and therefore the rest of the thinking

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you cap rent, you have housing shortages. If you cap interest rates, you have out of control inflation.

It seems UBI is a product of people on the left buying into the supply side economcis theories which hinge on the idea the work is meaningless and it's only through a largess from the wealthy that people have money. This is a competing idea within the flawed supply side economics framework where UBI is a proposed way to have people receive a largess from the government instead of from the wealthy.

Everything you consume comes from someone doing work somewhere. Those minimum wage jobs don't exist because companies are being charitable. They exist because there's work that needs to be done. They'll tell you that they're "job creators" and those jobs would be eliminated if minimum wage were increased, but that's all a lie. UBI leading to some Star Trek paradise is another lie meant to distract people.

Increase minimum wage, form more labor unions, and working conditions will improve. There's known solutions to these problems, we should implement these solutions instead of the solutions proposed by wealthy people like Andrew Yang.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In your hypothetical, the market just jumping in cost like that creates opportunity for competition in the market. Because everyone who could not establish a biz charging X can get into the game charging between X amd X+Y, undercutting the gougers and driving prices lower over time. Theoretically.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Which is why capitalism only works if it's paired with strong anti-monopoly regulations.

In the current environment, damn near every good and service is cornered by a small number of companies, sometimes only one. So while all restaurant prices probably won't go up, all vehicle prices will.

Hell, with this whole "inflation" bullshit we've seen that the entire economy is happy to influence public opinion to allow for an orgy of price hiking. Not necessarily in a coordinated way, but not not in a coordinated way.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's the same argument behind stimulus checks tbh. You give people money so that they can spend it on necessities and that money goes right back into the economy. Since our economy is based on growth and spending, more people spending money overall helps the economy, not hurts it. In addition, you're spending less money on solving societal issues. Well fed sheltered people cause less problems.

[–] betz24@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Stimulus checks caused one of the best stock booms of this decade then immediately we had inflation. I don't think stimulus checks are a well understood phenomenon

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is different though. If my rent is $2000 a month now, and I get $1000 a month from the government, the landlord can make my rent $3000 a month on renewal. Yes the money is going into the economy but it is enriching the upper class instead of helping the folks that need it.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And you're still gaining services you didn't have before. People who couldn't afford a dentist, for example, now can. You need a whole different set of laws to tackle wealth inequality. We can do both.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

And you're still gaining services you didn't have before

No, you're not. In the example they just provided, nothing has fundamentally changed because the money you were given was eaten up by price increases, leaving you exactly where you were before.

Because UBI isn't like a stimulus check. Stimulus checks are temporary. With UBI, every single buisness, creditor, and landlord knows for a fact everyone's monthly income just went up across the board, so they know they can safely raise prices without pricing out customers.

That's the fundamental problem with UBI: it only works if it's coupled with strong price controls and regulations to prevent price gouging, and can be rapidly adjusted if necessary. Prices can go up overnight, pay raises can be acquired over a pay period, but the UBI payout will not be as flexible.

Look how impossible it was to get the minimum wage raised from $8.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Minimum wage is $15 in my state, so wtf are you talking about?

Landlords pay taxes on their property. Pay utilities. They dont have "every need met" or they wouldn't need to charge rent in the first place.

You're just arguing that the system is too broken fix. Which is even more reason why we should instead of shoving our heads in the sand.

But nah, too haaaaaard. Grrrr. Bad people will keep being bad so no point doing good. Grrrr.

Fucking loser.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

more people spending money overall helps the economy

The idea behind this only works IF more people are spending. If Rent jumps that money goes to the landlord, who may (but probably won't) spend the extra money, and it doesn't benefit everyone.

I forget the term, but there's an idea that talks about how many people/businesses touch money. So if you create a dollar into an economy (you can't create money with out causing problems but let's pretend it's magic) if that money goes into a person's bank it's probably a bad thing. If that money goes through 10 people's hands, you're getting taxation on it in every place which is a good thing (for the government). Problem is landlords are usually well off (at least well enough to own more than one property). They might not be "mega rich" but they almost certainly will save that money, rather than spend it.

Besides which stimulus checks are a one time payment... not exactly the same as UBI.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

If people aren't living lay heck to paycheck, afraid of where the next meal comes from, they spend more. You forget that this money will first go to the most needing first. Yes their landlord will pocket some of that. But they will have a reliable place to sleep. They will go out and buy food. Their landlord will pay utilities and taxes.... It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than denying those who need it the necessities because "well some people might profit down the line". Then fix the rental laws. Fix labor laws. It's not a complete solution, but at least it's something in the right direction.

And way to miss the point of the analogy by latching on to one trivial difference. "It's a one time payment" doesn't change what kind of payment it is and why it's given. It's still free money. If you're gonna be that pedantic, I think your meant to be on Reddit still.

[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I believe in UBI, but the Captain Laserhawk show made me aware of how much it could get twisted in fucked up ways. “Don’t watch this show? -$100 from your stipend this month.” I used to think things like that were fear mongering, but the world is all kinds of weird today.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›