News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Did you mean to say if they weren't a right?
I meant if housing, healthcare, and food were guaranteed, what would be the point of UBI?
Politicians currently advocating for UBI are doing so as a replacement for things like universal healthcare, not in conjunction with it.
So that goes back to my original comment, porque no las dos?
And that would go back to my response.... What would be the point?
A basic income is supposed to cover basic necessities, if those are already covered what is the point other than driving inflation and driving down productivity?
It's amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?
They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work. Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn't have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn't should be scrapped) You've probably seen a bunch of stuff online about it so I doubt I'd convince you of anything at this point.
As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you'd be against a check every month.
Because there are always strings attached..... Just because you don't know enough about macroeconomics to foresee any potential negative outcomes doesn't mean there won't be any.
And these studies are operating in our current economy, not one where basic needs have already been met. In the theoretical scenario where the government is insuring basic needs like housing, food, medical, and education are already being paid for, adding an additional UBI would just be an additional revenue burden.
If we're already raising taxes enough to guarantee the populations basic needs are taken care of, UBI would be that much harder to secure funding for.
Again, this would already be a problem addressed by the just securing people's basic needs.
Yeah......you want to extrapolate that thought just a little more? Price gouging is only possible if people have the money to still pay for the items.
One of the reasons why prices shot up during/after the pandemic is because of the covid checks. Don't get me wrong, for the amount of people who were temporarily out of work we needed to increase the money supply. However, a natural response to an increase of money supply without an increase of production is inflation/price gouging. The demand isn't being met by supply, this increases the price of the current supply to what the market is willing to pay. When you increase theoney supply, it increases what the market is willing to pay.
You can't just increase the money supply from thin air for nothing in return. Macroeconomics is a careful balance between spending, revenue, and productivity.
Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that's a pretty sociopathic take. We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform and it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into it, but what do I know, I'm someone you assume is an idiot.
If you think you can help people at a national scale without macroeconomics then you are a moron.
Again, under the original premise tax reform would already be occurring to pay for people's basic needs....you know, the thing that UBI is supposed to partially cover.
In our current economy.....not in one where people's basic needs are already being met.
The theory of UBI generating more money than it cost relies on the fact that covering some people's basic needs increases their productivity. In the economic theory we were talking about their needs would already be fully covered. Meaning there wouldn't be an increase in productivity, meaning UBI would not generate more money than it cost.
In all fairness, what you are claiming is pretty idiotic.
Even in communist countries where people's most basic needs are fully covered by the government, they don't the receiver free checks from the government, in fact in most of them it's illegal to be unemployed for long periods. Arguably productivity is even more important in planned and centralized economies, and a UBI with a socialized system would just motivate people not to work.