Guys, at this rate I don't think the revolution's going to happen anytime soon.
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
891 points (97.1% liked)
196
19246 readers
124 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I swear you could introduce UBI and someone somewhere would complain about it not being left enough.
Someone somewhere would because UBI is the capitalist techbro idea of a social safety net; it's a band-aid that doesn't address the underlying problems in a similar way to how the ACA helps but in reality is a very center-right idea that doesn't address the underlying hypercapitalist healthcare system.
I mean it depends on the context of how UBI is going to get paid for. If it is funded by a wealth tax then I am on board. But that's not how the powerful proponents of UBI say it should be funded. Andrew Yang would have us take it out of Social Security to pay for it but you don't hear him say we should uncap Social Security contributions.
Also, I think rent caps or something need to be introduced as well. I worry about landlords just assuming you have an extra 2,000 on you and then taking it.
But implemented with the right protections, I would love UBI.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
If landlords can assume every tenant they'll ever see has 2,000 plus their income, then they can just set rent to be 2,000 plus the average income of the area (or whatever it is they do currently). That's what I'm worried about.
Like, I'm worried about inter-landlord collusion that happens not because they're talking to each other but because they can all assume the same facts about you.
I mean, truthfully, I think landlords should be cut out of the game anyway, but that's a wholly separate issue.
You are assuming a world where landlords are all powerful assholes operating as a cartel. UBI redistributes power both at the supreme government level, and at individual relations levels. Everyone has "I won't do what you tell me" money even if it is not quite the "fuck you" money you currently think landlords have. "Oppressive fuck you" money only exists in a world of corrupt markets.
if UBI is $1500/month, there is certain to be a rise in the number of housing options that rent for $1000-$2000. UBI empowers you and 10 of your friends to get into the real estate business and build more homes, and make a lot of money doing so. Your fear makes UBI more attractive because current social corruption suppresses new housing because scarce housing has a large cohort benefiting from extortionist property values. UBI benefiting that cohort is good for democratic appeal of UBI.
Humanist economics is abundance instead of scarcity. Creating abundant housing or abundant anything else is a huge job creator. UBI also allows for room mates/subleasing where you are sure tenants can afford to pay. Denser living is also abundance. Market solutions for housing exist. Government getting into the housing construction business on a break even target basis with market affordability (small) mission, is a 0 cost government program to promote abundance, and can be done locally.
I don't want people to make a lot of money off of housing. Why would I want that?
Look, people had more relative income before, and rent is too high now. If UBI gives people more income now, rent will be too high later. There need to be rent caps. UBI alone doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
I mean, at best you're saying that laissez-faire competition will make rent caps unnecessary, to which I say great! Let's add them anyway. No one will ever set rent as high as the cap, so there should be no problem.
Corruption of housing market already exists. Home owners want scarce housing. You start by saying you are angry/fearful that landlords will raise rents, and the market solution to that is more landlords.
UBI/unconditional cash gives you and everyone else more options. Definition of freedom. You get get into the housing industry with the goal of making housing much more affordable for everyone else while just making less money than the market could give you. Everyone gets to make more money from work, if they want work, and afford the housing they aspire to. UBI permits more home ownership options with less risky/cheaper mortgages.
rent control which is maximum yearly increases are still a good thing. Rent caps are not because you're/should be allowed to rent 10000 square feet, and then allowed to subdivide that to sublet to 100 people if that is path you want.
Income taxes, especially if investment income is not given preferential treatment, is even with a flat tax on first $100k income, with surtaxes on higher incomes, something that impacts the rich/successful while still making them more rich. You don't need to cling to "only a wealth tax or burn it all down". Wealth generates investment income. Taxing that properly is all that is needed.
Sure, I'm on board as long as the fix isn't to cut other social safety nets.
The higher the UBI, the more programs can be cut and make the beneficiaries (excluding people with cushy jobs administering them) of those programs still better off, while either making the UBI even higher (from cost savings) or not increasing taxes as much. The conditionality of programs is always a poverty trap, that unconditional cash solves.
Our current government/candidates says some polite things about their role in shared prosperity. While security needs are real, that should in fact be the only role of government. Rationed bandaids meant to be divisive and anger raising, provides power with the real objectives of rulership. Deliver slaves to the oligarchs. When you oppose your precisous slavery trapping bandaids being removed for the freedom of unconditional cash that grows with economic growth that redistribution provides you are simply submitting to government power over all of us.
UBI is only surface-level leftist, it's distributing some of the wealth while leaving the important parts - property - untouched.
So yes, I and many others would complain about UBI. I've long held it's an untenable bandage slapped on the gaping hemorrhage that is capitalism.
If you know anything about first aid you know that slapping a bandage on is the first step to actually helping the patient.
"The real problem with this stab wound is it damaged their liver. Putting a bandage over the wound isn't going to solve that, what they really need is surgery!"
"We're twenty miles away from a hospital, we need to stop the bleeding or they'll die before we get them to a doctor."
"A bandage isn't going to save them. Only a surgeon will."
That's under the assumption that you're actually getting them to a doctor and not just slapping the bandaid on and calling it a day.
And I would argue that in either case, stopping the bleeding is still the immediate goal.
And would be correct. But if we're planning a health system, and I keep insisting on bandaids but refuse to even talk about anything else, my proposal is a bait-and-switch. That's the problem, not UBI/NIT, as a concept.
It's certainly not enough, but I'd still prefer it over nothing. I'll gladly take a miniscule win.
And that is the issue. Ada is bleeding to death, and Bob is giving them a rudimentary bandage to staunch the bleeding. You could:
Let Bob do their thing, and go get an ambulance.
Complain to Bob that this will only slow down the bleeding. What Ada needs is to be in a hospital. Keep yelling at Bob for his shitty bandage.
You know what the most important thing for proper triage is : my personal feelings /s
We are all afraid that Jake will convince the doctor to refuse surgery claimimg the problem is fixed now (Edit: whilst letting the bandaid rot). He goes on to convince Ada and the world that she is healed and asking for surgery makes no sense.
I dont know if Jake will be effective at creating regressions nor if we can fight him off effectively.
Okay, but yell at Jake then.
What you're saying is that the bleeding is good. The more people bleed, the more they'll need "a real solution." This is just accelerationism.
No. The bleeding is not good. There are likely resources on how and when fight Jake. Mabe more importantly, how to choose first aid and medical care steps to take so Jake isnt going to be a problem.
Accelerationism is as minipulative as Jake is, mabe even serving the same goals.
Jake is interested in status-quo economics—or worse, even. There is no first aid he won't claim fixes the issue.
Billionaires love to pretend that charities are a solution to social issues, but we know they aren't. Does that mean I should be happy the Red Cross lacks funding now? (hypothetically)
I mean, if it introduces people to surface-level leftist ideas and gets them onboard, they then can be drawn further to the normal - the left wing ideas. Which would be good.
I agree with you though that it's only a bandage.
The irony writing itself.
You literally just engaged in what the OP was talking about, and here am I joining in as well.