Neoliberal Universal Basic Income (UBI):

- Give folks X amount a month
- Remove the social safety net (free healthcare, etc.) “because now there’s UBI”

Progressive Universal Basic Income (UBI):

- Pay everyone a living wage
- Also keep the social safety net

Very different things.

@aral Good point. When talking about UBI we should always make clear what kind of UBI we mean.

@aral neoliberals will never understand this bc the cruelty is the point with them. we don't get tit without them pocketing the whole-ass box the tat came from.

@aral Why people call it neoliberal instead of right wing anarchy?

@aral does a progressive UBI (“PUBI”) do anything to make sure your mincome doesn’t just get soaked up by landlords raising rent?

@garbados @aral

you can't have a progrssive UBI without rent control imo

(I can't believe I forgot when I was a kid rent control was a thing here, and I'm not *that* old)

@emptyfortress @garbados @aral I think you could do it without rent control if you simply had municipally-owned or state-owned housing that just got built taller in response to demand

basically attack the housing problem from the supply side - where it actually is - rather than the price

@bhtooefr @aral @garbados @emptyfortress Lack of rent control is bad. But as far as I can tell, rent control on its own doesn't seem to work either.

What are some good examples of rent control that works? Are there any cities that has done it right?

@loke @aral @garbados @emptyfortress Yeah, I don’t think it’s sufficient either - if the property is privately owned, capital will prefer to develop and maintain uncontrolled property where profit margins are higher instead, and will find loopholes in the rent control laws to maximize their profit (for instance, many of them effectively have tighter restrictions on rent for rented units than unrented units, which creates an incentive to make existing tenants move out somehow to be able to raise the rates).

Have democratically-owned property, and you might get somewhere (although I’d also warn against the tyranny of too-local democracy, as evidenced by homeowner’s associations). Ensure an oversupply of housing, and you might get somewhere.

@bhtooefr @loke @aral @emptyfortress direct provisionment gang logs on to say "price is a bad organizing principle for the means of survival. just give everyone a house"

@garbados @aral you always get a living wage. when that is increased, the UBI must get increased too!

@davidak @aral quick aside, a "wage" is always in exchange for work, paid out by an employer. a UBI, in which your income is not dependent on working, is categorically not a wage.

@garbados @davidak @aral your housing costs should be anything *in excess of* some generously-set expected-usage: water, power etc. Rent... that's a trickier Q, I think rents should be locked from increasing when UBI is deployed, starting several months ahead to reduce (it won't prevent) rent gouging. UBI should be scaled to local Cost Of Living - this incorporates Rent, basic food costs, and enough discretionary funds to prevent stagnation

@garbados @davidak @aral
if local rent is $700 averaged over a munizone, with little variation, then local UBI can account for that. what gets harder is when there's a large variation in a munizone in relatively short distances, ex from $500 to $1200.

@garbados @aral the term "living wage" means, according to wikipedia: "the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs". An UBI should not be less than that amount!

@garbados @aral You mean landlords responding to the inevitable inflation caused by a UBI? I suppose you could then put in price controls on rent. And after that figure out how to address the resulting housing shortages.

That's the problem with economics: when you mess with markets it leads to a "give a mouse a cookie" kind of situation.

That's not to say don't ever do it. I expect we'll end up with a UBI, and now sooner rather than later. But the consequences are predictable.

@stevefoerster @aral

> resulting housing shortages

there are already more empty homes than homeless people. they are just being hoarded by the rich.

@aral The one solution (or mix of solutions) that most efficiently helps eradicate poverty gets my vote. IMHO, the focus should lie on making sure everyone has that safety net to fall back on, rather than handing every single person a check, which is, er, a _very_ inefficient way of dealing with a rather basic problem!? (I know I don't need one. Not now.)

@aral Yes, the world is Black and White.

No, offering UBI shall mean the end of the social wages, and shall not be connected to healthcare or other non-money based social services. But we live in wildly different countries and possibly one can't even imagine the other. You possibly mean different things using the same words as me...
And I'm libertarian, or liberal, and kind of center-left if you need to tag my opinion.

@aral i was waiting for such summary. Is it huge generalization?

@aral they think we are stupid ... "the growing health sector"

I did hear about UBI for first time from this document
it is very interesting, sorry, it has SK dabing, maybe you will find original

@aral is progressive UBI compatible with a growth economy?

if yes, our focus must be put elsewhere.

we must first stabilise local life - e.g. improve conditions that lessen the chance of needing to lean on a health system.

means local food, water and shelter first.
"local" may be assumed to be 100-1000 people MAX (less = better)

also local sovereignty. from individually over our bodies, to community over decision-making

we must stop relying on singular, large scale solutions to anything

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!