Ask Lemmy

27240 readers

2410 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

289

Are you in support of UBI? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello, I'm not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There's not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers.

You appear entirely unaware of test programs like Canadian Mincome showing minimal employment drop, with some spinning up businesses by claiming the income against loans. The people who dropped out entirely were nearly all either continuing education or mothers raising kids.

This is replicated in projects like those in Africa.

Basically, the answer to the knee-jerk "wouldn't everyone just stop working?" question is "actually, no."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I definitely wouldn't stop working, but I would have more flexibility to try things like taking a risk on something entrepreneurial or choosing to work in a field that aligns with my values, salary be damned. That cannot be allowed.

Any measure that reduces the leverage employers have over labor will not be simply given to us. People fought and died to get what little control we have, and it's been whittled away for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

The test programs can't really show anything definitive though. For a couple important reasons.

The program will end and participants know that. Not working for 3-5 years is going to create long term problems after the program ends for participants.
It's a set cost trial, so government doesn't adjust taxes or other social programs.
It's limited scope, so landlords employers, shops, etc can't make any adjustments either as it's an irrelevant amount of their income.