this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
269 points (90.4% liked)

memes

17641 readers
1604 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't know how relevant this is now, but here's a link to another post where I expressed my thoughts on what kind of pitfalls you might most likely face -- https://lemmy.world/post/36867409

By the way, what is this phenomenon on Lemmy? Let's say people are reluctant to read and comment on old posts published just a couple of days or a week ago, but with new ones, it's a completely different story. What kind of psychology is this? Or it seemed to me?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not sure what your meme is saying. Is the implication that if there is UBI, then nobody will work anymore? I might be misunderstanding

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If that is the argument, it is a pretty damning rebuke of a UBI.

Someone needs to work for housing and food to exist. If a UBI causes everyone to not work (including those producing food, etc), there will very quickly not be food and other necissities.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

No sane UBI plan will do this. The goal is to cover Basic needs, not replace working. What it does attempt to do away with is the requirement to work yourself to the bone to barely survive. Working to pay for things more than the basics is still expected.

A useful side effect is to rebalance the power dynamics between larger companies and their employees. It's a lot harder to abuse someone if they won't be homeless within 3 months if they quit.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago

I have been workshopping a "Universal Ranked Income" concept, where UBI provides all necessities, while capitalism is used for luxury goods. For example, you get free generic shampoo and conditioner. If you want versions that are scented or have different properties, you spend money. All money is for getting upgrades to lifestyle - bigger beds, vehicles, houses, ect, but the state provides free but boring goods and services as a baseline. Capitalism has to compete against free.

The way I figure, doing it this way allows us to have the best qualities of capitalism, while preventing the hostage leverage that needing food, shelter, and general wellbeing that corporations exploit against people. By ensuring people have what they need, they can essentially unionize by default - the corporations can't force them nor their families to genuinely suffer for refusing to work bad jobs.

Unfortunately, there are complaints about my concept creating 'castes', since I want absolute limitations on wealth, fixed incomes, and want each job to fall into a rank of income according to difficulty, education, and risk that is involved with that type of job. IMO, a national standardization of incomes and job requirements that employers can't manipulate is key to egalitarianism.