this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
217 points (89.5% liked)
memes
17641 readers
1574 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No 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
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
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
There are some legit criticisms from the left on UBI, it's myopic focus on consumption, the possibility of it being eaten away due to inflation it causes and becoming a gift to landlords etc. I don't think "the government will use it to control us" is a good one as that can be said about any social service the government provides. Should we not have universal Healthcare because if a fascist takes over he can kick you off the roles and you'll die from a preventable disease?
Filling everyone's basic needs will be a vast social undertaking that will require a lot of organization, just because someone might take over that organization and wield it for power doesn't mean we shouldn't make it, it just means we have to keep careful watch over it when we do.
I think it’s still worth implementing UBI, most of the fears are something that can be tackled independently.
For instance, the why not have the government buy up most of the private apartments and turn them into public housing? Or at the least set rate increase limits on rent.
I don’t believe most things would face much noticeable inflation if a UBI were to be implemented, aside from luxury/high quality goods. A little inflation is baked into our economy anyway, as a little inflation is a good thing to prevent deflation.
I agree with you, people fear mongering about UBI being used to control people, when bosses could do that currently with a paycheck. UBI usually means no strings attached, although I’m sure there could be other incentive programs out there on top of UBI to reward people.
If we really want UBI to be less likely to be taken over by bad actors, I feel it makes sense to have each state implementing their own UBI programs. It would be great if this was a federal program that helped everyone, but even getting it passed federally is looking like an uphill climb. It makes way more sense to pass UBI in progressive states, and try to sell purple and red states on the idea as well.
I mean, Alaska has a Basic Income at the least, so in theory we already see one state mildly seeing the benefit of a Universal Basic Income.
It's backwards, as the method of social control by the state is national security. And we've never seen so-called libertarian conservatives flinch at inflating the size of the Pentagon or the FBI or ICE.
The real "danger" of Social Security / Medicare / HUD is that a state official might provide a benefit that endears the public to an institution of the state at the expense of the free market. In effect, the "control" is the result of popular support for a program. And the "victims" are people who want the program expanded.
I'm pretty loud about most of those criticisms from the left and I still think it would be better than this.
This is a right wing argument against UBI. If you receive 5 recruiter calls per day begging to take an employer's money, wages will go up, and demand will go up, forcing supply/competition to catch up to take/trickle back all of people's money back to corporatist ownership. UBI is not wealth redistribution, it is you getting more stuff while still having an end of month balance of $0.
More of a left argument. But individual empowerment means freedom from structural policies that drive rent extortion. UBI means you can share rent with certainty that they can pay rent. Landlord risk against tenants not paying going down, means less risk to renting basements and attics. You have the power to pay for moving expenses to escape asshole landlord policies, or structurally oppressive cities, without needing a job in new location first. UBI means you can afford home ownership and become a landlord yourself.
A leftist brainworm is that "classes of people are assholes" and can only be eaten as a solution. The truth is corrupt market power imbalances create resentment of the powerful. UBI allows for natural "perfect competition" (all the suppliers make a fair ROI for voluntarily participating) markets, which housing is one. I said this was a left criticism, but it's also a right criticism against inflation.
It's an absurd criticism, because UBI is freedom from government discretion. Although its the right that threatens to take away healthcare from classes of people (trans), SS is not up for discussion as "for republicans only". Medicaid is a "lower race" program that is attacked while Medicare is a "Republican constituency". UBI is power redistribution that doesn't give rise to the "American History X" accusations of "programs tilted just for the subhumans" divisiveness. We all get the same deserved dividend respresenting our equal ownership share of the country, and its tax revenue.
The UBI distribution organization is the IRS. Trump's IRS crony takeover is just about preventing audits for those who bribe him to ignore their tax fraud. It won't be used to change your/general people's refund formula.
How though? There's no mechanism in UBI to increase production to match the increased demand. If anything its could decrease production / supply as less people work and choose to just live off UBI. Increasing the amount of cash in the market doesn't increase productivity/ supply, otherwise printing money would work. Increasing aggregate demand / money without increasing aggregate supply / productivity just leads to inflation. This is what I mean by its myopic focus on consumption, production also needs to be considered. Everyone wants to focus on the "to each according to their needs" part and not the "from each according to their ability"
Yeah certain industries can scale up relatively cheaply to match this increased demand but things like housing which have a limited supply that expands relatively slowly will just see price increases. You said this could cause increased competition for landlords but it will also cause increased competition for housing.
If there are 4 houses and 5 households and before UBI 4 households made enough to afford $1,000 in rent and they got the 4 houses, after UBI of $1,000 the landlord can use the threat of renting to the homeless person to raise the rent until that homeless person is priced out again. If you increase the amount of money people have without increasing supply then the people will use that money to bid up prices until you're back to the old distribution of resources.
The alternative to UBI that the left has been pushing forever, especially the African American left, has been a universal jobs guarantee. Anyone can go into a government office and they'll give you a job with decent pay. Since you're putting people to work you can actually increase productivity and supply to match the new demand. You still get all the guarantees of income and the benefits that entails of getting out of bad situations but you also are able to pressure employers for better labor standards. If the government is offering a living wage for 3 days a week then other employers will have to match that. It's also more politically viable, trying to convince middle America that "free money" is a good thing will be a lot harder then convincing them that a jobs guarantee is good.
UBI gives a lot of leverage to workers to have over their employers.
Some people will do as you have said, where they will opt to not work and live off UBI. We see that currently though with some of these people living on the streets. People work for many reasons ultimately. For some, it’s to have their basic needs met, but many people work to have a higher quality of life and to have their wants met as well.
With a UBI you ideally could have a small apartment, amenities, pay for public transportation, and not have to worry about putting food on your table each day. Let me just say you have Universal Healthcare too since if we managed to get UBI implemented, then there likely are other progressive programs we could implement at the same time.
The thing about UBI is that money is backed by the US government, they’re not printing new dollars, so they’re not devaluing the money in the marketplace.
Actually printing money in bulk is bad, because those printed dollars are not backed by assets, thus devaluing that currency as a whole. The US does print more money occasionally, but we devalue our dollar a little each time that we do.
I agree that if our demand outpaced our production it would lead to higher inflation. Currently though, we produce much, much more than is demanded. So much so that we have billions in waste each year, that’s billions in weight too! So, realistically, people would be able to afford more food, but people only need/want so much food so spending habits on food should not change so much as to leave shelves consistently empty.
The same thing applies to clothing as well, where we toss tons, upon tons of new clothes each year.
Housing is purposefully kept at low supply. If houses and apartments were allowed to be scaled up to meet demand, then housing prices would go down. The thing is, that all the Not In My Backyard (NIMBYs) people will not stand for having the price of their house going down, especially if the price could ever drop to be lower than they are paying for their mortgage. Development is slowed down for similar reasons since if there is an abundance of available housing then housing prices could drop.
The government could step in to buy up many private apartments up to turn into public housing or they could implement rent controls to prevent rampant greed from landlords. I don’t think UBI would be enough for most people currently living on the streets to afford to live downtown, but it could help them keep a small apartment in one of the less busy cities or in the lower cost neighborhoods.
Personally, I’m in favor of more government jobs that pay a living wage. I don’t think it has to be mutually exclusive, mind you, we could have UBI and more government jobs. UBI gives more flexibility to a lot of people out there, for instance single parents can more easily work part-time and still put food on the table or university students could focus more on their education rather than needing to balance a part-time job and their schoolwork.
I agree that convincing ‘everyone’ of a UBI would be hard, but if Blue states implemented it and it saw success, then I’m sure people living in Purple/Red states could be convinced as well. I think you’re spot on though that we should still try to sell Universal Job Guarantee at the federal level as it could be sold right now with no further elaboration.
A wise answer... But times are tense now, and who knows what surprises await us next. By the way, I recommend looking into what a CBDC is, in my opinion, they will also try to introduce this after digital IDs..