Universal Basic Income

I understand everything you are saying with regards to capitalist concessions and sustainability, but how do you argue against the studies that show a person given a bill they cannot pay temporarily loses 13 I-Q points? Wouldn’t such a proletariat have time to read theory instead of desperately treading water their whole lives? Anyways I don’t see a good counteragument to this point from a Marxist perspective, please proceed with the strawmen and epic snarky dismissals.

Attached: 2980BFE5-9181-45FA-B069-BA7017D5AD81.jpeg (1600x1148, 244.02K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanent_Fund_Dividend
povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/467_The-Price-Effect-of-Cash-versus-In-kind-Transfers_July 2017.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

actually the only demostrated event to lower i.q in human beans is low effort posts themselves

I'd like to re-read this post later if someone will translate it into english for me tbh.

Jesus those two are horrible actors. They can't even look like they're laughing for a single picture.

It's correct that poverty is terrible for a person's health and actually makes you dumber, but UBI is not gonna solve poverty. If we're seeking reforms within capitalism anyways, old fashioned in-kind welfare is more efficient.

i suppose this is that crypto-yang thing i've heard you buckos talk about so much, GET OUT OF MY YARD

Yawn.

Who said anything about solving poverty? Get reading comprehension.

yang gang everybody

communism will end poverty, ubi will bring people to communism

Yang gang everyone

t. Doesn't understand basic dialectics

Attached: 420 gang.jpg (1920x896, 978.96K)

According to Marxian econ, Yangbux would just lower the price of labor power. Not by the full $1k if, according to Yang's scheme, a lot of people just have the option to trade some benefits for the $1k. But basically (leaving aside Alaska en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanent_Fund_Dividend , which is unique as the oil dividend comes from a commodity that outlies the labor value correlation):
1. take $1k from profits a worker generates
2. give it to the worker
3. next cycle, wages + Yangbux = if ( wages - 1k > min_wage) { wages - 1k + 1k } else { min_wage + 1k }
So, pretty nice if you are on, below, or near minimum wage. Pretty irrelevant if you're not. Of course, in reality, workers will not accept a sudden $1k pay deduction. So this effect would more likely take place at a slower pace through lowered hiring salaries, lowered promotion salaries, etc.

Also, of course, it appeals to NEETs. A lot of NEETs aren't actually on any social support system. Just their parents. This scheme would probably be a plain benefit to them, though it would not fix their miserable lives and put them to healthy work like communism would. However, it is basically irrelevant to anyone already receiving $1k or more from social security, food stamps, etc.

INTERESTINGLY, the difference between the federal minimum wage and Bernie's $15 an hour is $7.75. Over a month, this amounts to $1240. Meaning for many workers, a minimum wage increase would be better. Many state min wages are over the federal minimum wage, but are still low (most below $10) making a $15 fed min wage still equal to or better than Yangbux.

I don't know how rent figures into it. I haven't read Ricardo and Capital Vol 3 yet. I don't think landlords could just suddenly raise rent by $1k, not only for market reasons, but also because many or even most tenants will not get a benefit from the $1k.

It would not cause inflation because as Yang points out, it is based on a tax and not printing money. So in spite of how retarded he is, he managed to be less retarded than AOC and co.

Yang's other statements make him come across as a fascist (we need muh strong border to protect our $1k… ignoring the fact that the $1k comes from worker surplus anyway, meaning immigrant workers don't impact it at all), he is a porky, and he's a Zig Forums meme meaning there's something clearly wrong with him.

The big privatization threat
UBI advocates are saying they can just DISMANTLE WELFARE, social security, foodstamps, etc. and just move all the money to UBI. This means PRIVATIZATION of those services. EVEN IF the workers received the full value going to those services in the switch, they would quickly get leached dry by the privatized services that are more expensive due to being less centralized and subject to fewer standards/restrictions (more rent seeking).
Yang says the same thing, but that it's a "choice" to move from the existing support structures to UBI.
Here's the problem: say half of the people on existing social support switch over. That will cripple the social support systems, making more people want to switch, until it's totally privatized. So from a plain value standpoint, the UBI is borderline irrelevant. A $15 min wage would be better for employed workers, but not as nice for unemployed (though unemployed people frequently depend on the employed). But from a broader understanding of the state and privatization, UBI is very bad. The only people it looks even slightly good for are homeless/NEET.

UBI just kills revolutionary potential

Whats wrong with gutting welfare?

how can you kill something that never existed

This just reads like pure defeatism, or possibly something written by an advocate of supply-side economics.
If current welfare doesn't simply lead to reduced wages, then why would UBI be any different. On the flip side, if the capitalists will always compensate by reducing wages, why bother trying to tax them at all?

That doesn't follow at all. By definition a UBI wouldn't be privatized, and there would be no possible market incentive for privatized welfare-providers to emerge.

I mean, are you trying to say that we shouldn't take the profits a worker generates and give them to the worker? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

wtf I hate technology now

Attached: 1552449946166.jpg (750x790, 250.44K)

lmao do you think if you word things in a specific way, hitting buzzwords and buzzphrases ("giving profits tot he worker"), people won't see you're peddling shit?
how does that help the worker's physical well-being when the services he needs are higher priced than they were before? how does it help him to pay more for less, which is what happens with privatization (of many, not all, sectors)?

I want communism stupid.

Because not everyone gets welfare.

because nationalized services are just better for the money.

How do people not realize the money will end up mostly in landlord's pockets?
How can anyone believe that "competition will keep prices in check"?
Historically we know that every time you increase students housing aids by 100 bucks, landlords increase student housing price by 100 bucks.

Prices will always rise so that the minimum income is the minimum possible amount for basic survival, i.e. abject poverty.

i would also like 1000 dollars a month yes

AHH LE NOT MAINING MEMe :)

le charlie epic random wildcard fake vidya xd tv/ editon ;^^^)

gentleman :—)

XD
D
LOL
O

[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) [YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed)
[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) ]

PIZZA ROLLS r DONE!!!
le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP
*unsheathes katana*
wellllllllll m’goodsir, I think u thought u had me beat, but wacht this !!!!
*charges up energy*
*goes super sainant*
*raises paw*
hhmmmmmmmmm…….

XD NINJAS RAWR PIE CAKE IS A LIE XDDD

xD xD
[YouTube] eiffel65 im blue 10 hours (embed)

AYYLMSOOOO
Y
YY
YY
Y
YY
Y
Y
L
M
A
OAYYYYLMAO

le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP

le epin troll i coax youed int o al e ruxze xD D D tfw no gf xD ayy lmao! :p
upboated good sir i tip my fedora to you, fine gentlemen le real men have class xD real human bean!!1 dae cake is a lie lel
epic fail!!!!!!!! ;p for YOU!! :DDD XD we r :)jdjdjsjms

Source?
See pic related

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (593x960, 694.11K)

read yang gang

this is retarded, even for capitalist economics

Seeing as this is very clearly a thinly veiled chinaman thread and very clearly within the context of US politics, can't you take it to either the uspg or chinaman generals? Thanks.

What's your alternative then retard? Trying to make disabled 55 year-old coal miners software engineers?
When did marxist become anti-people?

Attached: Capture.PNG (608x276, 33.13K)

How about some actual measures to combat inflation, instead of just handwaving the problem? Rent controls, price controls, that sort of thing. I'm not against UBI. I'm against giving a handout to landlords and retailers, who will just jack up their prices to eat up all the UBI for themselves..

There's UBI studies that show inflation had no effect or at worse a mere 10% difference on prices.

povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/467_The-Price-Effect-of-Cash-versus-In-kind-Transfers_July 2017.pdf

Alright. The Yang Gang meme was funny at first, but now its starting to get just as annoying as MAGA.

Yang is paying for this with a 10% VAT, so add that ON TOP of the 10% increase in prices from inflation. Now we're looking at a 20% increase MINIMUM, and that's assuming the limited UBI studies are telling the whole story. That's a huge spike in prices that you're just handwaving, especially when you consider the fact that people already on welfare won't be getting any UBI. Do you think THEY can afford a 20% increase in prices?

Give me rent controls and price controls, and I'll support UBI. Otherwise it's just a handout for the rich with extra steps.

There was only an increase when competition was low. It was done in Mexico. Now imagine how much more business and risk taking will happen in the US economy when people get their yangbucks.

How about not extending liberalism

AMERICAN CHARACTERSTICS DENGISM

Attached: da348bb77e72b3fbeccc0e5383cd1a37e9c16466.png (1920x1080, 740.78K)

How about not fetishizing work

I don't. I think neetbux are the beginning of socialized income and need to be embraced on that level alone and convince people that it's the rest of the economy that's wrong.

What do you think rent and price controls ARE? They're the government saying "market pricing is bullshit, we're centrally planning the costs now"

You mean like in the housing market? You know, where tenants are at the mercy of landlords and realtors?

I love watching leftist scum fall into their own trap of Hegelian Dialectics and take the $1000 bait. Oh yeah, I want to slaughter all of you like the boot-licking dogs that you are.

Bernie was technically for this already back in 2016, but he didn't think it would catch on yet.
It's weird how much can change in two years

Attached: jlnig-r9ew9g-40wtrew.png (646x237 54.65 KB, 19.06K)

...

The one thing I like about Yang is that he's going to put UBI into the public discourse, even if most of his ideas are dogshit and he has no chance of winning. Perhaps by 2028 we'll actually get a GOOD idea for implementing UBI

neets need to be sent down to countryside

You seem to be arguing against OP, but that pic makes me more sure than before than UBI is a good thing.

Except that does nothing to undermine the basic concept that all people in society should share in societal wealth, you fucking socdem.This is an argument for "ethical capitalism" where the rentiers are still allowed to continue rent, and people are still required to labor under capitalists to survive, just pls daddy government keep them from being too mean, don't ever think about redistributing wealth based solely on being a part of society.

Does nothing to reinforce*

We aren't supposed to be fostering the idea that capitalism just needs a few changes and then things will be fine. I don't support UBI for the sake of trying to make capitalism better but rather to hack at its ideologically rooted foundations in the proletariat, that of the endlessly repeated meme that people have to work to get things

Rent and price controls undermine the unquestioned assumption that prices should be determined by market forces or by captains of industry. It also undermines the unquestioned assumption that wealth should be allowed to accumulate endlessly. These are incredibly important liberal concepts to combat, which you are just ignoring in favor of your one pet issue. You can't just pursue UBI without some way to keep the money from just flowing into the pockets of landlords and retailers. Otherwise you're just making them richer and harder to exterminate.

I never actually argued that we should actually implement it.

We'd be way better off having Yang fail.

Can't argue with that.

In any case, fighting the market alone isn't enough. Capitalism can function without the market, capitalism doesn't need a market, and people are used to the concept of regulations on a market for the sake of keeping things sane.

It would be better than not having them there, I don't doubt, but it doesn't argue against the idea that there should be rentiers, only that rentiers need controlling.

it takes a one digit Autism Level to think ask they have and i don't, why he gets more and i don't.
it also takes a one digit Autism Level to get brainwashed

they dont think it be like it is, but it do

has one ever been as to do go more like?

I forgot how it goes

You mean like when prices stayed the same in populous areas of Mexico and only went up 10% in rural ones?

Umm….$1000 or 0-10% inflation
I don't know guys, it's a hard choice.

Attached: wJrs8E8p_400x400.png (400x400, 270.2K)

$0 or $1000 with 0-10% inflation*

And so what happens to the people who aren't eligible for UBI? How do they afford 10% inflation + 10% VAT?

Not him, but isn't the point of UBI that everyone gets it?

Attached: (((You))).png (1200x1042, 246.69K)

read his proposal - he explicitly states people already receiving assistance wont be eligible. they'd have to choose between their current assistance and getting UBI. which means these people end up fucked when they're hit with a 20% spike in prices.

Well that's fucking retarded.

This. People will realize pretty quick that it's not going to work out well for disabled people and autists.

you read like a liberal retard, ubi is basically subvention to min wage jobs, and it remove any common sense in social help, giving a shitty welfare to all instead of a good one to those that need it.
also i agree these services will be privatised, because if you got money instead of services, then ofc capitalists will create businesses to make you pay more for equal service.
if not going socialism, regular worker rights and pay increases are better

ive just made this post and then realised there was already a UBI thread so ill stick the post here:

So I was reading David Graebers Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, which I would highly recommend.

I was on the fence about UBI but in the last part of the book he makes the argument that goes sorta like this:

If you are on UBI then you can't really be compelled to work or to work in shit conditions. If your pay is shit you can leave, if conditions are shit you can leave. Its not like benefits either where you'd have to apply and you'd be living with fuck all and you have to search for jobs or get sanctioned, you would simply stop going to work.

In this way UBI can looked at like a strike fund, it would therefore contribute to upwards wage pressure.

I've heard it said alot that UBI would disempower the working class by taking away their bargaining chip of work, but I think this is not actually the case, I think it would actually increase the bargaining power of those in work.

Now consider that, done correctly, a lot less people would slip through the cracks and end up destitute. Reports show people are less stressed on UBI than normal benefits, which im sure over a long term would correlate to better health, more stable families( most marriages end because of money problems) , less crime, more time with the kids to help them develop etc etc

If you consider student loans and mortgages, for most people these do not exceed 1000 doru a month, so UBI would actually be in a sense of a huge form of debt relief, less interest and penalities would being going to banks (where they make most of their money), which would have the knock on effect of reducing the power of financial institutions somewhat, as well as freeing up large amounts of human labour potential.

On top of that, I think many people would choose to educate themselves further if they had more time, they would also have more time, for example, to attend protests/direct action (more importantly, to join organising groups and organise protests/direct action)

At the same time, it is likely that the increase in spending power would equate to more jobs in the standard Keynesian analysis.

Fundamentally, culturally, it would mean a break from the idea that you have to be employed in drudge labour in order to be valuable to society.

So, to sum up, a stronger bargaining position with employers, more jobs,healthier, happier working class with more time on their hands to organise, less held down by debts etc and immunised to protestant work ethic bollocks.

I think the first argument about upward wage pressure is the strongest i've heard in its favour, its completely changed how I looked at it really. It could actually be the tool that allows the general strike to continue until we win.

I post this stirner image for the quote, for nostalgia of old leftypol, but also because, if the state (im not an anarchist just make it synonmous with capitalism) rests on the slavery of labour, if labour has the choice through UBI not to be a slave, then that state is surely lost?

Attached: 0ddb18a05898e8b19d4e9b1afd2f9fe1a33e26268b7e04e620b5c5b46546256d.jpg (600x600, 66.06K)

UBI is pointless under capitalism because it's not UBI that matters but the price-controls

I have to say anyone that thinks welfare benefits in the US are anywhere near is good as 1000 dollars a month is an ignorant retard. I have a relative that works for the local benefits office, it's nearly impossible to receive benefits if you don't have like 8 kids or you're a single mother with no job at all. Even if you do qualify , the applications are filled with traps to weasel the government out of giving you any benefits. Not to mention benefits like food stamps have huge restrictions on there use. You can also lose your benefits for a variety of bullshit trap reasons. There are probably zero people that would want to keep welfare if the alternative is 1000 dollars a month. "Welfare" is an idiotic concept that's a trap by the wealthy. If a program isn't universal it's easier to take away and easier to make arbitrary rules to stop people who need the benefits from receiving them. The US, is a prime example of this. The US government has very different definition of poor and "middle class" than the average person. To the US government, a household making 100,000 dollars a year should some how be able to afford 40,000 dollars in tuition. To the government making 20 dollars in hour with 2 kids isn't enough to qualify for benefits. Anyone that defends welfare is a useful idiot that doesn't know what they're talking about.

True that, that's not to mention that the paperwork is literally an inch thick of paper and you have to read all of it to not get caught in the traps you mentioned.

Is Yang pretending to be retarded here? The money pumped into the banks mostly just sat there. It effectively didn’t enter the economy. They didn’t have anyone to lend to after 2008.

Attached: B702AC95-2C99-4F54-9BD8-01CDEE6FA65C.jpeg (1242x1444, 352.78K)

the vast majority of people don't understand how shitty US welfare is and how hard it is to get it and keep it
there's an entire segment of lawyers that focus on helping people get welfare and even then it's something like 2 year waits and multiple applications for those who qualify for it

It depends.
My Step-father got 1,300 in social security up until he passed away. Most of it went towards medication and medical procedures though. I still think it would be better to expand benefits and make it easier to obtain rather than "1000 dollars". I honestly don't get why people think UBI would be free of any bureaucratic pratfalls.