-Americans who've been propagandized by the wealth class to resent the even more powerless and victimized people below them than even considering getting angry at the little club above them keeping them scraping by.

I don't know how we'll get past that mindset. So many bloodthirsty Americans rooting against eachother economically.

Comic was about immigrants, but applies easily to homeless, minimum wage workers vs. Slightly less exploited workers, on and on. That's what they do. It fucking works on many if not most who refuse to understand common cause, rugged individuals that we are.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Working people would also get UBI. Most likely taxes would go up, making their paycheck smaller. But then they're getting UBI. Ideally this would result in the majority of stable, permanent workers getting the same pay from 2 different sources. With richer people getting less and poorer people getting more.

Lots of workers would stop working, and that's OK. That will mean certain industries will have to pay more. UBI will result in people working just to not starve or die of exposure a thing of the past. And let me tell you, capitalists and business with FIGHT this to hell and back. It removes a huge cudgel from workers.

But more realistically, UBI will probably start with a below-basic income level subsidy for homeless and jobless to help house and keep people in houses. Kind of like unemployment, but it actually works long-term.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm fully aware friend. I'm not arguing the merits, multiple successful studies, or the desperate need.

My point is how do we convince the poor, deluded, beaten dog people to vote for leaders promising to enact this policy? Can't you already hear the ignorant screams of "TROJAN HORSE COMMUNISM!!!!!" Yes, fully aware its not.

How do we sell this on a bumper sticker? A paragraph won't help with most Americans.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah, sorry. I wasn't replying against your comment but trying to add my ideas/explanation to it and the idea of UBI.

My only ideas on how to convince Americans aren't great: that UBI will prevent homelessness both of them and probably prevent people sleeping on the streets. It'll prevent hunger which means no real risk of not being able to feed your kids. Overall it'll prevent some desperation so it'll prevent a lot of the causes of crime.

Buuuut that won't convince the majority of Americans who think it could never happen to them. Honestly we'll probably get universal healthcare before UBI and I'm not holding out hope to see that in my lifetime. :(

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Buuuut that won't convince the majority of Americans who think it could never happen to them.

Even worse, I got conservatives in my family I know will say "but those people deserve to be there. They made bad decisions and should suffer for them." Even though the "bad decision" premise is bullshit before we get into the cruelty of "deserving" suffering.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To those conservatives: Since the far and away best indicator of a person's wealth is how wealthy their parents were, I guess that means that poor people deserve to be born from poor parents, huh?

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Conservatives don't care about facts.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well when Republicans didn't want to forgive even $10k worth of student loans cuz it's "not fair to the people who paid it off" I'm not too optimistic we could convince them of UBI

[–] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it isn't really fair..... so you make public trade schools, public technical colleges, and undergrad at a public college or university free, too.

'here. go (back) to school, paid for by the wealthy.'

[–] catch22@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

paid for by the wealthy

It wouldn't be paid for by the wealthy. The wealthy only take, i.e. take all of the value created by the working. Have you seen how much goes in subsidies to private businesses to enhance their private business. That weath could pay for it, it's where the wealthy get all their money.

And great point about education being public and freely available. It's beneficial on so many levels.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shit, on that particular issue, there were swaths of neoliberals who ignorantly locked arms with conservatives in screaming "no fair!"

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 1 year ago

Thankfully young people don't buy it. The question is what happens before we're in charge.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it be great... People would no longer need to work two jobs to survive, heck some might just stop working altogether - which is great, as it creates an undersaturated job market where employees have way better footing to negotiate.

The only people this doesn't benefit are the uber-wealthy who rely on people needing to work in order to bleed them dry - and for that reason alone, it may very well never come to fruition. Bloody shame ain't it.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Almost like "turning the bull loose" caused irreparable systemic damage.

Accidentally appropriate metaphor.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-up does.

You want rich people to have more money? Distribute funds to people, and let business compete for those new customers.

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I'm good with either Trickle-up or Middle-out. Anything is better than Trickle-down and that people still believe that con is ridiculous. If anyone advertises Trickle-up, it should instantly be a sign to not trust that person.

[+] ironeagl@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How do you avoid creating a "company store" though?

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you get UBI, you get to choose how to spend it. I'm not sure where the notion of a company store would come in?

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

See? We've literally been conditioned to the point that the idea of addressing inequity makes some of us blow a microchip, and then come the incoherent, non-relevant buzz terms they couldn't define with access to a library and a gun to their heads.

Company Stores!

Marxist Leninist commie pinko socialism!

Picking winners and losers!

Venezuela!

And to be clear, I'm not trying to further divide, I still want these poor, deluded bastards to get a UBI. That's whats so sad, they've been conditioned to want others to suffer to feel more successful by comparison. Jesus Christ horses, fucking drink! You'll feel better!

[–] ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I feel like someone's going to try to find a way to "farm" UBI the same way many other things have been farmed in the past. I chose "company store" to represent that because collusion could make prices of necessities just adjust to compensate.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I think you might be, but I get it.

Fact is, organizations do farm stuff like that whenever they can. Think prison commissary and telephone charges. They have a literal captive group of consumers who have no choice whatsoever. Oil companies and their gasoline.

When you broaden both the group of consumers to "everyone," and the things to be consumed to "everything," and the time frame to "always," it becomes nigh impossible for enough businesses to be on the same page with price gouging. Will there be some businesses that do? Of course. There already are. Enabling the people who are already being gouged to have more purchasing power - meaning more choices in what they purchase, who they purchase from, transportation, housing, healthcare, all sorts of things - that makes it harder for businesses to gouge, especially when we're talking about a wide swath of product and service types.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I still worry that prices would compensate for the additional income simply for added profit. We see it already without UBI.
I want to believe in UBI. How do we combat this?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't give people cash, you give them what they need. It's the unfortunate part of UBI.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But isn't that the "I" in UBI? Income. Cash?

You give people cash with the idea that they know how best to utilize it. You simplify all other forms of assistance (SNAP, rent assistance, etc) and just give everyone cash.

Yes, some people will still need more assistance until they can figure out how to best utilize that money, but the idea is that will not be the majority.

And to clarify it is not "just that easy", but that's the general concept as I understand.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Income doesn't necessarily mean cash though. I'm not saying don't have it part of the package, but the basics need to be met. Like food/water/electric/shelter. The rest they have to figure out.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It does mean cash. Its more efficient to let individuals turn cash into quality of life, than just providing services.

One of the main bits with UBI is that government is very slow to adapt to changing requirements. By mandating what people get, it leads to a lot of inefficiency. A more extreme example is the planned economy of the USSR. It just didn't work well.

UBI lets the people involved decide what is more effective for them. E.g. 1 person might decide that turning the heating up is good. Another might invest in merino wool underlayers, since they tend to work outside.

An understated point though is that the basics should be easily attainable. Then again, that's a basic measure of a society, even if multiple countries, that should be able to do better, are failing at it.

[–] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah. The price will keep low to fit in with the UBI. If the price are too high people will simply not buy. It has even a positive effect on the salary. People will work for more money as you reverse the power. People will work but if it give them a good amount of money otherwise they will use the UBI. The capital can't have capitalize as it does actually. It will be a lot less in favor of the worker. It change the entire dynamic on peut to see a worker, a price, etc.

This is partly why the corporations don't like the idea. They will lose a lot of power with a new actor.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're mixing up UBI with basic welfare. Main point of UBI is that it's given to everyone regardless of their income. From the poorest of homeless to Musk and Bezos.

[–] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I know the difference.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

The only real tangible information that I can assume is correct from this experiment is the drop down to 12% for being un-sheltered. The rest seems to be less concrete. What poverty stricken person who was being trialed for getting $750 a month for a year would say it wasn't helping, or that they spent the money on drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol? Were the people chosen for the program chosen at random or cherry picked?

I don't mean to say that a basic income is a bad idea or that it doesn't work. I actually think it does work. I just don't believe the results of this particular study at the face value of the article, or the truthfulness of the answers the people in the study gave. Only 2% of the money was spent on cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs? Really? That's only $15 a month. In California. That's only a 12 pack of cheap beer or like 2 packs of cigarettes. No way is the average of 100 random poverty stricken people only going to average out to $15 a month for that.