I was once talking with one of my classmates and he said that in the future, there will be universal basic income implemented by entire world. I was not convinced at that time and thought he is just being stupid but given the layoffs happening and massive amount of unemployment, I am thinking about this possibility. What do you say?
You must log in or # to comment.
I don’t honestly think it will happen in a way that is genuinely good for people. It will happen in a way where the rich and powerful are in control and can use it as a method for maintaining control.
Came here to say this. Nobody in power gives up their power to the masses willingly, it must be taken. And the price is almost always paid in blood and suffering. And every victory is only temporary as they try to regain the power that was taken from them.
I mean you could just make Luigi a national holiday or event. Kill the rich once in a while to keep them in line.
Lol like the purge but only if your net worth is high enough
but surely their power lies in money. if nobody has the money to buy the things billionaires profit from, then they lose their power
UBI is a bandaid to keep capitalism propped up by neo-liberals. It’s contingent on the idea that society is dependent on people spending money, rather than getting essential services and enough free time to maintain mental stability.
It makes working voluntary but still incentivized, whereas without something like that, someone needs to force people to do the jobs that provide those essential services. People will volunteer doing fun things for their local community, but generally no further.
Yeah, I mean it’s not like a lot of those services are already populated by people who are underpaid and overworked because they love what they do and love helping people…
You mean people who got the jobs they could get and would prefer not working those jobs if they could get away with it. Trust me, a lot of people working physically demanding jobs don’t do it because of their enjoyment of wrecking their own bodies.
nah. there’s people out there whose favourite thing is to do the niche “yucky” or tedious things, but they can’t, because they had to get a job in marketing, or work in retail because they needed ANY job just so they could survive.
nah. there’s people out there whose favourite thing is to do the niche “yucky” or tedious things, but they can’t, because they had to get a job in marketing, or work in retail because they needed ANY job just so they could survive.
This is one of those ideas that only makes sense at the surface level and fails at the slightest bit of scrutiny. Yes, it is technically correct that any job out there will have some nonzero number of people who would do it just because they want to. But that’s no way to run a civilization.
That system only works if there just by random coincidence happens to be a perfect match between the jobs people want to do and the jobs that need doing. Are there are a few weirdos that would wade waist-deep in literal shit to clean out sewers for free, just because they enjoy it? It’s a big world and people are weird, so there probably are a few people out there like that. Are there enough of those rare weirdos to keep all our sewers operating? Highly unlikely.
I know your system would fail because we have clear evidence from our own economy that there is a major mismatch between the jobs people want and the jobs that need doing. Look at every job out there that attracts people who want to do the job for its own sake. Look at university teaching, for instance. Universities can get away with having classes taught by poorly paid adjuncts because lots of people would like to teach university courses. There are far more potential university lecturers out there than the number of lecturers universities can actually support. Universities can pay their adjuncts a pittance, and they still have people sign up to teach classes. The low adjunct pay problem would disappear tomorrow if people simply stopped taking adjunct teaching jobs.
Look around to nearly any field that people go into primarily out of passion. They nearly all pay a pittance. “Let people choose whatever job they want” simply isn’t a viable way of running an economy. Everyone wants to teach kids or care for puppies. No one wants to clean out sewers.
You always have to have some way of getting people to work jobs that they wouldn’t choose voluntarily. There are simply things that need to be done for society to function that not many people want to do. In a capitalist system, this is done by offering higher wages for positions few people want. In socialist systems, this looks like offering more perks like better housing to unwanted jobs (pay by another name.) But you’re trying to hand waive away an unavoidable problem by dismissing it as, “no worries, people will just do what they want and things will work out!”
Universities can get away with having classes taught by poorly paid adjuncts because lots of people would like to teach university courses
that’s because those jobs come with pensions and job security. if a UBI was in place, then jobs like that would have no choice, but to offer more money. same with the undesirable jobs like cleaning sewers. can’t fill it? offer more money. this is why farmers have to rely on migrant workers, because they simply can’t pay enough
You think adjunct teaching comes with job security and pensions?
You are completely and utterly unqualified to participate in any discussion whatsoever involving labor issues of any kind. You lack the prerequisite background knowledge.
oof. interesting assumption about me!
Yes, I’m sure plenty of people actually wanted to become plumbers, farmers or construction workers, but had to settle for a job in marketing or such because that was all they could find.
i think you get my point, though. during the pandemic, the garden centres emptied out, because people wanted to grow their own food.
Growing your own food isn’t the same as growing food for 10,000 people at all. My family’s been growing a portion of our own food all my life, don’t think any of us wants to work 12+ hour days in the fields in the summer.
plenty of people find satisfaction from doing that sort of thing. i know i do. problem is - i just can’t afford the risk of devoting all of time to that right now, because there’s no guarantee for my financial security.
i also make my own maple syrup, and keep bees. would raise chickens, if my local bylaws weren’t so outdated.
and i never claimed that I would be doing it for 10K people. where’d ya get that number from?
I think that it will start as an universal basic income but that it will evolve into universal basic products and services. Basic stuff you don’t have to pay for, like for example food and public transport and in time expand to shelter, all levels of education, etc. To the point of covering all the basic needs.
I came looking for a comment like this to agree that we need to discuss UBI more in the context of Universal Services.
Personally, I think there’s a strong chance that universal services will emerge before or alongside a UBI. Both are more likely to grow gradually rather than suddenly.
One great thing about universal services is that they don’t require as much top-down oversight to deploy, imo. You can join groups now that collect and distribute free fruit. Anyone with a skill can begin giving it away; if you’re a lawyer, you can give free legal services to immigrants; if you’re a technician, you can join or set up fixit clinics. Every time folks begin giving away labor value, they’re chipping away at the transactional structure that holds people hostage to capitalist labor markets. And as critical mass builds, more and more people are freed to spend less and less time hustling for their daily bread, and can direct more and more time to this Solidarity Economy. And unlike a UBI, you don’t need the government or the rich to buy-in: you can start practicing these things yourself and with neighbors now.
If you want to build this but want something a little less anarchist, public school systems are an existing prototype of this: that’s why a lot of school systems also engage in food distribution and more recently experiments in social housing. You can join advisory committees and help deploy more services using your school district to pilot universal basic services!
this comment hit me deeply. it has given me SO MUCH to think about. thank you for sharing your thoughts!
first time listening an interesting perspective like this
I think UBI is generally seen as something to do instead of that, a way to put off actually providing for people so that they can continue to funnel capital from the regularly well-off to the obscenely well-off while blaming it on the poor and the increasingly shrinking “middle-class”.
I think it’s absolutely necessary as stop-gap on the way to a truly post-scarcity society where money is irrelevant, but highly unlikely because greedy cunts run everything.
It should but it won’t.
I don’t think so.
No UBI proponent has given me a convincing argument that
inflationgreedy bastards won’t eventually increase prices to the extent that the extra money would be effectively wiped out. Which would be especially bad because people often propose UBI as a replacement for welfare - so those on a benefit get what little spending power they have eliminated, and only those with jobs can absorb the increased costs.Also, governments don’t tend to go around handing out money (well, to those who actually need it) willy-nilly. Most social welfare/workers’ rights gains in the 20th century were because western governments were afraid that the October Revolution might give their citizens ideas. As of now, there’s no longer threat of an alternative to Capitalism.
We’re 30% there already, between long term unemployed and people on social security. I support more. Human rights include food, shelter, healthcare, but not everyone has figured that out yet.
Right? I think 4% of American adults of working age are on ssdi. I’d guestimate another 2-4% are existing on some sort of other welfare type schemes. More housing estates, less aircraft carriers please!
do you think internet can come to rights?
I would argue it already has. We already agreed to fund public libraries through tax dollars. Libraries are inherently information services and include Internet access today.
It might follow that municipal Internet services be made available via taxes so that everyone has equal access to the Internet.
In Kirkland, WA there exists a kind of municipal Wi-Fi offered in its business district. Similarly, most businesses provide free Wi-Fi to anyone within range. These aren’t perfect systems, but provide examples and a path to expand services to a whole community.
UBI has to have a lot of folks wanting it and theres contingents that would rather starve then see those people get a thin dime, with “those people” having various meanings. Then there’s the temporarily embarassed millionaires, and of course the Fox news crew who think socio-commu-trans folk are going to dye their kids hair blue and make them worship Satan.
The rich have done everything they can to increase wealth inequality and brainwash the public into acceptance. That will not be reversed. If they allow UBI it will be below poverty levels and highly conditional.
The wealthy want slaves. Its a mental illness with them. Black people. Underage sex trafficking. Working poor. Robots. Last thing they want is a utopia where everyone is healthy, happy and financially independent.
One of the wealthiest countries in the world doesn’t even have proper healthcare system in 2026. No way are those dumb fucks getting a UBI. Its a lie.
It will never happen.
Not because it is a bad idea; it is an AWESOME idea. Work used to be something you do for the collectivity; you do something for the group, in exchange of something from the group. Today, a work is a mean to earn money, regardless of the collectivity. We do meaningless jobs, which often gives nothing to the collectivity, just because we have a rent to pay, we want vacations and a new car. A universal basic income would completely break this; I would work to bring something to the group, not to reach a stupid objective for the company.
However, there is a fringe of people which will not gain anything from this, even lose leverage and power over the masses: the 1%, the millionaires and billionaires. They will do whatever they can to kill it, saying only freeloaders and foreigners will benefits from it. And the masses will vote against it, and it will be a big victory for capitalism. Until global warming accelerate, we will have nothing to eat anymore and earth will be inhospitable for humans. The end.
No, Americans are hateful people who cannot stand to even see a poor person buy soda with SNAP benefits. They will ensure that those displaced by AI end up begging in the street before receiving a penny from the government.
I am not an American but there are a lot of people in my country who hate charity works like free food drives, free medical checkups and etc.
To be honest I’m not fan of UBI. I’m more fond of redistribution of work.
If there’s less things to do due to automatization let’s just all work less hours with full income.
I think ubi would do that
People have a baseline income and can work less or maybe even not at all if noy necessary. Those that really want more can work and earn more then
I think it will be very important for that to work that we first put wealth caps. Nobody should be able to have a net worth that is an X amount. Anything above that should be taxed 100%. Say, 10 million for example, nice upper limit.
If all the nasocs are covered, free healthcare, free education, UBI, wealth caps, I think we’d live in a near utopia
We have to kill or tax all billionaires out of existence first. Their choice. And I don’t mean that with any sentiment of hyperbole.
Taxing (or burying at sea, or grilling on a spit, or force feeding them like foie gras to consume their livers) billionaires out of existence isn’t an issue of generating enough tax revenue. You can consider it a part of why such a thing is important, but it should not be considered the primary point.
The primary point is to reduce the distance between the wealthiest among us and the least wealthy among us. For all it matters, the money re-possessed could be burned. Its utilization is secondary to reducing the disparity.
If being a billionaire was an illegal act punishable by immediate execution, the need for UBI would be dramatically reduced. It would also be dramatically easier to implement.
UBI is the future if we are allowed peace.
WW3 in an apocalyptic scale is much more likely. Don’t need to feed the obsolete peasants if they’re all dead.
I really like UBI and think it would work wonderfully if it was somehow actually implemented without major bullshit. But I’m not sure it’s even possible to implement, because it would make it next to impossible to exploit and control people, which would be really bad for corporate profits. I’m skeptical that capitalist democracy is strong enough to overcome that, I think maybe the way it works is more of a negotiation of power between the factions that actually hold leverage over things, and that it is impossible for that to result in prioritizing the interests of those without leverage, which UBI recipients would ostensibly be. If it looks like everyone is going to vote for UBI despite the best available propaganda against it, maybe the powers that be will just agree amongst themselves that they don’t really depend on that group of voters in any critical way, so they’ll just shut down or falsify voting and enforce their will with automated violence, because they prioritize maintaining control.
So probably what’s needed as a prelude to direct government relief from exploitation is generally increased negotiating power for every person, which won’t be a top-down thing for the most part.
