The past year has convinced me that UBI would be an unmitigated disaster.
The very generous unemployment benefits that were part of the US Covid relief bill has led to companies having to rapidly raise wages in order to attract employees. I think this is the fastest growing wages we've seen since the 90s boom.
UBI could have a similar effect, but permanently. Push up wages across the board as not working is a viable option.
It raises the negotiating power of labor and negates some of the advantages of capital, potentially reducing wealth inequality.
Where does this money come from? Increasing prices?
[...] as not working is a viable option.
What kind of life would that be? It can not be too comfortable or everyone might decide not to work which will bring down the entire scheme.
Reducing profits for shareholders, increasing prices on the higher end items favoured by high-earning clientele. Keep the soup & salad the same, raise the steak.
The poorer people will skip the guac when it goes from $1 to $2 but richer people will just grumble and pony up. Maybe they just get Frapps for Fridays, but their manager will just grumble. This way the burden can be gently and consensually shifted up bracket.
Yeah, this is why I am against a UBI that is based on living costs. If you are going to divide society along those who work and those who don't you can't mix and match them in the same region. They'll have to live in cheaper places with less opportunity to make it easier for those who do decide to work. The idea that people live in SF on UBI without working while they push workers out is absurd. It would be a dysfunctional system that collapses on itself.
Sure, if you want to live on a UBI exclusively go to Florida and find a nice and quiet community in a cheap location.
Shareholder reserves. Or do you think they have trouble paying for their groceries? Some wealth inequality can be fixed rather painlessly. I think we can all hold our collective tears that they won't get $10M yearly bonus and "only" $9M.
> What kind of life would that be?
That's not for you or me to decide to don't impose your life philosophy on others. For the record I too can never sit idle but I am not judging others that can and do that all the time.
This is based on a Protestant Work Ethic kind of viewpoint that I think we need to get over.
Work is fulfilling. Sitting at home on benefits sounds great but isn't. I know, I've done my share. It's fine for a few months, but then I always got to the point where I'd take any job just to get out of the house and do something. And even "sitting at home doing nothing" meant working on creative projects.
In the UBI trials they've had so far, people didn't stop working. They do stop working two jobs to make ends meet, which is good.
> It raises the negotiating power of labor, which negates some of the advantages of capital that lead to growing wealth inequality.
Your misconception is quite widespread, though. I fear that this experience with guaranteed minimum income will politically kill UBI, anyway.