Wouldn't a UBI simply be inflationary? That is, rather than making 0 you make 1500 (say). But since everybody is making 1500, then it would be the same as making 0 again.
So unless we have strict blocks on pricing things, UBI seems nonsensical.
So unless we have strict blocks on pricing things, UBI seems nonsensical.
Printing money isn't the only way to finance a basic income, however. A much more sane approach is through effectivization, by eliminating bullshit jobs and (most) existing means-tested benefits, as well as increased taxation. There's nothing inflationary about this approach.
People say that's liberating and "equality" for all, buy I say it's completely the opposite and directly unfair to a lot of people.
And now that I re-read your post about it being an inflationary scenario, it makes more sense. All of a sudden, you have a reduction in individuals willing to do hard/hateful labor for a small amount more than basic income. This reduces their supply, and thus the salaries go up. Essentially, it sounds like it would make 1500 the new 0 as you put it. Not sure where to follow that train of thought further, though.
Anyone care to continue it from there?
Also you're assuming people have the right incentives today. Is working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet really what you want people to do?
This is really about changing the relative negotiating power between employers and employees. Having some fallback income makes it easier to take time off to go to school, start a business, or find a better job. Also it goes right back into the economy as revenue for some business, so it's hard to see how it can be bad for business.