The author is a complete idiot. No one argues again UBI because they want you to suffer. It’s just that it’s a Ponzi scheme like social security. Sooner or later you have too few workers and too many on it. If you believe in UBI then by all means start by supporting your local homeless person. Just invite them in and pay for their needs. .
Homeless people shouldn't exists. That's one reason why first nations despised us so much.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness
Feel free to share your home then if you feel so strongly. Thumbs down all you like but I f you’re not the solution then you’re the problem. No need to be self righteous about it if you’re not the solution
UBI is a bandaid, that could not work on it's own. It would need price controls to work, at minimum, or else everyone's rent will simply go up by the same amount as UBI and the entire benefit will be given to Capital.
If we could build political power to implement UBI, we may as well implement socialism. It will be just as difficult, but will actually produce the results we're looking for.
> or else everyone's rent will simply go up by the same amount as UBI and the entire benefit will be given to Capital.
Why hasn't this already happened? It's taken many years and multiple crisis for rent to have gotten as high as it has, and still Capital hasn't succeeded in removing every renter's last dime.
> It would need price controls to work
Price controls on housing don't increase supply at all and don't offer much of a solution. Supply needs to be increased.
[In Singapore during the middle of last century they had a massive house building project which is an ongoing success to this day.](https://thefield.asla.org/2018/09/06/from-slums-to-sky-gardens-singapores-public-housing-success/)
UBI may not work in the US because of the purported efficiency of Capital, but other areas IE UK/EU/AUS/LatAm could copy the Singapore model and keep housing affordable.
>If we could build political power to implement UBI, we may as well implement socialism. It will be just as difficult, but will actually produce the results we're looking for.
UBI in the form of a negative income tax was proposed by Milton Friedman. I believe he wasn't a socialist.
It is worth noting that Singapore's chief distinguisher is *demand*. They have some of the strictest immigration laws on the planet, and you're not getting in unless you have the means to be solidly upper-middle-class anywhere else on the planet.
Redditors do not like hearing this, but that doesn't make it less true. Singapore is "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" - its blue-sky social policies and beautiful scenery are possible because it has a draconian criminal justice system and only lets in the people who it is certain will never be anything resembling a burden on its resources.
To your last point, Friedman certainly wasn't a socialist. He proposed this subsidy as a way to "fix" Capitalism so that it wasn't constantly challenged by socialism. And as far as I can tell, it would be the most efficient form of subsidy. But I am a socialist, so I disagree with Friedman. I don't think it's sufficient to fix the problem, because Capitalism itself *is* the problem.
But look at section 8 housing. It's effectively setting the floor for pricing in the housing market. Why would I rent for less than I can get from renting to section 8. Capital can efficiently extract the entire subsidy because the total available money is now the new price floor on average.
That's only one example.
As always it's a step along the way. A UBI would make a number of social support programs less or not conditional, and broaden the number of people who have acces to it. That's progress.
Do you honestly believe socialism, of all things, would be more environmentally friendly? Dude, the USSR destroyed an entire SEA. As in. It doesn’t exist anymore. It’s toxic, dry sand now.
Whatever the USSR was doing after 1921, it wasn't socialism. Same with China after Dheng. Lenin admitted his revolution hadn't been able to skip directly from Feudalism to socialism, and openly embraced a form of "State Capitalism" (his own words). It was distinct from private Capitalism, but it sure wasn't socialism or communism. It industrialized the country, because that's what Capitalism does. Their form of it did it with greater intensity. That's why you see GDP go up, as well as environmental damage.
For an example of what degrowth looks like, I gave the PLZN in Chiapas in a previous comment. That group started off Marxists, an became a broader coalition that a lot of people describe as anarcho-communism. They themselves eschew labels, and describe themselves as a people's movement. They did not replicate the failures of the Mexican state by founding another state to replace it.
Imo a real materialist analysis of the USSR and entire ML revolutionary movement would put them as in reality a 20th Century equivalent of the 18th Century bourgeois revolutionaries, their main objective was to secure autonomy from the Western imperialists and they were mainly nationalist revolutions; outside of the USSR itself they were almost totally nationalist revolutions that used "socialism" and "Marxism" as their guide because the Bolsheviks already had a ready made plan for overthrowing the previous elites, holding off foreign imperialists, and developing your economy and industrial base to the status of a relatively advanced country, and also being an ML is how you get superpower arms, aid, and allyship. The material outcome of the ML movement was literally most of these countries embracing neoliberal capitalism and integration into the global economy once they developed enough.
So why did these ultimately nationalist and ultimately bourgeois revolutions use Marxism as their guiding philosophy? Simple, because the middle class intellectuals who led them and would have been liberal nationalists over a century prior were now enamored with the idea of socialism because liberal capitalism was shown to actually suck and the liberal capitalist nations were usually their Imperial overlords.
I think that's a good perspective. I generally agree with it.
The common feature of both revolutionary movements is that in protecting the early successes of the revolution, they established a new ruling (middle) class which forestalled additional progress, or wider political enfranchisement.
If one says that *"Mao's China, Cambodia, Venezuela and the USSR weren't 'real socialism,'"* then one could also say the same of the USA and capitalism. Not a worthwhile argument.
Better to talk about why they failed to address industrial pollution, environmental overshoot and the causes of climate change, and what has been learned since these examples. Highly recommend reading *Marx in the Anthropocene* by Kohei Saito.
When capital gets to dominate the entire world for centuries, and engineer coups, sanctions, colour revolutions and so on to squash anything vaguely resembling leftisim, you can't honestly and seriously say "not real capitalism" or that we've had an extant mature example of socialism.
Try implementing your utopia (including being more than half a century ahead of your time in being concerned about environmental degradation) when you're immediately under attack from 12 countries and they're funding reactionaries within your borders perpetuating a civil war.
Well if we both agree about the PLZN then let's not quibble about our disagreements. We should be learning from their successes.
I didn't mean they "weren't real socialism ™". I take Richard Wolff's line here: no one can argue that those projects didn't start off as socialist projects. But depending on your analysis, you may disagree about where they got off track, or whether they got off track at all. But there is a difference worth calling out, between the main tendency of Socialism in the 20th century- the "State Socialism" model which could just as easily be called and has been called "State Capitalism". It's a system that doesn't abolish or really even reform the idea that an individual is "employed" into an employer-employee relationship. That's why mainstream Marxism criticizes it.
But to be more clear on China, Mao's movement was a Communist one. I'm saying Dheng reformed it into a system that more resembles the Stalinism model, of "Socialism within one country" i.e. of a nationalist and highly centralized character.
If one says that *China, Cambodia, Venezuela and the USSR weren't "real socialism,"* then one could also say the same of capitalism. Not a great argument.
Better to talk about why they failed to address industrial pollution, environmental overshoot and the causes of climate change, and what has been learned since these examples. Highly recommend reading *Marx in the Anthropocene* by Kohei Saito.
Precisely this. When troops get their Monthly Housing Allowance in the USA, the rent magically raises to match what more the government provides. It's a rigged system when a capitalist profit from the socialized program. Also, the same issue with colleges upping tuition to align with what government students loans are willing to be shelled out.
You can't subsidize when a parasite class leeches the subsidy at an all consuming rate.
I looked at the sub and couldn't figure it out 100%, but Google says it's a share-investing platform for rental and vacation homes, so like stocks, but homes are the stocks. I suppose that will drive up prices for buyers but allow investors to make more money in a diversified portfolio.
idk.
But we're not bidding against each other, we are bidding against private equity money that wants the assets regardless of price. Precisely so they can raise rent when the monthly housing allowance comes in, and [lobby](https://www.starting-gun.com/)
for increased subsidies for the poor which ends up in their pocket. Every program designed to help the poor benefits the wealthy more.
That's also true. Big pockets, either way, are the only beneficiaries. Rent from private equity, or if you're lucky, mortgage yourself to the bank. Either way, you don't really own your home, you're paying the financier for being richer than you, and line go up. And either way, the price increases further out of reach, making the next cycle even stronger.
Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
We should set UBI as a percentage of taxes from the wealthy/companies. If they take more, we get more.
It will put some pressure to slow their greed.
It could be passive income and company profits are taxed at different brackets and higher rates. Vs income from labor.
All taxes go into the pot for UBI but companies/landlord that try to make more from UBI end up just paying back into the pot and UBI is calculated based on how much we have. If corporations charge more, we get more.
Maybe there is a base amt that gets paid out $500 and then the rest is the percentage of excess wealth gained from greed.
Do you actually think this could happen? And who's "we"? The collective "we" can't do shit to implement what you described. So do you think congress would implement this? It's a fairly tale, and I don't understand wasting brain power to type it out.
yes yes calm down. the other person is talking about solutions, how to actually make this work. OF COURSE its not easy to implement, thats sort of a given.
The collective we is the ONLY way this will happen because BIG special interest has already bought and paid for our representatives.
We are going to have to act like the stakeholder we are, the employers we are of elected officials, and take whatever measures that are necessary that our employees work for us and not for special interest.
If that means throwing the bums out, then so be it. If it means watering the tree of liberty, then so be it.
Whatever it takes, change must occur to decentralize wealth. Trickle down economics would work if every time whatever trickled down was not sucked back up through whatever magical "inflation" is come up with to justify raising prices.
We need to redefine some economic terms like profit.
Profit is what is left after responsibilities. Profit is not made by raising prices, it is made by producing and selling more.
The whole economic system needs to be reevaluated for potentially greedy and damaging behaviors and those regulated out of our economic system.
Do I actually think this could happen? Hahahahahaha no. This is collapse. I am very aware of the realities of the world.
“We” would be the government. The collective entity meant to direct and lead the country.
Well it took all of two minutes so not really much time at all.
Would this be a good idea and help a lot of people especially during time of unnerving change and uncertainty? Yes. Safety nets are incredibly important when drastic changes are coming. (Or just generally) they allow people to take more innovative risks and catch people affected by unintended consequences of policies.
Personally I would also tie this to birth control. One you could get off of to have children if you so choose. But it would have to be a choice vs just accidental pregnancy. (Hopefully male bc will finally make its way to market).
Ecologically degrowth is very important. Economically we need a new system that’s not a pyramid scheme but instead circular economy to work with nature instead of destroying it for our growth.
But I’m on collapse. I know we are fucked. Or at least real change wont be possible until it’s likely too late. We are a very reactive society instead of proactive.
Nothing of what I just read is news to me. It's been said a million times. Actually effecting change in our system without vast amounts of capital is all but impossible because that's what the ruling class has ensured. Pipe dreams.
this happened to my family when my dad was working for the army. The landlord raised the rent from what the military would pay, and when he retired they refused to change anything, even though the entire time dude was profiting on the extra money (the people in the other apartments in the building paid almost HALF of the rent my parents had to). The area we were in didn’t have many available places to live, which is why we lived there for a bit (from what I heard it still doesn’t), so greedy asf landlords will do this.
My grandma’s landlord for a high rise “Plattenbau” (the typical high rises you see in Europe) had a landlord who owned a company and was a millionaire several times over. Often times, the washing machines wouldn’t work, because there was too much money in them. Why? Because the greedy landlord deadass came by to empty them himself when he found the time lol. This was for a 10 story apartment complex. The plus is it was otherwise well-maintained, but like…
My partner had this issue in the military, their first wife and kid had to survive on WIC because the pay was always just short enough. Food assistance programs are at least done somewhat right here in the USA, and that's because it took years to get it right.
The reason we’ll get UBI is automation.
If a big 3d printer can make a house in an afternoon it won’t matter what the capitalists want. All it takes is that one guy in everyone’s extended family that can build a big 3d printer and everyone gets a house.
Think about it this way - we can already build robots that can do anything a human can physically do. And the price of building robots js plummeting. The cost of raw materials to build a capable humanoid robot is nothing. Aluminum, brushless motors and computer chips are cheap.
It’s just the software that’s holding things up. The only reason we don’t have humanoid robots taking 100% of the jobs is the code sucks today. But that’s changing rapidly.
Soon robots will be cheap to build and they’ll be smart. And I dunno if the rich can truly control that. People will build their own, then program those to build more.
Luxury automated communism means a post scarcity society, and we have zero framework for actual implementation. While it's admirable that people find optimism in such realities, I'm remiss to say that we're never seeing that in our lifetimes.
If you enjoy science fiction books, the Culture series by Ian Banks is a wonderful vision of fully automated luxury space communism. Start with Player of Games.
Eh, I don't think they'll necessarily say goodbye. We've perfected the means to extract gold from stone and soil. I expect we'll do likewise to the poor. When life gives you plebs, make plebonade.
> If a big 3d printer can make a house in an afternoon it won’t matter what the capitalists want. All it takes is that one guy in everyone’s extended family that can build a big 3d printer and everyone gets a house.
Because the supplies all come from magic fairy-dust land?
I admire your optimism, but ... this is pure fantasy.
> but where do people get supplies from currently?
From existing supply chains dependent on the current global economic system which relies on quickly-disappearing natural resources within a destablizing biosphere?
Generally, logistics is a far far harder problem to solve than production. Scale makes most things ridiculously cheap at point of production, in the case of food for instance borderline free from the perspective of an individual ($8 per hundredweight, or hundred pounds). By now most of the cost of most products is everything between the point of production and it being in a usable form at the point where it will be used. Getting things to where they need to be, how and when they need to be there, is ***almost entirely*** the problem, unless you're talking about stainless steel or microprocessors or something.
It's not the building of houses, it's the claims to land and the laws regarding land use.
With 5 year's worth of savings I could afford the to build my family a small but livable house. This would have a significant amount of my own labor but I could afford contracting where it's needed and all the government action. The problem isn't the house, it's where to put it.
In my area of expertise, the opportunities to work for a liveable income are highly localized. I already have to commute 45 minutes to work each day to have some semblance of safety and opportunity for my family (because it's severely lacking where work is located). Even near work, all the land is inaccessibly expensive.
If it would take 5 years for me to build a bare-bones house with no debt, it would triple that to buy the plot of land it would sit on, and then the next 5 years to afford the house... if it were to be anywhere near where I work.
And I make well above the US median salary.
Additionally, because of shitty zoning laws, your hypothetical families would still have to work for someone else or acquire additional property to run their own businesses. Their home would have to be well separated from work so there's a large time tax to be paid, even when affording their own transportation.
UBI is going to need a comprehensive solution and that would mean the government reclaiming ownership of most land and zoning for the benefit of people.
I think there will be UBI. But I think so because all labor will replaced.
Once that’s possible there will be two forces. The rich trying to control this technology so they can get us to send them our UBI check, and the open source movement that will almost certainly spring up to get this in the hands of the masses.
I don’t think it’s possible the rich will be able to maintain control of it.
Building the structure/shelter is the easy part. It’s the interior that can’t be 3-d printed and will stay expensive: plumbing, electrical, insulation etc.
We need to reform the financial system, initiate degrowth, and implement UBI.
Socialism had its place in the 19th and 20th centuries, not in the 21st.
Degrowth is the solution to the overshoot, and UBI provides the freedom to pursue your life's desires.
Socialism enforces work for everybody, but in the direction we (should be) heading, we don't/won't need everybody to work.
I think you're misunderstanding what socialism is at a base level.
Do you think we can degrowth and still keep Capitalism? Capitalism, famously, only "works" when poverty subjects you to institutionalized violence for not working. Capitalism literally forces you to work in the way you described socialism doing. And UBI would be opposed by Capital so thoroughly, because it's an existential threat. It undermines the foundations of Capital.
... Which is a good thing! But then, what comes next? What does degrowth actually look like?
If you want to look at a post-Capitalist economy, I'd take a look at Chiapas where the PLZN has been doing it for decades. No one is seriously suggesting a Soviet-style system. China is not socialist, for example, and Marxists and maoists will be quick to point that out.
>No one is seriously suggesting a Soviet-style system.
"Socialism" and "Marxism" have become colloquial slurs in the West. Using those terms to describe any form of policy that redistributes wealth is a misstep in communication. Those terms, socialism in particular, have also been misappropriated by some authoritarian governments.
It needs to be rebranded, and I have no fucking idea how to do that.
There are many people in richer countries who benefit from some form of socialism. I live in Canada, where people LOVE to whine about taxes, like anywhere else, but reap the benefits of universal healthcare. Healthcare aside, the roads get paved, research projects receive grant money, individuals can collect employment insurance, or income assistance if they need to do so, and there's federal funding for a buncha other shit most folks just take for granted.
Those benefits exist because they are provided through a quasi-socialist system. If you name those benefits in the wrong way – as socialist policies – some dipshit "fiscal conservative" is just gonna yell about taxes going up and the government is gonna take away all your money, and GOD FORBID POOR PEOPLE GET ASSISTANCE. People who take for granted the benefits afforded to them via a socialist system don't really care about why. Socialism is just a bad word, second only to "taxes" as the worst word.
>And UBI would be opposed by Capital so thoroughly, because it's an existential threat. It undermines the foundations of Capital.
This is, and always has been, the problem. Unfortunately, it will continue to be the problem. Capital is God. Capital growth for the sake of growth is God. If you can buy a mega-yacht by pointing at a picture of a mega-yacht and yelling "I WANT THAT MEGA-YACHT" and someone goes and finds you a mega-yacht, you are God.
Why would anyone want to give that up? Losing even a little tiny bit of that power, that influence, that sociopathic urge to control and own anything you want – why give that up? Why not hoard more?
The article was a bit ham-fisted with the first-person narrative shit, but it isn't off-base.
To make the point even more reductive:
**Assholes don't like sharing, and go fuck yourself.**
I don't know what to do aside from keying the shit out of super-cars when I see them.
I haven't read Ginsberg in a while.
>who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burning their money in wastebaskets and listening to the Terror through the wall,
That bit always makes me think of having to listen to a neighbour playing [Terror – the cool 80s thrash band](https://youtu.be/MtiJ5IS8aes), not the shitty hardcore band – at full blast. It sets the scene for me in a purely subjective sense even if it's anachronistic.
Here's an interesting theory I've been chewing over for a while. (This turned out a lot longer than I thought it would, but I tried to make it less of a wall of text.)
You know what Goodhart's Law is? It says "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." You might have seen it in operation: if some idiot manager tries to implement performance measures, his branch of the company will decline in actual performance. But in general, it means "Any measurable metric has a way to be exploited." That's both a bad thing and a good thing.
It's been bad because Capitalism, which is trying really fricking hard to make 'money goes up' the measure of prosperity, is causing prosperity to decline as a result. They are able to do this because they found the weaknesses in regulatory oversight (see 'costs of doing business'), and because they found the weaknesses in the regulatory backend, e.g. the code of law. American regulation is dependent on politicians. So, they lobbied to get Citizens United and a bunch of other bullshit laws passed. (It ended up with Republicans using that same weakness in the American government - that is, 'if the law doesn't let me oppress who I want to oppress, then gaslighting, obstructing, and projecting from within the government will prevent them from punishing me when I oppress people, which is basically the same thing'... but I digress.)
The reason it's a good thing is that capitalism has a way to be exploited, even if it hasn't hit the public consciousness yet. That's my theory. I'm not really sure exactly how, but I'm completely sure that it's possible. And if I had to make one guess about what the exploit is, I would have to say 'facilitation'. There needs to be a way to make it easy to decide to do good things; and since the top level of government has been exploited, it needs to be on a level closer to the individual, outside the exploited laws.
On the topic of the environment: Personal-level clean energy is definitely possible, it's just not easy at the moment. Solar roofs, electric cars, heat pumps, etc... they're available, but it's not easy to get them. One needs to take initiative out of a busy day to arrange to obtain them, and the infrastructure to support their use isn't there in a lot of places. However, it should be possible to make initiatives, at either low levels of government or through local organizations, to make it easier for people to get this stuff. 'We'll take care of any trouble you encounter in becoming carbon neutral, so feel free to do so'. It is going to need to be multifaceted in approach - there's a reason that infrastructure is generally reliant on government - but that's the start. If people can decide to become carbon neutral on a whim and have that carried through, I am quite certain a large amount of people will.
On the topic of financial freedom: It's hard to not get fired, and it's hard to prevent a firing. To not get fired, you have to actively avoid anything that might set them off. No criticizing bosses, to discussing wages, no asking for raises, no forming unions, etc... and sometimes, they get set off regardless of what you do. Once they are set off, it takes active effort to leverage the law to get compensation. Get lawyers, apply for unemployment, navigate bureaucracy, live off your savings, etc... and sometimes, you can't get compensation no matter what you do. It's hard to find a job, and it's hard to find a place to live compatible with any job you find. To find a job, you have to constantly punch through several barriers to entry at the same time. Searching multifarious job-search sites to find listings in your field, learning the red flags that signal corporations you wouldn't want to work for (not listing salary range, 'no one wants to work anymore', etc), composing resumes and cover letters explicitly to bypass electronic filters, structuring your life around participation in multiple rounds of interviews... and sometimes, the corporation just wants to keep a job listing up to show the government 'they're trying to hire', or they arbitrarily don't allow teleworking, and you were never going to get the job no matter what you did. To find a place to live compatible with a particular job, you have to actively work past several more filters. More job hoppers means more requests for apartments and house purchases, meaning 'demand' for housing is artificially inflated which is at least partially letting greedy landlords feel enabled to raise rent; a mortgage is required to buy a house, which means you need to sell a house to some middleman realtor who'll get greedy and take a cut; loans are contingent on credit ratings, which frequently means you can't get a mortgage even when the monthly payment would be under your current rent; you have to actively search for housing, which means more time lost in communications and bureaucracy navigation... and sometimes, you just can't reach a deal no matter what you do.
See the pattern? The exploit we need to make is to make it easier to obtain stability, and then to channel the newly available effort of the newly stabilized into making new stable spaces. This will probably require some form of local organization. Within that organization, advertise universal services for anyone that moves to that locality. Sponsor low-hours jobs (e.g. 4-day work weeks, 6-hour work days, or both), sponsor local healthcare that's actually good and cheap, sponsor communal gardens/kitchens because cooking is a lot easier when done at scale. Then, you call in the favors, and ask the locals you've been helping to use their freed-up time to help with the real stuff. Direct them in how to participate in unions that are external to individual companies so the companies can't leverage the fear of being fired. Direct them in how to aid locals in obtaining compensation for predatory business practices; help them with bureaucracy, assure them they can rely on communal resources to feed themselves, collaborate to make available lists of alternatives to stores so boycotts/strikes/pickets become more effective. Direct them in how to apply for jobs, walking them through the process while making local jobs available - constructing more and better local housing, constructing schools that passionate teachers don't have to worry about being paid at, constructing clinics and hospitals in tandem with sponsored local healthcare, and so on - flat out making your own local government ~~with blackjack and hookers \s~~ if prodding the locals into political activism doesn't work. And then, the locals won't have to job-hop or move their living space to keep financial stability, and the situation can propagate. But it's probably going to have to be on the local level, and there will have to be more person-to-person collaboration than we've probably gotten used to.
...This got longer than I wanted. Might post this somewhere else (if you have recommendations for where my rant might be received well, I'd like them). But that's what I feel is going to be the solution - enabling facilitation of anything that both provides felicitation, and is hard for John and Jane Doe to do.
I would say that what happened in Bolivia is what you describe as abusing Capitalism. The Capitalists expanded farms, the farmers unionized and one thing led to another and they ushered in the Socialist Government in 2005
You make a lot of good points, and you have a fairly replete insight into how grassroots endeavours function. I admire your optimism, and I commend you for that in addition to your thoughtfulness and compassion.
I'm more cynical. We could try to do a lot of things to collectively benefit others outside a larger system of control, but money (Capital) has a big fucking hammer to squash shit with. It can buy laws.
That's not to say we should give up, and that grassroots initiatives aren't important. They are important, and we should do as much as we can to better the lives of those around us.
> I think you're misunderstanding what socialism is at a base level.
I've seen it, I lived it, and it was as bad as capitalism is, just differently.
> Capitalism literally forces you to work in the way you described socialism doing
Socialism did too. Police had the right to stop you and check whether you were working; if not, you went to jail.
> Do you think we can degrowth and still keep Capitalism?
No, I do not. I never said that.
> I'd take a look at Chiapas where the PLZN
My google-fu is failing me. Some links would help. Thank you.
> No one is seriously suggesting a Soviet-style system. China is not socialist, for example, and Marxists and maoists will be quick to point that out
That's good, because none of those are any good. Almost nobody in european post-socialist countries would be for the return of socialism, I'm afraid.
It's different to read about it and live it and see how people can f*ck those good ideas up. The dystopia can't be explained in a short comment, only experienced.
I think something new should be created.
Surely closer to socialism than to capitalism, with expedited switch to renewables, financial reform, degrowth, UBI/UBS, plant based diets (animal ag is unbelievably destructive), massive reforestation/biodiversity restoration projects ...
https://chiapas-support.org/newsletter/
I find the generational difference (and I'm right at the cusp between generations, having been young with the wall came down) is that the older generation grew up with Cold War propaganda. The one thing that both USA and USSR agreed on was that there was only one way to do Socialism - the Soviet way. While the truth, as you seem to agree, is that they were more the same than different.
And importantly, the ways they are the same are found in the coercive police state, the oppressive employer system, and especially of late the elections with no meaningful consequences. But if you follow the link above, it should point you at the "actual existing socialism" and you can let me know what you think. Mainstream current Marxist thinking criticizes the Soviet Union from the Left, and imagines something far less centralized. We haven't completely healed the split between "Leninists" and Anarchists, but we're getting closer.
Hi, ThePrancingPlague. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/15w7rpm/-/jwzndk7/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
>Socialism enforces work for everybody, but in the direction we (should be) heading (automation, robotization), we don't/won't need everybody to work.
The Socialism understander has logged on.💀 Tell me, how come only left wingers support degrowth of any kind but no Capitalists? Isnt that weird?🤔
Agreed. Have noticed that questions like OP's tend to attract many new posters who seem completely unaware of the causes of climate change and mass species extinction. Collapse was a political issue a couple of generations ago; now it is purely an ecological one. The needs of the current civilization are now beyond the Earth's carrying capacity.
sustainable civilization is a utopia (at least from our cultures point of view)
civilization is like an airplane that wasnt built accordingly to the laws of aerodynamics, and therefore, it of course wont fly, no matter how hard you pedal. and thinking that this airplane is still flying is the delusional predicament our culture finds itself in.
of course, there is a way to build a plane that flies, according to the laws of aerodynamics, just like there is a way to have a sustainable way of human social structures, according to the laws of natural selection, however, our culture has long forgotten what these laws are
Overshoot is caused mainly by fossil fuels and how we're doing agriculture.
Fossil fuels are behind climate change, agriculture (and mainly animal agriculture) behind other aspects of the overshoot, esp. [deforestation](https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation), [biodiversity](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/) [loss](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss), soil erosion, eutrophication, [overfishing](https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts), etc. etc.
We should expedite the switch to renewables (while we have some fossil fuels left) and switch to plant based diets (to [lower our land demands to 25%](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets), reforest the rest, and [store enough carbon to create new little ice age](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4) and let biodiversity rebound).
But that's something even /r/collapse doesn't want to hear. Downvote away.
Hi, ComprehensiveBoss955. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/15w7rpm/-/jx1s2nv/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Graeber has got me thinking about decoupling power from wealth, which he convincingly argues is the issue.
One way would be barter, so a UBI on goods (rationing) would be a better solution IMO. Money no longer being convenient for buying power.
A UBI with goods would be an interesting idea for after the revolution. At least it would not replicate the institutions of Capital, and it has the benefit of having been tried in various forms, so we know it is possible.
That's the absurdity of UBI... It's a relatively small benefit which requires such a massive shift in society for it to work that the prerequisites foe UBI are way more important than UBI itself
I get what you're saying, but this argument assumes market competition would no longer exist and all landlords would raise rents by the exact same amount. It also assumes that people don't have any other expenses besides rent, and landlords would be able to extract 100% of the UBI payment from their renters with no repercussions.
In reality, if a landlord tried to raise rent by $1000/month because of UBI, a competing landlord would undercut them and just raise $750. Another landlord would undercut *that* landlord and just raise $500, and so on and so forth. This is how markets work. Competition will still exist, and as long as there's a landlord willing to charge a little less than the next guy, rent isn't going to increase lockstep with UBI.
Nobody ever says that a gallon of milk would suddenly cost $500 with UBI, because we intuitively know that competition wouldn't allow that to happen. It's not that much different with rent.
The difference between land and milk is that if everyone suddenly started drinking lots of milk we could breed more cows to increase milk production, we can't increase land production because there is a fixed supply and no ones making any more of it. To own a piece of land is to own a tiny little monopoly.
I'd go a bit further with your argument and add that a passive income that is not bound by geography would probably prompt a lot of people to move OUT of cities, surely driving rent/housing prices up in less populated areas while driving rent/housing prices down in the cities that they left. Money moves populations more than anything short of cataclysm.
I’m not sure I agree with this. Price collusion def happens. And is why landlords will leave properties vacant until they find someone willing to pay the ‘market’ value
I know of two separate properties that had fast food restaurants built on them and subsequently go under. Since that time, both buildings have remained unoccupied for ~10 years. The older one was eventually demolished and the land returned to a vacant lot.
I say that as a rhetorical device, but inflation 100% will eat up any subsidy that is offered. That will likely not come from one source, but unless you remove the Capital class entirely from the equation, they will end up with any subsidy offered.
I don't mean this as a slight, as it's the best bandaid ever offered. It's always better to subside consumers rather than producers, and it's typically good that the subsidy is universal rather than means tested....BUT it is still a bandaid. When I am hurt, I do want a bandaid. But while I'm still being harmed, what I want more than a bandaid is for you to join the fight on my side. I want to stop being harmed.
UBI will help mitigate some of the damage done by Capital. However, Capital has shown an amazing ability to adapt and to continue exploiting us by various means.
> I say that as a rhetorical device, but inflation 100% will eat up any subsidy that is offered.
A carbon tax funded [citizens dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend) wouldn't lead to that sort of inflation. Since it's funded by taking money out of the economy elsewhere. Because a carbon tax is regressive the dividend would be designed to be a net transfer to the poorest two thirds. With the heaviest carbon consumers paying the most net into it.
> _something something_ everyone's rent will simply go up by the same amount as UBI ...
I love confidence in wrong comments. Everything you say is true, if you add one 'not' per sentence.
What you say would be the case if money was _exclusively_ spent and earned via house rent. Let's just say that this is a... fairly approximate depiction of how real economy works, and in reality money may have another use or two in our society of you look closely. Which completely invalidates this ultra-naive, embarassingly simplistic take on UBI.
The exact same thing can be said for decriminalizing drugs and treating homelessness/mental illness
Cities are doing one right thing but fail to implement All necessary supporting infrastructure and programs to makes it successful
Don’t decriminalizing drug if you don’t have health services involved, treatment centers , counselors/personnel doing check up, social workers , housing/food support , etc.
No you're missing the premise. There is a way for Capitalists to make money on drugs. Therefore, this is possible within the Capitalist captured government. It will be possible when the group of Capitalists who stands to benefit gain enough influence in the current system.
You don't have to change the entire way your government works in order to get from A to B.
On the other hand, UBI fundamentally undermines Capitalism. There is no way to get employers to agree with this, and the government is controlled by the employer class.
It's not just an expression of "this isn't good enough, therefore I won't support it". I'd be happy to vote for it. It will never appear on the ballot. There's no possible way to build an organization powerful enough to get it on the ballot, without completely reforming the way our government is organized. A force that powerful is called a revolution.
And the amount of UBI should be secret, variable, and not predictable to landlords and other service providers. Universal UBI is an invitation for massive inflation as these vultures will instantly up prices to capture this revenue stream, expanding the gap between winners and losers.
I keep posting this quote, buts it always seems relevant so I will keep doing so.
"RENT, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances. In adjusting the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock."
\-- Ch 11, Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
Basically, without a rent cap and or an end to the landlord system, rent will always be as high as it can be. Increase pay or establish UBI, and the rent will go up, because that's how landlords work.
> If we could build political power to implement UBI, we may as well implement socialism.
You articulated the solution much better than what I have been able to. I've often described it as UBO (O = outcome), but you cut to the chase much faster here.
That's not even close to true. Landlords and banks have the system well under control. There is plenty of housing for all to live in. But there is not plenty of housing when people use it as an investment. Basic economics, rent seeking and speculation artificially increase demand, while actually introducing inefficiency into the market (empty units sitting because they want to rent them for more than the market will pay), and this is the classic "price bubble". Why do you think it crashes every seven years or so?
You're just way off base. The immigration rate isn't moving the market the way you say it is. We're talking about tiny fractions of a percent of the market. Fractions that could be a rounding error when you look at larger movers of the market like the birth rate and the rate of development. There are more empty units at any one time, which means *hoarding and artificial scarcity* would have a bigger effect than the number of people who arrive here every year.
Investors would not flee, by the way. If the market crashed, as it has many times, investors buy. They buy cheap and then either take them off the market (to stop the price dropping lower) or simply wait it out and benefit from the increased market share. This is the mechanism by which private equity firms end up with more real estate than small landlords over time.
It is happening in almost every developed country.
Empty units are a normal part of the market, between tenants, getting renovated, being sold, or emergency accommodation kept on standby for homeless etc. High levels of empty property happens when prices rapidly start to escalate. Without long term growth in prices it wouldn’t work as an investment.
lol @ being held for the homeless.
They are literally making new homeless people, kicking them out to raise rent.
The only thing I agree with, is that this kind of inefficiency, greed, and cruelty *are a normal part of the market system functioning as intended*.
Yes. And that is not what is driving the system. It is a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Under socialism, they would still do this.
If the market was self correcting, it wouldn't be possible that adding a million people to a market that already has 400 million people in it would break the market. We'd notice a 0.25% increase in demand, we'd respond to price pressures by building 0.25% more homes, and everything would stay within normal range.
The tiny number of new people are not moving the enormous markets. Wall Street investing hundreds of billions of dollars in it is. It's just that simple. The demand for housing as investment far outstrips the demand for housing as housing. This can happen to any commodity, and frequently does, to our misfortune.
I think immigration it is the key factor because in Japan for example with all the same considerations property has remained affordable.
It isn’t possible to keep cramming people into the same number of urban areas, eventually it becomes saturated with developments. Construction industries are working at capacity and construction materials are at historically high prices. Housing like any other commodity suffers from sustained increases in demand.
Survey says... it's zoning
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo
Their demographic growth is lower overall, but not in Tokyo specifically. And yet, they are able to build to keep up with demand.
I think the point the article was making is that the reason Tokyo proper didn't actually increase is that the metro area widened organically as they built up the suburbs.
I think you just want immigration to be the problem, and are going to keep attaching inflated importance to it, regardless of what I or anyone else says.
Also the Japanese just aren't as greedy as Americans.
Their owner class makes way less money and is more humble about it.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3225790/why-do-japans-bank-ceos-get-paid-fraction-global-rivals-income-despite-record-profits
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/japanese-company-apologises-for-9-cent-price-increase-a6972566.html
Which is why, if you're going through all that trouble anyway, we should simply abandon the market-fundamentalism in favor of worker ownership and democratic control.
Lol ya communism is sooo amazing just look at how awesome to worked throughout history. I love how you guys actually think you’re coming up with something new here.
Communism was the way we lived for hundreds of thousands of years. We all eat together or starve together, but at least we don't work and starve so that the ruling class can just squander everything.
Liberalism and Capitalism were supposed to be better than Feudalism, but they didn't go far enough. It gave us half of a democracy, on paper, but by refusing to democratize ownership we fell short of a democracy in practice. We have the right to elect representatives, but in practice there is a ruling class and we may only choose among them. We went from a system where 1% are empowered to a system where 20% are empowered, and we called it a day.
Not good enough. Not fair enough. Not democratic enough.
Capitalism is our natural way not communism. Communism requires top down control from a powerful government. Capitalism is where you get to keep what you hunt. Sure you share it with your family and valued members of your tight social network but that is EXTREMELY different from a top down entity stealing your profits by force and redistributing them to people you don’t know… people who feel no need to repay what they took because you are so disconnected.
You've got that completely backwards. Communism was our natural way before a ruling class emerged. Only through the top-down power of the state did private property emerge, slowly. Our families are still communist. Every effort to turn us into individuals has really just ended up making each family the smallest economic unit. Our nuclear family is the vestigial remnant of a much larger, more robust tribal system of extended families. It was certainly communistic. You should read Engles on this subject. It is extensively sourced and cited.
Capitalism was exported by State-backed mercantile corporations, at the tip of a rifle. It was imposed violently on one part of the world after another. Anywhere a strong central state collapses, so does Capitalism. You can't have private property without a State Monopoly on Violence to enforce it. For most of history, communities decided this by consensus, and if you left your home village you didn't "sell your house" for money and then take that money to another village to "buy a house". When you were done using your plot, it returned to the commons, and when you arrived in a new place the people there had to find a way to share the Commons with you.
You’re very confused my friend. The only difference between capitalism and communism is the scale at which it operates. Capitalism… ie when the government stays out of the economy and let’s you keep your profits… is our natural way. You’re free to share your wealth with whoever you want just like our ancestors did for hundreds of thousands of years. You think that’s communism because people shared but everything changes when it scales up.
Communism and most modern governments steal your income by force and forcefully redistribute it. You are no longer free to choose who you share with, you are forced to share equally with everyone, even lazy lying losers who never intend to repay. That situation never existed before governments came along.
"most modern governments" you mean starting around 400 years ago with the birth of the Nation-State? Curious.
Capitalism is not just some state of nature. It's when the means of social reproduction are owned privately. However, you can't actually accumulate that much by way of personal possession. You need the State to step in and grant you title to land. Without the State you can't be a passive investor in a business that you never even did work for. And that really is the what Capitalism is: getting paid for owning. But of course, all wealth is created by work, so in order to pay people for owning, you must take from those who do the work. No one would put up with this voluntarily, which is why if you take the factory and operate it for the workers benefit, the Capitalists will rely on the government to recapture the property and return it to Capitalist control.
I'm not sure where you get your definitions for Capitalism and Communism, but it isn't from the economics textbook. The idea that Capitalism is just "the way things are" is called *Capitalist Realism* and it's ahistorical nonsense made up u justify the way things are now by claiming it's always been this way. No, cavemen did not pay each other rent. No, they did not receive wages. No, they did not own property in perpetuity.
You shared your wealth because it's just what you do, not because individuals decided they wanted to individually. It was like the language you speak, it was a part of the culture and you absorbed it before you ever had the chance to think about it. They shared their wealth because they shared their wealth. Societies couldn't tolerate letting a psychopath hoarde up all their resources, and they didn't.
Since the neolithic revolution, we have increasingly let psychopaths design our society for themselves, and they have increasingly been in charge. Kings were a mistake.
Did they indicate that it IS part of a comprehensive approach? The only thing the article said is that every pilot program has worked beautifully, but it wasn't really a scholarly article with citations or anything. And that's fine.
But I genuinely don't think you can have this in a Capitalist system. You'd have to overthrow the entire system before a reform like this was put in place.
Think about the "New Deal". You need a depression and a world war. The United States almost fell apart, no joke. The Communist party was doing pretty well. Capital knew it was in fundamental danger, so it was forced to compromise. It brought in elements of social democracy...
... and then when the danger past it let that system crumble and be eaten up by inflation and means testing, when it wasn't busy outright disassembling it. So now we're back where we started, in another guilded age. What now?
I don't believe a kinder gentler Capitalism can exist, and I don't think we can have nice things without a revolution. UBI would fall squarely in the category of "nice things we can't have".
> Did they indicate that it IS part of a comprehensive approach?
the bullet points posted here do mention degrowth and focusing on local economies, it definitely means a more complete approach to a less capitalistic system
It's just funny. Putting them there as vague things that should also happen, without identifying the cause/effect relationship, leads me to believe they are not thinking about this systemically. Those things would have to happen first in order for UBI to be possible. You'd have to have a government that wasn't captured by Capital. Which means a different kind of government and a totally different economic relation... Which then makes UBI redundant.
It's as if they listed "giving out bandages" and also in a separate bullet point "not shooting people" as if they were unrelated... Or perhaps suggesting that an adequate supply of bandages will eventually lower the number of bullets shot at us. The point I'm making is, it will never, CAN never stop the harm, because it fundamentally doesn't attempt to place itself in a complete solution - a complete criticism of Capitalism may be as better way of saying it.
But by all means, do give out subsidies in any way you can. Harm mitigation is important work. But it's like passing out water in the desert. You're still IN the desert. You'll never have enough water if you stay here.
> Putting them there as vague things that should also happen, without identifying the cause/effect relationship, leads me to believe they are not thinking about this systemically. Those things would have to happen first in order for UBI to be possible.
it's a bullet points list, not a business plan, of course it's going to present things in a succint way, it's to give an overall idea not present a specific timeline of changes. These are all things that need to considered for a proper transition to capitalist hellscape to a more humane society
> You'd have to have a government that wasn't captured by Capital. Which means a different kind of government and a totally different economic relation
that's what degrowth and new growth values mean
> Which then makes UBI redundant.
it doesn't, imho, UBI is the objective, a post scarcity society that doesn't need people to have a job to pay the bills but one where the the profits are shared between everyone
I think we are mostly in agreement, but we're disagreeing mainly on the emphasis or order of things. I don't want to be pedantic about this. But I'm just not as optimistic about it as you, I'm afraid.
i'm not putting emphasis on any order, these are all things that needs to be accomplished but not necessarily in the order presented in this list, nor exactly like how they're presenteds here, but thi is the overall goal for a post scarcity society
Well, the bullet points in the submission statement sort of indicate that and that might’ve just colored how I read the article.
Unfortunately I’m inclined to agree- I believe that UBI is a good thing, but I would certainly hope that massive top down steps would be taken because really, you’re correct: as things stand, it won’t work. We saw that to some extent with healthcare- so, I wasn’t particularly arguing, I just thought that maybe I had misread. I’m a little more optimistic in my reading things at times than I probably should be. :/
I didn't see that in this particular article, although I'm open to someone presenting such a plan.
Good to know we're on the same page though. It's going to take a lot of us all realizing how fucked we are in order to overcome our own internal resistance to fighting. If there's a group of armed leftists in your area, I'd consider linking up with them. And if there isn't, maybe start one?
I think there's a John Brown club within driving distance. I'm not from that part of the country, so I'm not sure how practical this is for you, but if they're not the closest, maybe they know who is.
https://flatlandkc.org/news-issues/left-wing-groups-take-up-arms-in-name-of-abolitionist-john-brown/
> UBI is a bandaid, that could not work on it's own. It would need price controls to work, at minimum
well, yes, UBI idn't just the government giving free money to everyone, it definitely implies an overhaul of the system to prevent this kind of speculation, it's not something you just implement in a purely capitalistic society without looking at its effects on the system
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe a smooth transition is possible. I believe the people who own and control the fossil fuels will burn all of the fossil fuels necessary to keep control of them. Any incremental change will be stymied, and every revolutionary change will be fought.
That being said, it's still worth having a revolution over. I'm just not willing to buy into the comfortable fantasy that, on the one hand we can do this in a rational way. We don't have democratic institutions that work the way they'd need to work to get this done. To build them we'd have to break the power of Capital. To break the power of Capital we will have to fight them physically. They will fight dirty and the fight itself will make things worse before it makes anything better.
And knowing all that, we should still do it. Pyric victory is better than no victory at all, so I say let's get on with it.
yes we're late for a real smooth transition, but at some point the system will break and implementing UBI will help smoothing a bit the transition if implemented in time.
Implemented by whom though? The system we're fighting against?
I think looking at revolutionary Spain, the Cordones Industrial, and the mutual aid networks there... that's more what I imagine can be implemented by the side who wants to fix things, during a conflict with the side who does not want to fix anything at all. Syndicalism is more complicated, but doesn't rely on a fantasy version of the State. It relies directly on the workers producing the goods we need in a coordinated way, and then sharing them.
> Implemented by whom though? The system we're fighting against?
a system that replaces the current one, of course wall street isn't going to just throwe money at us, but once that system fails thev goal is to build a new one with these principles in mind
Hopefully if we build a new system, it will not need UBI in the first place. You need the income to pay the bills. If you had the resources you need, then we wouldn't have to reduce everything to money. Why don't we build a system without debt instead?
with UBI money slowly becomes less a thing you need to pay the bills and more of an abstract way to share resources. How am i going to get the resources i need when they're not produced nearby? One thing is shifting to buying local produced food instead of prepackaged crap imported from overseas, but it's not like every town can have, idk, a concrete factory or a steel foundry, you still need a system to share what's harder to source locally
Really it's even worse than socialism, as you don't have to work at all for UBI you just wait for your magical money check from the government. That means no skills, no leverage whatsoever completely dependent on big brother. If UBI was made a thing, where will the labor come from? Who's gonna fix shit, build shit, cook shit?
No. Economics does not run on evidence, and no one has ever studied subsides.
Google disagreed though, and gave the l me this, though:
http://www.sanandres.esc.edu.ar/secondary/economics%20packs/microeconomics/page_22.htm#:~:text=A%20subsidy%20will%20shift%20the,the%20amount%20of%20the%20subsidy).
There's also 400+ years of Capitalism to pull data from. There's also the point I made about section 8 setting the price floor in the rental market. Or we could take a closer look at education or healthcare.
>everyone's rent will simply go up by the same amount as UBI
for the remedy read Henry George.
But you're right, if we had the political will to implement UBI *and* LVT we might as well throw stopping climate change, socialism and season 2 of firefly onto the wishlist while we're at it.
I consider Georgism to be dead center on the Left/Right (economic) spectrum. And I consider land reform to be table stakes for anyone seriously trying to save the existing system.
George did get it right that no one really "owns" the land permanently, we are all using it by way of excluding others, and we owe a common debt as such. This criticism is financial to decolonizing or degrowth.
However, as you move Left on the spectrum, I think you get more fully thought-out ideas about how Labor is to be organized. I disagree with George that Labor and production can simply be left up to the markets, having done the LVT. And I think it depends on kind of an idealized, old-fashioned view of how States operate.
Leftist criticism notes that Capitalism, Private Property, and the Nation-State co-developed, and depend on each other. This explains why we may not be able to make the reforms necessary to Georgism, without also making the reforms Leftists demand to Labor.
I tend to agree. There are some radical angles to Georgism, ideas like land reparations or intellectual property as land that I think are interesting. But it feels old-fashioned because it kind of is.
It's not really "middle of the spectrum" though. The LVT George wanted is nothing short of nationalising all the land in a country, it eliminates landlords as a class with a single stroke. You might call that table stakes, but I doubt you'll find many willing players.
I call it table stakes, because I think that's the order of magnitude of action that a Nation would have to take now in order to be around 100 years from now. I think you're right that few seem to be ready to play that game. I am glad that there's a burgeoning Land Trust in my city, and I hope it grows into an institution in it's own right. But that remains to be seen.
The tax payers already fund many billions worth of industrial investments with all the recent government programs in the US and Europe.
They might as well get some ownership in return for it.
Not to mention, how would UBI decrease population growth? If income weren't an issue, what would stop all the people that refuse to form families for work/income reasons from just doing it?
I promise that you can successfully annihilate the billions of workers in the world and you still won't prevent climate change. The key to solving the problem isn't neoliberal austerity on steroids with fascist characteristics, the key is to abolish the wage labor system, the basis of return on investment, and financial speculation.
Many people on this subreddit think the "solution" to climate change is for neoliberal governments to push austerity to the absolute peak and give everyone a dogshit life, when in reality the solution is to reorient how labor is used and give people better lives so they can work less and enjoy communal activities over material consumption.
It may well decrease population growth, overall, because it reduces misery and does so on a global level. Counter-intuitively, population growth is much larger in poorer countries, while population stabilizes or even shrinks among richer, more accomplished demographics. The reasons can be many and compex, but the correlation is undoubtly very strong. And yes, for a big part, it _is_ causation.
Beeing educated and having personal interests and dreams is the general factor, you can have that too while getting UBI. Work/Income is just one category that falls under dreams and interests. Also pop.growth is no problem in the western world, decline is our problem. Population overgrowth is a problem in the poorest of countries, because there only an army of kids will get you through the later/last stage of life.
It would, of course, actually increase consumption.
The reality of first world, XXI century is that we are far too rich, despite what many whining online about seeminlgy living in some pre-soviet revolution slums.
This is the hill I will die on but UBI is not the solution, why?
Because it makes the country dependent on a particular government. UBI creates autocratic regimes like nazism, it creates a dependency. [Study: austerity helped the Nazis come to power](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/12/16761880/study-austerity-nazi-power-hitler-elections)
If you introduce UBI then you can say goodbye to democracy because any party in power will always say "look, if the opposition wins they will take away the UBI. Vote for us and you will get money" They bribe the population with UBI, make them dependent on the UBI and instill fear that it can be taken away.
UBI is great if you live in a fair and democratic utopia but in real life it is not possible.
And the worst part is that I have no answer on how to fix it or what would be better than UBI.
Yes, it's actually great for the ruling class to keep people dependent and in check. For example in Russia, most people who left the country or distanced themselves from the govmt (even while staying in Russia) were freelancers and entrepreneurs, since they've had their own cash with minium reliance on the state. There's big difference even in the worldview, when you make your own path, without the daddy-state spoon feeding you everything.
People working for the govmt or getting welfare checks aren't motivated to be against the state or move around freely, they would support anything just to get their money (which is usually just enough to keep you comfortable as long as you don't leave your tiny subsidized bubble).
Well said! UBI sounds great and all but we would be relying on the same corrupt government that helped create the problem to provide a solution. Don't people realize how it will be used to introduce an authoritarian regime?
Americans can’t seem to see why universal healthcare is a good idea let alone UBI.
The impression seems to be that getting a battery of tests when you are ill is “good” but actually it’s just driving up the bill.
I can imagine that if we actually got a UBI program, it would either be laughably small, something around $400/month or means tested to hell and back and then back to hell again that only 5000 people could get it and you could lose it for winning $10 on a scratchcard for being "too rich".
Wouldn’t be UBI then !
As others have pointed out UBI would need other programs around it such as price controls. Realistically the future economy is going to need more controls in all societies anyway.
As someone who often visits r/antiwork, r/politics and r/futurism, but chooses to post mainly on r/collapse; there are significant differences between the various communities.
Threads like this one read very differently from the usual r/collapse threads, which usually recognizes that collapse is imminent from multiple sources including: climate change; natural resource depletion; global microplastic & chemical contamination; human social issues including war; peak oil and the approaching energy cliff; and mass species extinction.
Many on r/collapse also acknowledge that all these crises are hugely worsened by the presence of 8 billion humans in overshoot of planetary carrying capacity. And many here are also familiar with the multitude of recent scientific reports stating that humanity has less than 10 years to decarbonize the global economy before disaster arrives.
Yes somehow this thread seems to have many posters convinced that political process still has relevance; that more just nation states or even utopias are still possible; and that the resources of nation states can still be redirected to help ordinary people in the near future. Very few seem to be aware of the basic ecological realities familiar to regular posters in this sub.
UBI is a wonderful idea, or would be if current society had any chance of continuing; but it does not, and the current debate this is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while the whole boat itself if sinking.
> all these crises are hugely worsened by the presence of 8 billion humans in overshoot of planetary carrying capacity
The 8 billion people wouldn't be a problem if humans could significantly lower their consumption. Many acknowledge that the current system is probably incapable of such change. Thus, the discussion about new alternatives.
> climate change; natural resource depletion; global microplastic & chemical contamination; human social issues including war; peak oil and the approaching energy cliff; and mass species extinction.
Out of these, climate change and mass species extinction are the most pressing issues. Both are "relatively easily" solvable: the former by an expedited switch to renewables, and the latter by adopting plant-based diets and the subsequent reforestation/rewilding of lands used for animal agriculture.
Degrowth would help with the rest.
> climate change and mass species extinction are the most pressing issues. Both are "relatively easily" solvable: the former by an expedited switch to renewables, and the latter by adopting plant-based diets and the subsequent reforestation/rewilding of lands used for animal agriculture
This seems like a rather naive blanket statement. Not sure what "renewables" you refer to that don't require fossil fuels in mining and manufacture (including all metal, glass and plastic including batteries, plus robust supply chains that also require fossil fuels). Also there is the inconvenient fact of global plastic manufacture set to rise by 30% in the next 20 years, and global energy demand project to rise by 47% in the same period.
But imagining for a moment that a global shift to "renewables" is even possible, that doesn't end the vast fossil fuel usage of the global concrete industry, or the energy needs of the developing world, or of people living in cold climates, or that required for the international transportation of food and goods that billions rely on to survive.
Meanwhile the possibility of global humanity ending meat eating and factory farming would not end the current mass species extinction including more that one million species of plants, since this results from habitat loss for housing and irrigation as well as food production. And both chemical contamination and rising temperature have growing impact on mass species extinction.
But setting all these inconvenient facts aside, many climate scientist now project that humanity has 10 years or less to decarbonize global industry and end its emission before climate change becomes unstoppable. Other predict that this point has already passed, but do you imagine that all your proposed changes will take place across the globe within 10 years?
> "renewables" you refer to that don't require massive amounts of fossil fuels in mining and manufacture
I'm aware. We're still not at peak oil, so we could prioritize using the remaining fossil fuels for the switch instead of using it for "modern trash" production.
> the inconvenient facts of global plastic manufacture set to rise by 30% over the next 20 years ... we're headed in the opposite direction
Hence the degrowth.
> that doesn't end the vast fossil fuel needs of the global concrete industry, or the energy needs of the developing world
All of those could benefit from "global switch" to renewable sources of energy.
> the dependence of all global agriculture on fossil fuels for irrigation, tillage, fertilizer, herbicide, harvest, processing, refrigeration and worldwide distribution. Billions of people rely on fossil fuels to eat.
Reform of industrial agriculture is absolutely necessary. A mix of solutions, such as syntropic, natural, permaculture, and agroforestry farming, has the potential to feed the population with plant-based diets while preserving large swathes of the Earth, allowing biodiversity to rebound and facilitating massive reforestation.
> the possibility of global humanity ending meat-eating and factory farming would not end the current mass species extinction including more that one million species of plants, since this results from habitat loss for development including mining and the forestry industry, as well as for meat production
It would, animal agriculture is the leading driver of biodiversity loss, by several magnitudes. It currently occupies as much land as forests do, approximately 35% of the habitable Earth for each. This means we could potentially double our forest cover. If we refrain from harvesting this wood, we can nurture the growth of new old-growth forests.
> how do you imagine that all your proposed changes could take place across the globe even within 10 years
I don't know yet. Do you?
> ow do you imagine that all your proposed changes could take place across the globe even within 10 years
>
> I don't know yet. Do you?
Have spoken with several IPCC researchers offline; they agree that climate change is happening much faster that they were allowed to write in their watered-down public reports.
They believe that 10 years is the maximum time that humanity has to decarbonize and even then, much higher global temperatures are guaranteed to manifest due to the known 10-20 year lag time in the impact of emissions. They also acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that global humanity including India, China, the EU and the US will change their current energy trajectory within that time frame.
Yes, I believe them.
> several IPCC researchers; they stated that climate change is happening much faster that they were allowed to write in their watered-down public report
Ask them why they removed the need for plant based diets from their report. Who dictates what can be in the report, btw?
> Yes, I believe them
I believe it too.
> As someone dedicated to restorative agriculture and rewilding, I will not stop my efforts but no longer believe that collapse can be averted
Same. I also believe several, seemingly contradictory things at the same time. That sooner the collapse comes the better. And that it's still better to try to prevent it.
You want UBI so it can reform the system and maybe help it survive the turbulent times ahead.
I want UBI so it can accelerate the collapse of capitalism and bring about the end of the *very concept of money.*
**We are not the same**
>We are not the same
*True*. Unlike you I do not look forward to the notion of bartering chickens for medical care or making change for a wheel of cheese.
Since there is no shared, abstract means of value exchange called 'money' anymore.
Why would we need a system of value exchange when everything is free?
Perhaps you're thinking about our future during the collapse. Which is fair. Our economic system will fall, and we will have to fall back on such methods, which are quite hard to look forward to, I admit.
But I'm looking beyond the collapse. To the shore on the other side. And unlike most of this sub, I have a lot of hope for it.
So long as we're trapped on Earth, I grant you we will need some kind of shared, abstract means of value. But once we go out into the Universe, resources are practically limitless. Whatever you want, you can have. Mountains of gold, silver, and platinum have already been found just floating out there.
I also believe in automation of all jobs, and doing away with the idea that humans need jobs to live. Once that is done away with, and we have all the resources we could ever want...why have such an archaic system?
We are not going to invest the dwindling resources on this planet to helping some people attempt to build a space-faring civilization.
Create a pollution-free, matter & food replicator using free energy and then we'll talk. Until then, industrial civilization is the problem and it needs to end.
And I never said it *wasn't*.
That trick is going to be hard. It will cost us a lot. Our civilisation as it is will collapse.
But if we can perform that trick, all the suffering will be worth it. We will give those who come after us both a valuable lesson (to never repeat our mistakes) and a gift worth preserving (true freedom, and a society as close to utopian as you can get without negating the spirit of that word)
I absolutely agree with all of this. But as a cynic I don't see us rising from the ashes in unity and shared purpose, having learned our lesson from the collapse and vowing never to repeat those mistakes.
I love the Culture novels in the way it envisions a post-scarcity society. But until we get benevolent AI overlords it ain't gonna happen...
That's fair. Humanity does have a tendency to fuck itself just when it's on the cusp of greatness, and never learning from our mistakes.
But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. This time could be different.
Call me a hopium-addled zombie, but I think the death of *three billion* people, maybe four, will actually get humanity to wake the fuck up, put it's foot down and say, "No. Never again." And *truly mean it this time.*
And on the off chance that we can't get our shit together even after such an apocalyptic event...well then at least I had a bloody good time watching the circus fall apart, and living the best life that I possibly can.
Look to Star Trek, and you'll have a good idea.
But personally, I wish we have a future more akin to the Culture.
[For your reference, this is the Culture](https://www.goodreads.com/series/49118-culture)
This is just absurd. UBI is a childlike bandaid to a system that is fundamentally broken.
This guy's blog post is terrible too, as it just comes off as whining and jealousy, which is exactly what anti-UBI people think of pro-UBI people.
Garbage all around.
UBI = Welfare without all the 'safeguards' preventing abuse. Those safeguards didn't work well regardless, and the welfare system ended up twice as large in bureaucracy due to agencies having to add fraud detection systems and investigators.
Of course, "this time, it's different", lol.
A literal straw man article.
Everything in the article is from the point of view of a UBI proponent (a communist attempting to obfuscate).
People (especially men) need jobs and a purpose. No independence, agency, decision making, or actualization can happen when you're forced into an egalitarian nightmare.
Cresting a permanent underclass that is enforced by the government is not a solution
Ok, you've annoyed me enough to read the article despite not having time right now, and it holds no surprises to me based on others comments.
These are not the words of a communist. They're the words of a moralising liberal.
Communists tend to despise moralising as one of the most insidious barriers to effective moral action. Your political illiteracy is showing.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY1WzH5dRAc) is an actual communist critique of UBI. You'll find plenty of people making similar criticisms in this thread in their own words.
Where you find shallow, smug supposed superiority over sub-human rednecks in 'flyover states' for example, those people who support the status quo but want softer chains and can't abide the reactionary elements that hold it in place, those are liberals.
What is that supposed to mean?
I can only infer that you think liberals and leftists are on the same side.
They're not.
This isn't some sectarian disagreement, but rather fundamentally opposite worlds these groups are trying to build or maintain. We don't say "scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds" for nothing.
Your critique certainly shouldn't matter if you're going to go around calling everything you don't like communist, and reply to "here's a video with a detailed critique of UBI from an actually communist perspective" within 2 minutes with a lazy deflection.
Your wilful ignorance must be painfully obvious even to you right now.
pardon, if you are arguing for UBI, you are arguing for a continuation and solidification of extreme economic inequality and economic control. you are a proponent of leashing people for the continuation of the failed capitalist system. you may be so addicted to this abhorrent system that you will not consider moving away from economic domination and instead move towards it.
Not at all.
UBI can exist independently of capitalism. Similarly, degrowth and the removal of drivers of exponential growth from the financial system are not compatible with the current system.
New rules for the entire civilization are needed. We should distance ourselves from ideas that have failed and instead focus on developing a new system that is fairer and more liberating than what we have experienced in the past.
yes, new systems. UBI is another patch for the continuation of the abuse of systems of market, trade, and economic stratification.
universal basic income is not an idea for a sustainable non-violent system which cannot include trade and "income".
\#ResourceBasedEconomy #OpenAccessEconomy #GiftEconomy #Collaboration
Do you think UBI could ever be implemented in the US?
I'm in the UK, which would seem more inclined for UBI (note, I know little of these things) because it has nationalized healthcare (for now...) and even here I hear of people complaining of freeloaders, so I have doubts it could even be implemented here, let alone the US where I'd imagine even most democrats would oppose it
We can't even get the federal government to make the minimum wage a living wage. What do you think the odds are we will 'give away' UBI to people who are not even working?
We're [consuming and polluting 1.7x more than we should](https://overshootday.org/). [40-70% of jobs are bullshit jobs (= not needed)](https://libcom.org/article/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber).
We don't need or want everybody working.
What would stop the higher earners who are predominantly in bullshit jobs from stopping working... And instead would prevent the lowest paid of society who have the most essential jobs but the most unhealthy and "unfulfilling"
A white collar worker in a pointless law firm will keep on working while every underpaid farm worker would quit on day 1 of UBI
Which may be true, but is completely irrelevant when it comes to trying to get something like UBI in the US. We can't even get decent health care or school lunch programs.
The powers that be will most likely just push for more bullshit jobs instead of UBI. Keep people in employment so they don’t have time to think/protest.
Here in Ontario, before our the current Premier was voted in, we had a UBI experimental trial. Despite the funds already being allocated for the length of the trial, one of the first things he did when he came to power was to end the trial.
The people who were part of the trial had already made changes to their lives, a fair amount had quit their jobs and gone back to school for example. They were royally screwed and we lost the data from an important experiment.
“Open for Business” is the province’s new motto.
No. It will never work in the US. All that money will quickly end up in the pockets of landlords and other homeowners, at the expense of renters.
Think about it: if you rent and UBI is instituted nationwide, your landlord knows you have $X more per month. Guess how much your next rent increase will be.
People snub it when I mention it, but UBI should really be UBO (O = outcome).
You get a certain *amount* of housing. This would require upending our entire housing system, and the housing allotment would likely be in some sort of public-owned housing.
As someone else mentioned, it's pretty much socialism with extra steps.
this is a rather simplistic view and parallels the same fallacious thinking behind arguments against a higher minimum wage... that it will lead to inflation, etc.
rents are not based on renters incomes, they are based on the prevailing rents in the area and renters qualify to rent a specific place based on their income.
so what UBI would mean is that renters would be able to qualify for better housing (or in some cases ANY housing) than they would otherwise be able to.
renting in general is wealth transfer but home ownership is not in everyone's best interests or life needs, so it's probably not going anywhere.
the argument you are making is the same one used to oppose a higher minimum wage.
the argument goes if a burger place has to pay a higher wage then they will just increase the cost of a burger to compensate for their higher costs.
but that that has not played out... where the min wage was increased to $15/hr the cost of a burger was essentially unchanged.
why? because it turns out that the price of a burger had very little to do with how much the workers were paid.
Ok. Nothing you just said applies to my argument.
Put up or shut up. Give me a counter argument that directly addresses the logic of my argument, or one good paper showing that a real, full, *permanent* implementation of UBI would not have the result I stated, and I’ll acknowledge you’re right. If not, piss off.
i would if we had ever implemented it on scale that would satisfy you
but we haven't because of augments made like the ones you are making.
which is very convenient for your side of the argument.
Even if you implemented rent controls and fixed all variable rate policies, the COL would go up somewhere else as other companies work to vacuum your wealth. Food, gas, utilities, if there's some kind of disposable income, someone will work to extract that from you.
Europe and the Uk changed after their structures were fundamentally challenged by WWII.
The US only began the experiment with a social safety net during the Great Depression.
Anything is possible but countries generally only change when repeatedly kicked in the balls.
We don't even let a large number of disabled people receive disability benefits...
Either due to having not worked enough in the last 10 years or because they can speak coherently and that must mean they aren't disabled enough to qualify
So they end up on SSI which is far less per month and has a strict asset limit so you can't own much
The disability case will take 2-6 years in the hopes you die before getting to the judge hearing as well so hope you can afford to pay rent for that long!
Suffering is the point
It would take considerable effort to implement in the United States. Medical care is the last great bastion of industry here. Too many haves are using it to farm the remaining assets from the have nots.
I believe we need to address the drivers of exponential growth, such as reforming the financial system, initiating a degrowth phase, and implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
Considering the global nature of our problems, these changes would need to be implemented worldwide.
Unless the poors really cut down on breeding there is no hope for anything to "work out" From what anyone reads on here THAT will never happen so it is over.
Hi, Bianchibikes. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/15w7rpm/-/jx0cr5t/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
That article is so wrong. The main reason i have my doubts about a UBI is because the government is currently causing big economic problems with all its money printing and deficit spending. So where will the UBI money come from? I think a UBI with a carbon tax could work well together, but I also doubt it could happen in time to fix anything and i would normally recommend pursuing policies with broader support… excrpt right now everything is so politically gridlocked I’m shocked roads can get paved and schools are even open.
Now people who lean to the right hear UBI and automatically think of it as something that will become a tax on them that they pay for, not receive, because generally policies that benefit the poor get paid in taxes from the lower middle class. The upper classes are very well insulated from taxes. So the right is full of people working hard and sliding slowly into poverty. (Yes, that’s happening on the left, too). Also they believe that it will disincentivize work and harm society, and it will reward laziness. Also they don’t belive climate change is a thing and don’t understand that capitalism is wasting finite resources. If those beliefs were true, a UBI probably would destroy society. So they aren’t opposing it because they want to be overlords to a bunch of poor people. They, like all of you, are trying to implement policies to fix problems.
But unfortunately there’s no dialogue and no compromise between the left and right, so no solutions are possible. They can’t even agree about what the problems are. And the main reason for that is there is not a single mainstream media news source that accurately reports on the underlying causes of these problems, because they are too busy pandering to rich owners and advertisers. Even if you do find an obscure inddpendent news outlet, it’s always heavily partisan.
Nobody benefits when you mischaracterize people who disagree with you. If you want to change someone’s mind, you have to first understand what’s in their mind right now.
UBI will result in an inflation crisis. We just had a worldwide experiment with this in many countries by giving people free income during the Covid crisis. It very quickly turned into an inflation crisis. I was saying this was going to happen when the handouts started and all the free money advocates denied it. It's exactly what happened. It turns out that there have to be hamsters on the wheel for the wheel to keep spinning. No government is going to want to touch UBI anymore.
Yeah if you fund ubi by literally creating money then it creates an inflation crisis. If you fund it by getting the ultra-rich and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes like they should've been then the negative consequences are essentially none and a shit ton of people's lives get better. We just have to get rid of all of these damn monopolies first to keep prices from automatically rising immediately. A properly regulated and truly competitive market self-corrects the problem. Oh damn I think I've pissed off the conservatives and the socialists at the same time. Always happens in this sub
The maths on I doesn't work out. In a country like the usa you'd need to tax $1 trillion per year to give 50m Americans $20k pa. That's seizing assets the size of NVIDIA or Amazon once per year. $1 trillion realistically isn't even enough. And to be even more realistic, everything would move offshore to avoid taxation.
The problem with the “covid handouts” was that the vast vast majority went to corporations who did stock buybacks, rather than actually putting that money into the economy. Inflation is happening because of price gouging for the most part.
The money went to ordinary people too-- and that increases money velocity. People who are poor use money to buy goods (high money velocity), while the rich tend to save or invest their money (low money velocity). Money velocity, like the increase/ decrease in the money supply, correlates with inflation/ deflation.
Putting money directly into the economy where it has a high velocity is inflationary, and it would need massive taxation to sop up the inflation (this is basic MMT). At that point, I think we would need basically a controlled economy (think CBDC) to monitor in real time because it can get complex and easily spiral out of control. Controlled economies are not efficient and tend to be corrupt, so there's no free lunch.
My main concern is the bond market, corporate real estate, and emerging market economies. The interest rates have gone up so quickly, it has pretty big ramifications on debt repayment. The next year or two will show if we have already created a financial crisis.
it's no because of price gouging, it's because we fucked with monetary policy and people weren't working. Nobody is price gouging more than before, same level of greediness as always.
Amazingly, this outcome is obvious to anyone with a fundamental understanding of economics. UBI isn't even a good *idea*, let alone an implementation. Welfare doesn't work. Never has. Never will.
There is probably another more stable economic cycle out there but there is no way to reach it incrementally.
Maybe we should stop subsidizing business, and tax everything based on its carbon footprint. Basically the opposite of what we're doing now. UBI+low impact becomes the source of legitimacy in business: if you provide things people actually need, and you can do it with a lower carbon footprint, you stay in business. Yes, a whole bunch of businesses will collapse, but I bet we won't miss them.
Depends on your country. I think here in Australia we are heading towards taxing carbon. A lot of companies are trying to mitigate already. They fear a doomsday for profit margins, as you said
My problem with UBI is not the financial questions (although there are many), it's this: What will you do when you see the homeless guy on the ground who has spent all his basic income on drugs, alcohol, or gambling? Will you really step over his body and say "well he had his chance with his income, not my problem if he dies."?
Or will you be right back at square one, in need of social or charitable *non cash services* to lift him from the gutter?
Most people would use their UBI on reasonable stuff like food and housing. However, no system of welfare can guarantee that people will spend the money responsibly. There would absolutely be people who wasted it on drugs or gambling. So, you would still need health care services for people with gambling or drug addiction. A UBI is not a miracle solution that would fix all social problems as a standalone policy.
UBI is generally billed as a replacement for direct housing services. If you would still need direct housing services for people that cannot spend their basic income responsibly, then it fails to achieve one of the great efficiencies it's sold on.
Just curious: what percentage of people do you think would spend the money responsibly and what percentage of people would spend it irresponsibly? If I remember correctly, there has actually been a study on the topic.
> UBI is generally billed as a replacement for direct housing services.
I've seen people suggest a UBI for a variety of reasons, sometimes as a standalone policy and sometimes as a part of a paradigm shift. It also seems to depend on people's political context what reasons are the most common. Some libertarians support a UBI as a replacement for other government programs. Some support is as a part of an anti-work or degrowth philosophy and a comprehensive system change. Some people just want to simplify the welfare system but do not want to make major changes to society.
Not sure the exact percentage matters for sake of argument. We have a lot of homeless people near me, and I would say 80%+ of the visibly distressed of them would not be able to manage becoming rent paying citizens even with cash funding.
I have never heard UBS ever described without the idea that it eliminates the need for other social services entirely. I suppose those people exist, but I don't think that's mainstream for UBI at all.
Who died and made you an expert on drug addicts or homeless. I love how you're conflating the two. Homeless does not equal addict and addict does not equal homeless. You're just making that 80% number up and it's based on your opinion only.
Okay so we can't have UBI because homeless people would continue to be neglected as they currently are, gotchya. Nevermind the ones that *would* house themselves and rejoin society, nevermind all the countless other people who aren't homeless but nonetheless living in the margins while working low-paid work who could better their job prospects or better care for their families. It's almost as if drug addiction is a public health concern and should be treated as such.
If you're talking about massive conceptual change to society involving an entirely system reorganizing of the financial system and right off the bat admitting it doesn't address the homeless crisis then yeah, I'm out on that one.
The whole point of a society doing UBI is to build a better society . In theory this means better recognition of the circumstances that produce addicts and all these other broken people and real, actual solutions, not just throwing money at it.
And the inflation argument is garbage. The same solution to many other social issues is to simply tax the 10% rationally, and that alone will pay for UBI and then some
>In theory this means better recognition of the circumstances that produce addicts and all these other broken people and real, actual solutions
So just wishful thinking that society is somehow going to harmonize to the point that it literally doesn't create addicts anymore? That sounds ridiculous to me, there will always be a fringe of dysfunctional people.
Universal Basic Healthcare would be better to start with really. Pretty pointless to get a micro check from the government if it won’t even cover the cost of a medical procedure.
Yes. A better approach than UBI is Universal Basic Services, where people's needs such as healthcare, education, housing, and food are met at a basic level.
UBI doesn't meet people's needs directly. It allows them to participate in capitalism so that the market will respond and somehow magically meet their needs, not addressing basic concerns.
For example, say you receive a UBI but you live in a food desert, your local public school is crappy, and you don't have any decent healthcare clinics around. What the hell is UBI going to help you with? Go blow it on stupid shit, I guess.
Universal Basic Services is a much better approach.
My only fear regarding implementing a UBI is that it would solve to many problems and allow the young generation to baby boom which is the last thing this dying planet needs.
We're in the overshoot, we need degrowth if we want to avoid collapse, and Universal Basic Income (UBI) is key to making degrowth work without causing chaos. Here's why:
- Fairness: In a smaller economy, job opportunities could shrink, leading to inequality. UBI ensures everyone gets a basic income, preventing a wealth gap.
- Basic Needs: With fewer jobs, some might struggle to afford essentials. UBI guarantees a safety net for housing, food, and health.
- Smooth Transition: Switching to degrowth can be bumpy. UBI cushions the blow by giving people steady income during the shift.
- Local Focus: Degrowth aims for local economies. UBI lets people buy local, boosting community businesses.
- New Work Values: UBI shifts focus from just earning. People can do valuable unpaid work like caregiving and still get by.
- Innovation: UBI offers security for trying new eco-friendly ideas. People can think beyond profits and create sustainable solutions.
- Less Overconsumption: With UBI, folks might skip excess buying. This aligns with degrowth's goal of using fewer resources.
UBI is a cornerstone for transitioning to degrowth smoothly. Beyond stabilizing the process, it champions equality, backs essentials, eases change, promotes responsible living, and importantly, enhances personal freedom.
This article presents an interesting take what might be behind the resistance against UBI.
/resubmitted
Here's [something](https://www.starting-gun.com/) you might consider. I just started quietly putting up stickers with the QR code pointing to this site. I hope it gains traction.
Apparently it is a thing in my area. The local restaurants have advertising on the tables and the ads all have QR codes. People do check them while waiting for their food. For reference, I am in a very rural area.
well this sure brought out the "inflation will kill us all" and "whataboutism" types didn't it?
just watched a movie called "biggest little farm" which really serves to highlight what humans could be doing instead of working for capitalist profits.
putting our efforts into LIVING and the means of LIFE would be a far better outcome for all concerned.
>We're in the overshoot, we need degrowth if we want to avoid collapse, and Universal Basic Income (UBI) is key to making degrowth work without causing chaos.
There are concepts raised by OP without much exploration, such as concepts like "fairness" (hardly universal even in ITT) or the thought that the 1 Percent's immense wealth on paper translates into actual material goods and resources (in reality that exists only as long as does the current system). But to center the discussion on Degrowth and Overshoot as OP did, it's important to be clear what that means.
*Ecological overshoot is the phenomenon which occurs when the demands made on a natural ecosystem exceed its regenerative capacity.* Humanity is now decades into that phenomenon and regardless of per-capita consumption, 8 billion people is unsustainable without the constant support of fossil fuels in agriculture (in fact, the only reason that there are 8 instead of 2 billion people now). When, or if, there is an end to using fossil fuels, billions who would not otherwise be here will starve.
Meanwhile, *Degrowth is a theory which broadly means shrinking rather than growing economies, in order to use less of the world's resources; radical degrowth in response to climate change means total global decarbonization for all nations,* (in other words, the end of fossil fuels). Again, ending the use of fossil fuels to slow or abate climate change will create massive food insecurity, which in turn would eventually lower to global population by billions.
We are now being widely informed in the mainstream that ecological collapse from climate change is imminent if fossil fuels are not radically cut back internationally within the decade.
Meanwhile many people ignore that there are other multiple drivers of collapse, especially the current mass extinction of plants, animals, birds and insects including essential pollinators: AND the rapid and continuous depletion of essential global resources including rainforests, topsoil reserves, ocean fisheries, rare earths, and deep freshwater aquifers; some of these took thousands of years to accumulate. Both of these drivers are even more pointed examples of overshoot than climate change.
Back to the topic of the thread, UBI is a good idea that might have had a powerful impact on collapse if implemented 40 or 50 years ago. But now we are out of time.
I know many of us are wage slaves sick of perpetuating an unjust systems, but collectively we are on the Titanic and it is sinking. If people can get their local communities to support UBI in these final days of this civilization, more power to them!
> other multiple drivers of collapse, especially the current mass extinction of plants, animals, birds and insects including essential pollinators: AND the rapid and continuous depletion of essential global resources including rainforests, topsoil reserves, ocean fisheries, rare earths, and deep freshwater aquifers
That's agriculture, resp. animal agriculture, a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, droughts, coastal deadzones, soil erosion and overfishing.
All of that could be easily solved by global switch to plant based diets and reforesting/rewilding of the freed land.
When I was an autoworker we would receive a supplement to our unemployment when we got laid off. Say if unemployment was $400 we would get an extra check for another $200. When the state goverments raised unemployment up $25 more a week with the help of the feds ford cut our subpay by $25 so all that money went straight into the pocket of ford. I agree unless there are price controls the corps and oligarchs will just steal ubi money.
So fund it by taxing billionaires more. Problem solved.
Yes, prices will probably go up, but there is no mathematical reason for the cost of bare necessities to go up by more than the UBI amount.
I could see that as a significant problem for a UBI. Our entire system is geared right now for the wealthy to exploit the masses for every single dollar they can. Your value as a human being is determined by your bank account and ability to buy things. I would guess the rich would be finding ways to explot the hell out of UBI long before the first payment went out, getting inside tips and help from politicians.
I would love UBI, but even more than that I would treasure a common sense benefits system.
UBI is stupid because not everyone needs it and not everyone wants it either. Lots of people already have money and others detest "lazy socialist welfare scroungers." If those people don't want to claim their free money, I'm happy for them to make that personal choice.
Benefits should be as simple as you get it if you go along in person with ID and ask for it. If you have too much pride to ask, you don't get.
>We're in the overshoot, we need degrowth if we want to avoid collapse, and Universal Basic Income (UBI) is key to making degrowth work without causing chaos.
Wish this were so, but the sentiment seems like pure hopium.
OP's first point about "fairness" can be dismissed purely on the basis of subjectivity; there is no international agreement on what constitutes fairness; better off focusing on what can be scientifically proved.
Similarly, others ITT have pointed out that under the current economic system, "basic needs" would not be met since service providers of all kinds (from businesses to landlords to medical insurers) would simply raise their prices to take advantage of the increased profits to be made.
Perhaps if all of humanity was now ruled by a single authoritarian government with full surveillance powers and was committed to immediate Degrowth and decarbonization across the globa, then this might be a possibility. But now with climate disaster and mass species extinction locked in, many scientists (even in the mainstream) predict we barely have 10 years before collapse.
Does anyone see the likelihood of an enlightened world government dedicated to Degrowth and decarbonization for all coming to power within the next few years?
I believe that as important as it is to make sure everyone in a society has a fair chance to prove their worth as a member of said society, the system is already toppling over, and UBI won't even pause the fall.
Trying to fix an already grossly overgrown monstrosity that is the American capitalist system is like trying to stop a zombie plague.
Best to just burn it all down, and try to make a functional system with the survivors. The rules will be a lot simpler, and even with hard work, death may still be right around the corner.
At least then we won't have to listen to old farts and rich people sound off like the morons they truly are.
But yeah, UBI should be implemented. The suffering of the common people is overwhelming.
Great article and explains perfectly why shit HAS to pop off regardless of how messy it is or how many class traitors are going to try to drag society down.
Blah blah blah, won't work because blah blah blah.
Because what we have now is so much better.
Lol , some people who fancy themselves smart are stupid as fuck.
Every time my mom gets an increase in social security, her rent goes up by that amount. Plus they cut her food stamps, because she is getting more money.
Might be that Universal Basic Investment makes more sense. As jobs are eliminated, investment in the firm that eliminated the job becomes automatic. This way it's truly tied to profit, and not some randomly defined amount that could become essentially worthless.
That’s basically it. Anyone still fighting a UBI beyond the point where automation is doing everything just don’t want anyone they think of as below them getting something for nothing.
That is the problem that UBI advocates sort of hand wave away. I think UBI is a good idea, but I freely admit that funding it is *the* problem. This would be a *massive* outlay, and governments like the US are *already* running in the red.
You almost need a *post*\-scarcity system to pull it off, while we are headed into a *more*\-scarcity future.
_Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek_ is a book by Dutch popular historian Rutger Bregman. It was originally written as articles in Dutch for a virtual journal, _De Correspondent,_ and was since compiled, published and translated into several languages. He gives many examples of these efforts successful helping people.
Capitalists can't admit that capitalism devalues the labor of workers and fails to provide best value to consumers. Capitalism is parasitic, sucking up money solely for it's own benefit....
I want UBI as part of a major social program in the US. First, cut the standard working week from 40 to 20 hours per week. Many jobs will still require over 20 hours, great! 2x overtime pay for them, and the UBIers get 0.5x their regular pay to leave work and go do something for the planet. The New New Deal.
I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that a UBI would not be a miracle solution as a standalone policy and needs to be a part of a comprehensive paradigm shift. However, I do think that it's one of the single most important degrowth policies and would have a positive impact even on its own. It would also protect against other degrowth policies failing in unpredictable ways.
As for questions of funding, my view is that we would figure it out if the political will to implement UBI existed, and some of the already proposed suggestions for funding might completely work exactly as described. The risk of inflation is inherent to any money creation, whether by the state or by private banks. From what I understand about modern monetary theory, one of the primary purposes of taxation is to control inflation, so you would just take the UBI back from rich people who don't need it. Thinking about stuff like fractional reserve banking and inflation and modern monetary theory tends to just give me a headache. So, if I wanted to figure out the specific details of funding, I would ask post-Keynesian economists who are closely familiar with MMT and, preferably, academic degrowth literature in general.
The problem I see with UBI is that it looks like it assumes that **price setters** - capitalists as business owners and managers - will not raise prices for everything and thus make the UBI income useless via this inflation. This would be especially obvious with housing. Think of it as a strategic challenge. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reformist_reform - these things need to come in packs, not standalone.
Precisely this. Even in the unlikely event UBI were adopted, every single corporation, store, service, business, landlord, and taxing government would rush in and squeeze the citizens for that new money in everyone's wallet. They collectively would just see it as a way to increase their profits, not caring they all are doing it at the same time, leading to citizens likely being way worse off after a few years.
UBI can't happen without fundamental changes to our national economy, and the $7.25/hr federal minimum wage kind of shows Washington's interest in change.
Let’s raise minimum wage a large amount first. It’s the only way to make rich spend their hoard. If we go with UBI, they will dodge taxes even more than they already do and we will “run out” of tax revenue and be back at square one.
Honestly with UBI I’d probably never work a paid job again, but would spend a good chunk of time volunteering and helping others with childcare and cleaning/organizing because that’s what I love to do, but HAVING to do it sucks out all the joy, plus I could set my own hours so I didn’t get burnt out.
“Retirement” is a social program… “low income housing” is a social program… “ fucking single moms not starving children” is a social program!! Some people can be so blind
As a teacher that watches students fail to balance school life and a job they absolutely need to have to help their family, I want UBI. All they way down to 13.
Just imagine how people would thrive without that monkey on their back. Kids shouldnt have to work.
I think UBI is a good idea, but there are a *lot* of things that are good ideas that I can't see flying in the United States without ~~a miracle~~ several miracles occurring first.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/throwawaybrm:
---
We're in the overshoot, we need degrowth if we want to avoid collapse, and Universal Basic Income (UBI) is key to making degrowth work without causing chaos. Here's why:
- Fairness: In a smaller economy, job opportunities could shrink, leading to inequality. UBI ensures everyone gets a basic income, preventing a wealth gap.
- Basic Needs: With fewer jobs, some might struggle to afford essentials. UBI guarantees a safety net for housing, food, and health.
- Smooth Transition: Switching to degrowth can be bumpy. UBI cushions the blow by giving people steady income during the shift.
- Local Focus: Degrowth aims for local economies. UBI lets people buy local, boosting community businesses.
- New Work Values: UBI shifts focus from just earning. People can do valuable unpaid work like caregiving and still get by.
- Innovation: UBI offers security for trying new eco-friendly ideas. People can think beyond profits and create sustainable solutions.
- Less Overconsumption: With UBI, folks might skip excess buying. This aligns with degrowth's goal of using fewer resources.
UBI is a cornerstone for transitioning to degrowth smoothly. Beyond stabilizing the process, it champions equality, backs essentials, eases change, promotes responsible living, and importantly, enhances personal freedom.
This article presents an interesting take what might be behind the resistance against UBI.
/resubmitted
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/15w7rpm/if_you_are_arguing_for_a_universal_basic_income/jwzauk0/
336 Comments
ThruWay2022@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
ThruWay2022@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
ThruWay2022@reddit
jprefect@reddit
mimetic_emetic@reddit
Efficient_Star_1336@reddit
jprefect@reddit
silverionmox@reddit
breaducate@reddit
silverionmox@reddit
breaducate@reddit
silverionmox@reddit
Lease_of_Life@reddit
jprefect@reddit
Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit
jprefect@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
breaducate@reddit
ShitholeWorld@reddit
jprefect@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
OffToTheLizard@reddit
jprefect@reddit
Livid-Rutabaga@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
annethepirate@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
jprefect@reddit
Livid-Rutabaga@reddit
jprefect@reddit
endadaroad@reddit
LightspeedFlash@reddit
jprefect@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
some_random_kaluna@reddit
Curious_A_Crane@reddit
hangcorpdrugpushers@reddit
Bluest_waters@reddit
ThrowawayCollapseAcc@reddit
turquoiseblues@reddit
prion@reddit
hangcorpdrugpushers@reddit
Curious_A_Crane@reddit
hangcorpdrugpushers@reddit
endadaroad@reddit
hangcorpdrugpushers@reddit
halconpequena@reddit
OffToTheLizard@reddit
mrpoops@reddit
OffToTheLizard@reddit
CantHitachiSpot@reddit
MutedShenanigans@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
OffToTheLizard@reddit
Socky_McPuppet@reddit
mimetic_emetic@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
Phyltre@reddit
mrpoops@reddit
mrpoops@reddit
Turkstache@reddit
mrpoops@reddit
rainydays052020@reddit
mrpoops@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
mrpoops@reddit
FuckTheMods5@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
jprefect@reddit
NormalHorse@reddit
Runningoutofideas_81@reddit
NormalHorse@reddit
Runningoutofideas_81@reddit
NormalHorse@reddit
CalvinCopyright@reddit
ActualMostUnionGuy@reddit
NormalHorse@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
jprefect@reddit
ThePrancingPlague@reddit
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
ActualMostUnionGuy@reddit
ComprehensiveBoss955@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
ComprehensiveBoss955@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
ComprehensiveBoss955@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
Womec@reddit
ComprehensiveBoss955@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
The_Magic_Tortoise@reddit
jprefect@reddit
Dull_Ratio_5383@reddit
scumborg@reddit
loklanc@reddit
DoggoToucher@reddit
beowulfshady@reddit
HellsAttack@reddit
jprefect@reddit
mimetic_emetic@reddit
jprefect@reddit
itsmemarcot@reddit
MaapuSeeSore@reddit
jprefect@reddit
twstwr20@reddit
niardnom@reddit
whereareyoursources@reddit
Womec@reddit
ShitholeWorld@reddit
pxzs@reddit
jprefect@reddit
pxzs@reddit
jprefect@reddit
pxzs@reddit
jprefect@reddit
pxzs@reddit
jprefect@reddit
pxzs@reddit
jprefect@reddit
pxzs@reddit
jprefect@reddit
pxzs@reddit
HellsAttack@reddit
thatmfisnotreal@reddit
jprefect@reddit
thatmfisnotreal@reddit
jprefect@reddit
thatmfisnotreal@reddit
jprefect@reddit
thatmfisnotreal@reddit
jprefect@reddit
NanatsuDIO@reddit
AstarteOfCaelius@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
AstarteOfCaelius@reddit
jprefect@reddit
AstarteOfCaelius@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
jprefect@reddit
theother_eriatarka@reddit
CounterSensitive776@reddit
Volketa@reddit
Emotional-Catch-2883@reddit
jprefect@reddit
loklanc@reddit
jprefect@reddit
loklanc@reddit
jprefect@reddit
loklanc@reddit
jprefect@reddit
1_do_not_exist@reddit
packsackback@reddit
jprefect@reddit
Last_Jury5098@reddit
LemonyFresh108@reddit
StrainedDog@reddit
Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit
itsmemarcot@reddit
turquoiseblues@reddit
itah@reddit
Dull_Ratio_5383@reddit
spamzauberer@reddit
reddittereditor@reddit
ShitholeWorld@reddit
Overa11-Pianist@reddit
SpiritualL30@reddit
detreikght@reddit
SpiritualL30@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
WarGamerJon@reddit
baconraygun@reddit
WarGamerJon@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
frodosdream@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
frodosdream@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
ObssesesWithSquares@reddit
Ndgo2@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
Ndgo2@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
Ndgo2@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
Ndgo2@reddit
breaducate@reddit
edtate00@reddit
Ndgo2@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
ExistentDavid1138@reddit
Agreeable_Ocelot@reddit
Displaced2017@reddit
ekjohnson9@reddit
breaducate@reddit
ekjohnson9@reddit
breaducate@reddit
ekjohnson9@reddit
breaducate@reddit
ekjohnson9@reddit
breaducate@reddit
ekjohnson9@reddit
OccuWorld@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
OccuWorld@reddit
nommabelle@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
Dull_Ratio_5383@reddit
NanatsuDIO@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
rainydays052020@reddit
Slamtilt_Windmills@reddit
qualmton@reddit
Runningoutofideas_81@reddit
nommabelle@reddit
new2bay@reddit
ShitholeWorld@reddit
skyfishgoo@reddit
new2bay@reddit
skyfishgoo@reddit
new2bay@reddit
skyfishgoo@reddit
The-Entity@reddit
babathejerk@reddit
Absolute-Nobody0079@reddit
qualmton@reddit
Thor4269@reddit
qualmton@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
TastelessMaybe@reddit
Bianchibikes@reddit
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
anotheramethyst@reddit
Crusty_the_jizzsock@reddit
Gj_FL85@reddit
Crusty_the_jizzsock@reddit
scalliondelight@reddit
Weirdinary@reddit
Crusty_the_jizzsock@reddit
Displaced2017@reddit
quadralien@reddit
Crusty_the_jizzsock@reddit
ImpressiveMuffin4608@reddit
Crusty_the_jizzsock@reddit
CRTsdidnothingwrong@reddit
Sinilumi@reddit
CRTsdidnothingwrong@reddit
Sinilumi@reddit
CRTsdidnothingwrong@reddit
sillyfacex3@reddit
ideleteoften@reddit
CRTsdidnothingwrong@reddit
ideleteoften@reddit
CRTsdidnothingwrong@reddit
The_WolfieOne@reddit
CRTsdidnothingwrong@reddit
ImpressiveMuffin4608@reddit
TTA2000-2100AD@reddit
throwaway_overrated@reddit
the68thdimension@reddit
Low_Flounder217@reddit
itsmemarcot@reddit
glotchbot@reddit
Warm_Gur8832@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
tnakahara@reddit
MellowistheYellow@reddit
the68thdimension@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
endadaroad@reddit
RyansPole@reddit
endadaroad@reddit
skyfishgoo@reddit
ThoughtFox1@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
cecilmeyer@reddit
Stellarspace1234@reddit
GregLoire@reddit
westplains1865@reddit
Bright_Mulberry_6842@reddit
NothingHereButThere@reddit
PoorDecisionsNomad@reddit
frodosdream@reddit
Chaseshaw@reddit
Mostest_Importantest@reddit
IWantToSortMyFeed@reddit
coredweller1785@reddit
96-62@reddit
BadUncleBernie@reddit
cjandstuff@reddit
MassiveBonus@reddit
homerteedo@reddit
wadejohn@reddit
GetInTheKitchen1@reddit
ekjohnson9@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
Jim-Jones@reddit
Opinionsare@reddit
The-Entity@reddit
No-Quality-405@reddit
ActualMostUnionGuy@reddit
Sinilumi@reddit
m00z9@reddit
JA17MVP@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
westplains1865@reddit
futurefirestorm@reddit
ShivaAKAId@reddit
Ilaxilil@reddit
Necessary_Dingo_7125@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
Beneficial_Trainer_5@reddit
Earllad@reddit
techy_dan@reddit
throwawaybrm@reddit (OP)
Jinzot@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
StatementBot@reddit