Would UBI increase wages and salary or decrease them?

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

On one hand, more money = more spending when equates to more businesses that are generating revenue and higher wages. Also, since some people will be content with living off $2000 a month, employers might have to incentivizing potential candidates.


On the other hand, employers will adjust wages and salary based on UBI. A $50,000 a year job might drop to $30,000.


Would entitlement programs like SNAP and section 8 still exist?

Would rent/housing costs go up?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

On one hand, more money = more spending when equates to more businesses that are generating revenue and higher wages. Also, since some people will be content with living off $2000 a month, employers might have to incentivizing potential candidates.


On the other hand, employers will adjust wages and salary based on UBI. A $50,000 a year job might drop to $30,000.


Would entitlement programs like SNAP and section 8 still exist?

Would rent/housing costs go up?

i dont think it would affect wages much.

that would have to be completely re-worked and put into law by democrats or the first republican congress/president will either cut SNAP/Section 8 or get rid of the UBI.

that would only go up if expenses for landlords also went up. remember they would be getting the UBI too..it wouldnt just be potential tenants getting UBI.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

If corporations know there is more money in circulation, they’ll raise prices accordingly. Whole Foods wouldn’t be priced the way they are if they were in low income neighborhoods, but since they serve people with more money, they price things higher. I’d expect all goods to adhere to this principle, but I could be way off base

 

[Paper Boi]

if you don't eliminate a minimum wage, don't cut other safety net programs, it's a good idea.

if you institute it, to eliminate those things, then it's a bad idea.

i don't know if it will increase minimum wage or wages, but if you make it impossible for it to cut the wage floor, i doubt you'd see wages decline.

 

[Paper Boi]

also if you're genuinely curious about the experiment of UBI, i'd watch the michael tubbs doc on HBO, if that isn't what inspired this thread.

i think his UBI is much better than the Yang Gang UBI.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article235977947.html

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I think at the low end of the pay scale it would decrease wages for desirable jobs and increase wages for undesirable jobs.

People wouldn't be as desperate to take absolute shyt jobs to get by. Employers wouldn't be able to leverage people's poverty/desperation/need to meet basic needs against them anymore. So the worst jobs would have to increase their benefits in order to attract people. Plus a lot of those older seniors, kids paying for college, etc. that the lowest-paying employers target wouldn't have as many of those to go after anymore.

On the other hand, some people would be more able to take their dream job at a lower offer because their basic needs were already met. When I was a kid, my dad got offered a job in another city where he actually wanted to work, a job he wanted more than his current one and was willing to take less money for, but in the end he turned it down because the pay rate didn't meet the minimum standard he felt he needed to support us. If he had UBI he probably would have taken that job.

I could imagine it overall not affecting the total amount of money out there that much, just redistributing it to a degree. Since people would be more likely to be choosing further education, family time, and social service over shyt labor, the overall job force would contract somewhat to match the influx in non-wage earnings.

If corporations know there is more money in circulation, they’ll raise prices accordingly. Whole Foods wouldn’t be priced the way they are if they were in low income neighborhoods, but since they serve people with more money, they price things higher. I’d expect all goods to adhere to this principle, but I could be way off base

You're assuming there'd be significantly more money in circulation, which wouldn't necessarily be true.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

I think at the low end of the pay scale it would decrease wages for desirable jobs and increase wages for undesirable jobs.

People wouldn't be as desperate to take absolute shyt jobs to get by. Employers wouldn't be able to leverage people's poverty/desperation/need to meet basic needs against them anymore. So the worst jobs would have to increase their benefits in order to attract people. Plus a lot of those older seniors, kids paying for college, etc. that the lowest-paying employers target wouldn't have as many of those to go after anymore.

On the other hand, some people would be more able to take their dream job at a lower offer because their basic needs were already met. When I was a kid, my dad got offered a job in another city where he actually wanted to work, a job he wanted more than his current one and was willing to take less money for, but in the end he turned it down because the pay rate didn't meet the minimum standard he felt he needed to support us. If he had UBI he probably would have taken that job.

I could imagine it overall not affecting the total amount of money out there that much, just redistributing it to a degree. Since people would be more likely to be choosing further education, family time, and social service over shyt labor, the overall job force would contract somewhat to match the influx in non-wage earnings.





You're assuming there'd be significantly more money in circulation, which wouldn't necessarily be true.

If base wages stayed the same, how could there not be? This is America, land of consumption. Sure a certain percentage would save money, but people would buy better cars, have better apartments, pay more of their bills, buy more stuff, even if that stuff was necessities that they once couldn’t afford.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If base wages stayed the same, how could there not be? This is America, land of consumption. Sure a certain percentage would save money, but people would buy better cars, have better apartments, pay more of their bills, buy more stuff, even if that stuff was necessities that they once couldn’t afford.

Because:

1. A substantial proportion of people would use the wages to replace income rather than augment it. Students or wanna-be students would be able to focus entirely on school, either going back to school, replacing a work-and-night-school gig with full-time education, or dropping the side job that was interfering with their studies. Parents who wanted to spend more time with their children would drop down to 25-30 hours or have one parent stop working altogether, which would not only take away that income but take away the need to pay for child care. Same goes for children who wanted to devote more time to caring for elderly parents, some of whom would be able to keep their parents out of a nursing home as a result. People who wanted to devote more of their time to religious ministry, or volunteerism, or artistic endeavors, or backpacker travel, or pursuing their dream career, would be able to drop their money-goals-only job and take a lesser-paying job, fewer hours, or even no job at all in order to pursue said dreams.

2. All of that would lead to a degree of retraction in certain industries (childcare and nursing homes among them), but employees of said industries would themselves likely come out okay via a combination of UBI and the elevation of wages in other low-wage industries which would have to raise wages in order to increase competitiveness to deal with the contracting labor market.

3. All of which, of course, would reduce profit margins for the wealthiest as their business models built on chasing the lowest-possible labor costs would begin to fracture. There would be a degree of wealth redistribution, as the techniques the rich use to exploit the poor that prey on the poor's vulnerabilities would become less effective, thus decreasing the income of certain sectors of the rich.


So instead of simply seeing an increase of total money in the system, you'd see a redistribution of wealth away from certain sectors of society towards others along with a massive realignment in many people's daily lives towards things they actually prefer more.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Because:

1. A substantial proportion of people would use the wages to replace income rather than augment it. Students or wanna-be students would be able to focus entirely on school, either going back to school, replacing a work-and-night-school gig with full-time education, or dropping the side job that was interfering with their studies. Parents who wanted to spend more time with their children would drop down to 25-30 hours or have one parent stop working altogether, which would not only take away that income but take away the need to pay for child care. Same goes for children who wanted to devote more time to caring for elderly parents, some of whom would be able to keep their parents out of a nursing home as a result. People who wanted to devote more of their time to religious ministry, or volunteerism, or artistic endeavors, or backpacker travel, or pursuing their dream career, would be able to drop their money-goals-only job and take a lesser-paying job, fewer hours, or even no job at all in order to pursue said dreams.

2. All of that would lead to a degree of retraction in certain industries (childcare and nursing homes among them), but employees of said industries would themselves likely come out okay via a combination of UBI and the elevation of wages in other low-wage industries which would have to raise wages in order to increase competitiveness to deal with the contracting labor market.

3. All of which, of course, would reduce profit margins for the wealthiest as their business models built on chasing the lowest-possible labor costs would begin to fracture. There would be a degree of wealth redistribution, as the techniques the rich use to exploit the poor that prey on the poor's vulnerabilities would become less effective, thus decreasing the income of certain sectors of the rich.


So instead of simply seeing an increase of total money in the system, you'd see a redistribution of wealth away from certain sectors of society towards others along with a massive realignment in many people's daily lives towards things they actually prefer more.

Ehh, I don’t think the examples in point one would be a large segment of people. Folks working wage jobs at 30-60 hrs a week barely making it would finally be comfortable with 2000 more, don’t think they’d cut their hours en masse. And white collar work isn’t going to accommodate that either. Now folks working two jobs to make ends meet, I definitely see them giving up one.


As far as the rest of the cascade, that only happens if UBI > the avg income of a low wage worker, there’s no incentive to work. But most will still need to work those jobs part time at minimum, which works better for corporations as more part time employees means less people they have to give benefits to

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

UBI of 2k a month would cost over $4 trillion a year btw.

 

[88m3]

If corporations know there is more money in circulation, they’ll raise prices accordingly. Whole Foods wouldn’t be priced the way they are if they were in low income neighborhoods, but since they serve people with more money, they price things higher. I’d expect all goods to adhere to this principle, but I could be way off base

wf is cheaper than a lot of low income neighborhood grocery stores

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

wf is cheaper than a lot of low income neighborhood grocery stores

not out here...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Ehh, I don’t think the examples in point one would be a large segment of people. Folks working wage jobs at 30-60 hrs a week barely making it would finally be comfortable with 2000 more, don’t think they’d cut their hours en masse. And white collar work isn’t going to accommodate that either. Now folks working two jobs to make ends meet, I definitely see them giving up one.

You're forgetting about the people who are only working one part-time job too, like students, the elderly, or 2nd-wage earners in the household.

There was a time in the very recent past that single wage earner households were the norm. Cultural changes have increased two-wage households but the stagnation of wages has also played a large role, and there are plenty of people disinterested in the status quo.

As far as the rest of the cascade, that only happens if UBI > the avg income of a low wage worker, there’s no incentive to work. But most will still need to work those jobs part time at minimum, which works better for corporations as more part time employees means less people they have to give benefits to

UBI doesn't have to be higher than the "average" income of a low wage worker, it just has to be high enough to offset the marginal utility of working for some people.

Working isn't full net benefits, you have to consider taxes, the costs of commuting, typically elevated meal costs, costs related to equipment/clothing required for that particular job, and especially childcare costs. Then there are opportunity costs, the value you place on your own time, and people who just plain hate their fukking job or their boss. There are a lot of people who would take a cut in pay if it meant they got to devote that much more time to church ministry, environmental activism, art, their musical/artistic endeavors, etc. Or who would finally find enough margin to go back to school.

You're also neglecting that in a multiple-adult household, you'd have two UBI to replace the missing salary, not one. If UBI was $1000 per month per adult, then a two-parent household who had taken in one of their elderly parents would now have $36000 extra to work with. That would easily replace an entire salary in many households, especially when you consider that the extra savings on childcare/commuting/food could be another $15000 or more.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

You're forgetting about the people who are only working one part-time job too, like students, the elderly, or 2nd-wage earners in the household.

There was a time in the very recent past that single wage earner households were the norm. Cultural changes have increased two-wage households but the stagnation of wages has also played a large role, and there are plenty of people disinterested in the status quo.




UBI doesn't have to be higher than the "average" income of a low wage worker, it just has to be high enough to offset the marginal utility of working for some people.

Working isn't full net benefits, you have to consider taxes, the costs of commuting, typically elevated meal costs, costs related to equipment/clothing required for that particular job, and especially childcare costs. Then there are opportunity costs, the value you place on your own time, and people who just plain hate their fukking job or their boss. There are a lot of people who would take a cut in pay if it meant they got to devote that much more time to church ministry, environmental activism, art, their musical/artistic endeavors, etc. Or who would finally find enough margin to go back to school.

You're also neglecting that in a multiple-adult household, you'd have two UBI to replace the missing salary, not one. If UBI was $1000 per month per adult, then a two-parent household who had taken in one of their elderly parents would now have $36000 extra to work with. That would easily replace an entire salary in many households, especially when you consider that the extra savings on childcare/commuting/food could be another $15000 or more.

these are all marginal examples, if the COL isn't coming down, most people won't have the ability to cut salary or hours too much because of UBI, and for many people, their goal is to increase income, thus they'd maintain levels of employment + enjoy the added benefits of UBI.

 

[DJ Paul's Arm]

If all Americans get 2k a month in UBI, passport and dual citizenship gang going to retire.