this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
219 points (97.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27160 readers
2770 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello, I'm not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] donuts 48 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Here's a good breakdown: https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/unboxing-universal-basic-income/

As for my thoughts, yes there would be a noticeable impact at first, but UBI would help stabilise and strengthen the economy in the long term because purchasing power and demand will increase. If supply can keep up, prices won't go up. Companies can't just raise prices as that's called price fixing. Antitrust laws should be there to prevent that, but your mileage may vary depending on your country. That means that if some companies decide to raise prices because of more purchasing power, some smart company is going to charge less to gain more market share. So we're still doing capitalism, but there's a social safety net.

Also, people will still go to work to find purpose. Except "work" in this case could mean the freedom and flexibility to contribute locally, or take higher risks like entrepreneurship or becoming an artist.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

That means that if some companies decide to raise prices because of more purchasing power, some smart company is going to charge less to gain more market share.

Here is how this turns out in reality: Company A raises prices because they are greedy bastards. Company B is then impressed with the sheer display of dominance by A and raises prices accordingly to "keep up".

Your thinking is correct and that's how it should work, maybe it even did in the 60s, but it just isn't the case anymore.

[–] DomeGuy 16 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You're forgetting "customers see how much prices are up, and just stay home" or "company C, looking to break in, undercuts A and B and changes the market."

A real UBI is a great fix for capitalism, since it makes "f it, I'll just stay at home" possible.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Your first example only works for goods that are completely optional, which is very rarely the case. For example, smartphones. Nobody technically needs one, but almost everyone in western countries has one. If every company that makes a smartphone increases their prices, people will still buy them because they basically need them. I believe this is the principle of inelastic demand (or low elasticity) -- car fuel is a more traditional example.

Your second example doesn't work when the cost of entry into the market is really high. This is very common in high tech. Take semiconductors for example. There's basically one big name in chip manufacturing (TSMC) and a few runner-ups (Samsung, Intel, etc.). The latest node is infamous for being very expensive and low capacity. Why aren't there new competitors constantly breaking in to the market?

UBI is a great idea and will help things, but it's not perfect so we shouldn't expect it to just completely fix capitalism. The best way to fix capitalism is to get governments (which are all in charge of capitalism) to fix it with regulations. UBI will be a major regulation/step in the right direction.

[–] donuts 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Company A raises prices because they are greedy bastards. Company B is then impressed with the sheer display of dominance by A and raises prices accordingly to "keep up".

When there's a dozen manufacturers, they won't all do it. As I mentioned, this is price fixing and illegal in a lot of countries.

Secondly, what's stopping someone from creating another company to undercut all of those greedy bastards to corner the market?

[–] partial_accumen 11 points 20 hours ago

When there’s a dozen manufacturers, they won’t all do it. As I mentioned, this is price fixing and illegal in a lot of countries.

They can't coordinate together to fix prices, but there is nothing legally stopping them from watching each other's public behavior and adjusting their pricing to match.

[–] shonn 3 points 20 hours ago

All B has to do is not raise their prices as much as A.

[–] postmateDumbass 2 points 20 hours ago

Ita already working like that post pandemic.