News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yes but not widespread UBI, I think it would be slightly different like the reference to the stimulus checks where nearly everyone obtained it and it was widely circulated information.
Exactly. If a small group of people are given UBI, then they just have more money, and stores want to profit from everyone, including the people who aren't getting more money. But if everyone gets UBI, then the stores are sure that their customers can afford higher prices, and our current government has shown that it doesn't care if prices are arbitrarily inflated. I'd love UBI, but it can't function alone without accompanying laws to prevent price hiking.
And the discussion about immigrants receiving UBI is going to be very problematic.
It will, yeah, but I think people will be a lot less worried about others succeeding when they themselves are succeeding as well. But maybe I'm underestimating the country's racism. I hope I'm not.
@SlopppyEngineer @Signtist
UBI will undoubtedly be tied to citizenship
But if everyone was getting it, wouldn't people at different income levels spend it on different things?
Even at the grocery store...middle class people might start buying nicer stuff and nice to haves that they didn't buy before. Lower class people might start buying more well-rounded batches, but still the "cheaper" brands and stuff.
If I was buying Ritz crackers for $4 before, maybe now they're $5. I'm making more money, and it's just $1, so I might not even be paying enough attention to notice, but if everything goes up by a similar amount, then I'm spending significantly more on the same items than I was before, and might end up dropping $100 of my new UBI money on groceries without even making a change in my shopping habits.
Now, a lower income person might be buying store brand crackers that only cost $2, but now they're $3, so the same situation occurs.
These are hypothetical numbers of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if a situation like that occurred, given that every company would know exactly how much more money is now in everyone's pockets. Every product goes up just a bit, just to take a bit of that UBI pie.
My point is that people with more money would have more "fun" money, and people with less money would have more room for essentials.
You'd think the bigger market would be to pull at the people with "fun" money, rather than the people who can now afford a well-rounded diet.
Yeah, things will go up in price. It's like when minimum wage goes up. But in all the studies I've seen on minimum wage going up, the minimum wage earners generally win out over rising prices (being better off after the increase).
I'm sure some store has done the math that it's better to sell 2 boxes of cookies to the poor guy than to raise the price to get the maximum profit off of an individual box. And then there are places with competition...and some staples are already generally competitive (such as bread) to the point of being loss leaders in grocery stores.
I certainly hope you're right. All I picture is the dollar stores suddenly becoming $2 stores as everything just shifts to be more expensive with very few people improving their financial situation at all.
The funny part is that you're describing things that are happening in my country and we don't even have UBI.
Our Dollar stores are already $2+ dollar stores. Anything that's $1 is smaller than it was a decade ago, or is fewer units than it used to be.
The price of all kinds of stuff is increasing in price, and rent is already completely unaffordable, including places that are multi-hour commutes away from the places with jobs.
Someone working full time at minimum wage will not make enough money to rent a studio apartment, let alone also be able to afford groceries and other essentials. They'd need to rent a room, get a second job, or be born 10 years earlier and be in a rent-controlled place.
So yeah, with UBI, more people are going to be able to do things like...
Things will get more expensive. But we live in an open market. Stores and brands will compete with each other for some of that extra money. Some people will be spending it on "fun stuff", and I think that's where we'd see prices increase the most. And I'm okay with new video games being $120 (like they used to be sometimes!) if it means we get UBI.
Doesn't that just further validate my concerns? Prices are going up to gouge people even when a lot of people don't have the cash to pay for it. I see no reason why a landlord charging $15,000 a year won't just up it to $25,000 a year when everyone gets a $10k UBI. The government seems to care very little about preventing things like that.
I understand that there are solutions that could fix this, I just don't think the US government as it is now would be willing to enact or enforce them even if it went ahead with UBI. That's why my initial post said we need to figure out these things before UBI, or else we'll enact it without things like taxes for vacant units or rent control between renters, and it'll fail, killing any enthusiasm for another attempt following potential law changes to fix the issues.
Can landlords just change rent whenever they feel like it in the US?
Essentially. They can't freely change rent for current tenants since they need to stay within the confines of whatever lease was agreed upon, but they can make rent whatever they want for new tenants, so it's not an uncommon occurrence for them to simply stop fixing things in a timely manner so that current tenants feel compelled to leave, and then they can fill the space, charging whatever they feel someone will pay for rent after that. It's scummy, and it's technically illegal, but everyone knows they won't really get in trouble for it.
Same thing happens where I live, but there is recourse. If it were me, I'd probably try to fix things on my own if I were getting a great deal on rent. Not that I'd have to, but to save myself from having to move. Of course, that's not an option for everyone.
Still, with a lot of the rental market (again, where I live) being newcomers, I don't think it'd make sense to immediately jack up the rates... they'd be turning away too much of the market.
Well, once the lease is over people have to sign a new one anyway, so even existing tenants can only lock in rates for so long. And when one landlord ups rent, it's usually because all the other landlords are doing it too - it seems like they do it in unison, I imagine because they don't want to have to worry about people leaving for somewhere cheaper. I'm not sure if it's illegal like price fixing or not, but it doesn't seem to make a difference in the end.
That is not how a competitive market works, at all. If there is enough competition, someone will always undercut the scalpers.
You're right, it's not... Too bad most places have realized they can just raise prices together and share in the extra profits, rather than compete with one another. There's a reason why price fixing is illegal, and there's a reason why the government rarely enforces it.
Sure buddy, if you say so.