Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities

    If someone can afford basic necessities, they aren’t going to choose to work three jobs at minimum wage where they are treated badly, forcing an improvement in pay/conditions to find any workers. As for setting prices arbitrarily, that isn’t actually possible except where a monopoly is held, the idea that supply and demand influences price is not a myth. Having money and the choice of how to spend it does actually give you additional agency and leverage, and UBI would serve as a form of redistribution if it is funded by taxes of some kind.

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except that landlords are coming together to set prices so that they can all set them high. I don’t remember what the group is called, but someone was discussing it a while back. Doesn’t have to be a monopoly if they’re conspiring, which is what is happening with so many consumer goods and services.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cartel is the word you are probably looking for. Cartels are when an association of different suppliers collude to restrict competition and keep prices high.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s only really a cartel if they get together and make these plans, in reality none of these landlords are stupid, they will just adjust their demands to the upper region of what people feel acceptable, this slowly moves the “acceptability window” up, all without anyone needing to conspire with anyone else

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen that stuff but it’s too much to assume that this kind of coordination is the controlling factor in housing prices, or most other prices. You do need a monopoly because there’s too much incentive for defecting from the conspiracy if the fixed price is too far away from what the market price would be. I think housing is expensive mainly because of supply being suppressed and wealth inequality, and UBI would begin to address the latter.

    • buzz86us@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not so simple honestly it would also be funded by a reduction in bureaucracy, and spending on poverty alleviation. I’m in NY there are 50 something counties here each with their own DSS office. Think of the reductions in demand for some of these dumb programs that essentially kick the worker while their down.

    • Sekrayray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can set the prices if they are well known at a federal level—look at the number of disparate vendors who charged exactly the price of a stimulus check for goods when they were being given in 2020.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What goods were those? I am guessing the market price of those goods was already relatively close to that number. You can see a pattern like that sometimes with stock or crypto prices; when it passes across a nice round number, or a number with some significance like the price of another related stock, the price may seem to exist in relation to that number, sticking to or avoiding it. But crucially this is only as long as it is in the vicinity; there are other factors that have more influence over price and after the blip around the round number, the line moves on.

        The core mistake here I think is not recognizing that wealth is a form of power. Controlling a greater share of society’s wealth means more control in general, which is why companies are trying to do that to begin with. Redistributing wealth is anything but an empty gesture.

        • Sekrayray@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mostly tech items like TV’s, but I saw it with some furniture, too.

          I just worry that UBI won’t do enough to redistribute wealth without concomitant systematic change. I honestly think those in economic power probably need a good degree of is stripped away for society to really move on and heal from rampant, unchecked capitalism.