- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Also, “family income” now includes the wife, kids and dog. It used to be that ONE person could earn enough to pay for housing, food, car, Healthcare, etc.
So “family income” is NOT “keeping up with the cost of inflation” despite what the business world wants us to think.
There is an economic rule about this
Basically what it says is that new developments - like electricity, cars, computers - cause a temporary increase in demand for labor - and therefore higher wages.
As the technology becomes routine, optimization and automation remove the need for labor - demand for labor decreases and by the rule of the market wages go down.
This development is natural and has nothing to do with who’s currently president, policies or anything like that. To quote from the link above:
Stephen Cullenberg stated that the TRPF (Tendency of the rate of profit to fall) “remains one of the most important and highly debated issues of all of economics” because it raises “the fundamental question of whether, as capitalism grows, this very process of growth will undermine its conditions of existence and thereby engender periodic or secular crises.”
The only thing that guarantees that the population in the US can continue to live in the long-term is Universal Basic Income - which says that the state should distribute resources among the population even if the people don’t work. Basically a form of state-backed social welfare. Without it, the issue will continue to get worse, until people will die on the streets by hunger and cold in masses. UBI is a necessity for the person and for peace.
Serious question: wouldn’t Universal Basic Income rely on everyone paying their taxes instead of certain groups trying to hide or avoid paying it? I can’t see governments affording this without a serious look at their spending to pull back om somethings, or there being a sufficient amount in the coffers from taxation.
Debt money is constantly being created for the benefit of the already rich. Taxes are just another punishment for the poor. It’s not a real issue, just political theater/distraction.
There’s some monetary theory that suggests careful creation of money is actually fine and won’t lead to hyperinflation. So potentially, measured money printing to support UBI and stabilize the world economy might actually be fine? Honestly I don’t know enough about the theory and proofs to really say, but there’s some interesting possibilities if you allow for measured money creation
We have UBI in my country.
600-1300€ (depending number of children) as of this year. Over that you have to add up another series of subsidies. Most important one probably rent one that halves the cost of renting a house (the government takes care of about 50% of your rent if your income is bellow some threshold)
For reference minimum wage is 1134€
Most common salary is around 1200€
And healthcare is obviously free at the point of service.
But life is not as golden as you may thing. I used to be hardcore defendant of UBI until it became a reality. Now I’m not really into that. I think is faulty and actually bad for society. Many people are starting to have a feeling that breaking their asses 40 hours a week for getting the exactly same level of life quality that someone that does not work at all is just unfair. And tensions are on the rise. And I see a bad ending for it, it’s like a ticking bomb. And it’s bringing the contrary of peace, is creating confronting groups among our society.
Nowadays I am more defendant of reducing number of workhours. If there’s not enough work for everyone then maybe instead of working 40 hours a week people should be working just 20 hours a week, but everyone capable of doing work should be working, so everyone could work less hours and enjoy more life. I think it is more fair than UBI. And more likely to create social harmony.
That doesn’t sound like UBI. Someone working and earning a wage would earn that wage on top of the UBI so would not have the same quality of life as someone not working. What you described sounds more like a welfare program.
It’s the application of the proposed UBI in any welfare economy out there.
The proposed UBI does not make much sense. On that scenario the instant inflation of giving everyone X extra money would make the UBI irrelevant and unsuitable for a living.
What you are talking were proposed by some groups when IMV was implemented. But it was promptly taken out of consideration as it makes no economical sense whatsoever.
Difference between welfare programs and this UBI is that welfare programs are subject to other considerations. Like only first 5000 applicants get it, or the distribute X amount of millions between the Y people with more points, or they are subject to any other criteria. We have those here too. Difference is that UBI has no other criteria. If you don’t have that income that income is given to you. It’s how a UBI is applied. Giving 500€ to everyone just to take 500€ out of taxes from most to maintain it and letting inflation make UBI quantity irrisorium would make no sense.
In order to UBI to work the quantity given must be a living wage. And a living wage would always be close the most common wage in a developed country. I don’t see how it would be possible por a UBI to be a living wage and then the most common wage being approximately double that, it doesn’t seem feasible.
The U in UBI is universal. If not everyone gets it, it’s not UBI.
Universal means that ALL people universally have access to that basic income. By their own ways or with help.
Getting radical with the definition makes no sense.
Give everyone 500€, then take everyone who is working 500€ in taxes. Dafuck? No need for the unreasonable and additional paperwork of doing it the long way.
The purpose is ensuring everyone have at minimum 500€ (example) of disposable income. And that is rationally achieve the way I have explained that’s being done in all welfare countries that are taking this as an objective.
Still against it, one way or the other. But the other way seems unnecessarily convoluted for no rational reasons.
You are describing GMI and not UBI. Not sure what its confusing about universal
A lot is confusing.
What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?
How it’s supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?
How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?
Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?
I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.
And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be “giving jobs”, by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.
Universal Basic Income. No strings attached. Everybody gets it. There is no income threshold.
- Regular human: UBI
- McDonalds worker: UBI + McDonalds income
- Bus driver: UBI + Bus driver income
- Doctor: UBI + Doctor’s income
- Billionaire tech CEO: UBI + Tech CEO money
Yeah, the inflationary pressure would probably be insane and would constantly negate any progress. I’m not an economist so I don’t really know.
I think that’s a faulty interpretation of what an UBI should be.
Universal Basic Income should mean everyone Human has at minimum that basic wage. By their own means or with help.
Meaning ultimately that there are no humans living under X amount of money.
One of the key points of UBI is that it is universal, meaning everyone gets it regardless of their own means.
If you take it away from people who work then it’s just un/underemployment support and it discourages people from taking low paid jobs and breeds resentment towards recipients.
Where does it come the budget for that type of UBI? Two options:
-Taxes: then workers do not actually get the UBI as the same amount of money that goes in goes out. It’s just a convoluted way for getting the exact same result as just giving the money to the poorest to begin with.
-Printing money: knock! Knock! Who is it? hyperinflation!
-Tax, but just the rich!: If you want to tax the rich tax the rich. No need for a UBI excuse to do so.
Yes, some people are going to pay more in taxes than they get in UBI. But with UBI you raise the bottom level of income in society so that everyone is able to live. Then people can supplement UBI by working an amount which fits them. Nobody has to work 60 hours a week just to be able to live. And you should also have tax thresholds set so that people don’t pay as much in income tax as they get in UBI as soon as they start working - more/better paid work should always make you better off.
In the end yes the rich will have to pay more towards it because UBI is inherently a form of wealth redistribution.
Which country?
Spain
What country has UBI?
Spain.
It’s known as “Ingreso mínimo vital”. It’s money given to everyone under X income. Without any other considerations. Everyone who doesn’t have that money by themselves is given it by the government.
We also have RSI in Portugal and it works in a similar way. It is not UBI. The U stands for Unconditional. What you describe is just welfare.
Giving everyone, even millionaires, 500€ a month is an unreasonable application of UBI. It makes no sense doing it that way. No sense whatsoever.
Traditional welfare can run off, as it’s a program with X amount of money attached to it, UBI is not linked to allocated resources, so it doesn’t run off.
This the difference between traditional welfare and UBI is that UBI is given to EVERYone who needs it. As before welfare programs traditionally ran of of money before reaching everyone. There’s no need, and it makes no sense to just give everyone money that it’s going to instantly vaporize (via taxes or inflation)
I’m not debating the merits of UBI. All I’m saying is UBI is, by definition, unconditional.
Maybe. But given the unreasonable approach of a radical UBI I thought reasonable that more people understood the GMI approach as the way to actually materialize an UBI.
I stand corrected as it’s clear that many people actually believe that a pure UBI is somehow feasible as it’s simplest definition.
It’s like when talking about democracy we are not talking about ancient greek democracy but about modern democracy instead.
It should be universal human needs (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.)
If they’re just giving out paper money, it’ll be worthless by the time it reaches the poor.
Why are you still working 40 hours a week?
I’m actually not.
We have a strong union and we have 35 hours a week, full pay.
But national limit is still 40 (they are talking about lowering it to 37,5 but it’s taking ages).
This development is natural
lmao.
Any actual notes or thoughts?
I blame Reagan.
You have good reason to.
Reagan ruined everything.
The most disturbing stat is that our contempt for the rich hasn’t really multiplied at all.
Speak for your damn self
Luigi converted a few people but so much more work to be done.
The land of the free and the poor \o/
Free*
*Terms and conditions apply
Free to be a profit producer for the capital-owning class, free to slip and end up a number in the prison industrial complex. Free to die of a preventable disease, homeless and destitute on the streets. All kinds of freedom!
This post is brought to you by:
And the difference went to fill the coffers of the rich.
Don’t forget that Medicaid and Social Security Disability still have the same $2,000 MAX asset limit (aside from a car and low-value residence). Back in 1974, that was a down payment on a house. Now that isn’t enough to rent a place to live, not enough to fix a car, and if you somehow have more than $2k in assets,( (DHS does bank and tax monitoring) they take your medical and food away, despite being disabled. If adjusted for inflation, it would be about $13k. Enough to put a down payment on a small house. A 2k limit enough for people with disabilities is BARBARIC.
I’ve written to so many politicians about this archaic rule and Lisa McClain told me that it’s that low, so that only the truly destitute use it… despite us paying taxes all our lives to protect us from starving. I was told that the disabled weren’t as important as older voters who deserve retirement disability.
I was told that the disabled weren’t as important as older voters who deserve retirement disability.
As a voting block with UBI (Social security) and Medicare, lifting the ladder up after them as a class is a reliable voting influence, and they turn out to vote. A lifetime of Israel first warmongering rulership brainwashing makes them an important constituency.
The first stat is a little misleading IMO. While the median car cost has increased ~2x (inflation adjusted), an entry level car price has only gone up ~1.2x (1971 AMC Gremlin vs 2023 Kia Rio LX; $1.8k/$14.8k vs $17.8k) and that’s more important for measuring relative quality of life.
Of course add on to that the fact that there’s easy access to second hand car markets and the number of features included with that base model vs the 1971 AMC Gremlin and it doesn’t seem like things are much worse.
Basically, average car prices increasing could just indicate that people are willing to spend more on cars for whatever reason that may be (better features, more car-centric culture, etc.). For this reason I’d like to see similar stats but about entry level options within each category. Probably less sensationalistic but still interesting.
That being said, I bet stats for the housing market and others would still show a notable increase even at the entry level, but I’d still like to verify this before blindly jumping on the sensationalist bandwagon.
There’s another important part of this equation: these are the things being sold. If someone can’t afford any car at all, they still wouldn’t show up in the entry-level car stats. But I think with how car-centric the US is, there won’t be many people going carless? But like you said, if the second hand market is good, everyone could be driving a barely used BMW and they still wouldn’t show up in any stats about new cars.
Basically, the only thing these stats tell us is that some people would have to spend a higher proportion of their income if they want to buy these things new. It doesn’t tell us if that means they don’t buy it, they buy it and go hungry, they buy an alternative, or they buy it without issue (because some other expense is cheaper or disappeared).
Inflation calculations try to account for this by considering a mix of products and services. If everything goes up across the board, people will get in trouble no matter their exact spending habits. You could also look at buying power or discretionary income to see if a population is doing alright.
The prices above increased a little harder than inflation, so you’d expect to see that as a decrease in discretionary income. The same would happen if wages didn’t keep up with inflation, which is a happy coincidence? Or exactly what the discretionary income stat is designed to do: show how much financial breathing room people have.
people are willing to spend more on cars for whatever reason
The reason is stifling car dependency, complete lack of alternatives, and large number of hyper-privileged man babies.
Also massive fuel subsidies allowing vehicles to just get bigger and bigger, you can’t even find small trucks anymore and there are only a handful of minivan options. EVERYTHING is an SUV!
I also want to know what those $25k houses are selling for now. Comparing to houses built in 2024 is stupid.
My house was 75k in 1990, I bought it in 2000 for 130k, the unimproved land value for the block it sits on (approximately the lowest value you could sell for according to local land titles) is now 400k
In 1988 my family home in the UK was 33k. We sold in 2011 for 185k. My house in 2014 cost 118k and is now worth 195k.
So, it’s not that stupid.
So the 1988 home sold for about 6 times its purchase price and and the 2014 house is 1.65 times its purchase price. Both of those are way less than the 25x that the image claims.
But the graphic is stating from 1971 so 18 years before the 1988 house. In 1971 the average house price in the uk was about 5k.
You are the one conflating here.
Then provide the 1971 to 2024 numbers. A house built after 1977 can appreciate much less than a house built in 1971.
deleted by creator
Our progress party was compromised, and by compromised I mean bribed to work against progress starting in the 1980s. Today’s neoliberals.
Both parties are well paid to protect the rigged economy that exploits you that they spent decades rigging against you from you, while they war about social issue symptoms you get to vote on for the illusion of freedom.
We don’t get a vote on shape or priorities of the economy. Well bribed Republicans and Democrats will lock arms, declare martial law, and authorize lethal force on us before they’ll let the people end their legal Wall Street bribe gravy train. A shining example of why legality should never, ever be conflated with morality, especially post Reagan.
That’s where we’re at and why. Jimmy Carter was the last POTUS who wasn’t all in on turning their constituents into desperate capital batteries. That is a prerequisite for party support.
Up vs. Down. Large shareholders vs everyone else. Everything else is dancing to their pfife. Pity their class traitor capitalism worshipping sycophants, but our true enemies can be identified by net worth.
Also was the 1971 household income number a single income or dual income like today? If not dual then we are working twice as muchh to make the 5.5x increase
I hate the “household income” statistic for this exact reason. It obfuscates the number of people working. Not just both parents but also adult children living with their parents and working.
If you look at Canada’s single income household data from 2000-2020, the average income for males went from $30k to $34k CAD and females were roughly $17k to $25k. I would bet the US wages went up by a similar amount.
But screens have gotten cheaper per unit of area!
People see all this and then continue worshiping the state, promoting its fiat paper covered in slavemasters, and actively participating in its planetary destruction. The whole system is a scam. It’s completely obvious.
It’s ok if people want to criticize crypto because it’s also garbage capitalism. But that’s nothing compared to what the state is doing…
How would you guarantee my safety without a state? What would stop some group of people who decided to rape and pillage from doing so?
Let me save you some time :)
There are never actual well-thought-out answers, just a chain of poorly constructed what-ifs
The answers always put them in control without any guardrails and just require everyone to assume they’re good-hearted people with good intentions.
Exactly. And then when you question them further, you often find out that they would not be one of those good-hearted people who would pay them to solve the problem.
What would stop some group of people who decided to rape and pillage from doing so?
Who is stopping our oligarchs and their CEO lapdogs from doing this now?
Elites in fact rape poor people’s children… Healthcare CEO pillage family’s bank accounts if one of them has health issues?
You’re evading the question. Please answer it.
They’re not.
Who is stopping them now? Because if you say “the police”, you’re going to have to cite some sources. They not only don’t stop anyone from being raped, they routinely side with the rapists, or even employ them directly.
Again, take a look at Haiti right now or Somalia 20 years ago if you think there is a difference in safety between living in a state and living in a place with no state.
And when you say “the police,” the police in which country? Or are you suggesting there are no police in any state on this planet that stop gangs from running rampant through towns?
if you think there is a difference in safety between living in a state and living in a place with no state.
nobody said this… only you are saying this here.
Sorry, you’ve already shown you are not here in good faith.
There is no safety for the working class right now. Your above comment implies that there is. If poor people can’t have safety, then the rich don’t get it either. You keep shilling statist bullshit. We discussed this already.
Now answer my question…
Nope. You’re still evading. What I am talking about is happening right now in Haiti. There is no state. Gangs are taking over towns. People are getting raped and murdered in their homes. And this is the paradise you want.
So you position is either we have the current regime or we get Haiti style situation?
There is no possible scenario where working people get a better life?
You do understand that government is just a tool?
This tool is currently being used against working people by the ruling class.
Then we have people like you spending day in, day out defending this clown shit using some generic propaganda tactics, fear here specifically.
Nobody advocating a stateless solution… specific comment:
People see all this and then continue worshiping the state
That’s what you do on the daily here lol
You then proceed to imply that original comment was promoting some sort of anarchy to which you respond with leading questions to highlight how dangerous this line of thinking is. Strawman?
Nobody advocating a stateless solution…
Interesting how you only quoted part of what you wrote.
Here it is in context where you are suggesting that states are a scam and those that support them are destroying the planet:
People see all this and then continue worshiping the state, promoting its fiat paper covered in slavemasters, and actively participating in its planetary destruction. The whole system is a scam. It’s completely obvious.
You also literally used “statist” as an insult.
You are clearly not discussing this in good faith, so I think I’m done here.
Does the state guarantee you that? What’s your net worth?
See my comments to others about Haiti and Somalia. I will enjoy you also evading the uncomfortable truth of what happens when there is no state.
Also, not that it’s any of your business, but my net worth is in the negative ten thousand dollar range. What about yours, since we’re sharing? Will you even tell me?
Why did they switch from median to average for healthcare?
Prolly don’t even know the difference or they actually do and are telling what data points they are using.
