• jarfil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure, prices inflate… and the guy who had $0 to buy nothing at the cheaper prices, still has $1000 to buy something at inflated prices.

    • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the problem here is that the guy who can now afford a non zero number of things is counterbalance by the person who is just outside of the threshold for receiving the $1000 stipend. The person who previously could afford very few things that is now able to afford even less. It averages everyone out which is good for those who have nothing it is a horrible slap in the face to people who are only slightly better off

      • thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The idea behind a UBI is that it’s given to everyone (Universal), not just the poorest. So this wouldn’t be a problem with a true UBI

        EDIT: I notice in the article that it was only given to certain people. In that case it’s not really a UBI, but maybe I’m just getting pedantic about the Universal bit

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the person who is just outside of the threshold

        “Universal” means for everyone, no threshold. If there is a threshold, that’s a subsidy, not a UBI.

        To keep content the likes of “I earn my money, so fuck those who don’t”, some subsidies complete people’s income “up to” some amount, like up to $1000/month. Guess it’s a slap to the face of those working to earn $1050… and maybe they deserve it, for not negotiating a better pay.